On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisation individuals do not host their website on servers
owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case
getting it free from the server owner/operator.
Memset offer a basic package free for charities.
On 16 September 2011 12:27, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisation individuals do not host their website on servers
owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case
getting it free from the server owner/operator.
On 16/09/2011 17:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 16 September 2011 12:27, Gordon Jolygordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/09/2011 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
Most organisationindividuals do not host their website on servers
owned by them, but by paying somebody else to host it, or in some case
On 14 Sep 2011, at 22:49, Chris Keating wrote:
I don't see what gb.wikimedia.org has to do with anything, to be honest. We
are very definitely not Wikimedia Great Britain.
Actually… we could be. ;-) See:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_Agreement#Name
Irrespective of their locally
On 15/09/2011 07:34, Michael Peel wrote:
The downside of moving to wikimedia.org.uk is that we use access to the
Single User Login system (we'd have the site on our own server, and I don't
believe it's possible to use SUL from outside the WMF's server farm). I'm
never sure how useful SUL
On 15 Sep 2011, at 14:57, Katie Chan wrote:
On 15/09/2011 07:34, Michael Peel wrote:
The downside of moving to wikimedia.org.uk is that we use access to the
Single User Login system (we'd have the site on our own server, and I don't
believe it's possible to use SUL from outside the WMF's
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using
uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian
sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather than later,
choosing some pain now over more pain later?
--
Andy Mabbett
I don't see what gb.wikimedia.org has to do with anything, to be honest. We
are very definitely not Wikimedia Great Britain.
Ideally we would make greater use of wikimedia.org.uk but we have promoted
uk.wikimedia.org well enough that we should probably deflect
uk.wikimedia.org to wikimedia.org.uk
On 14 September 2011 22:40, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using
uk.wikimedia.org which is, strictly speaking, the Ukrainian
sub-domain; and should be using gb.wikimedia.org
Is this something we should rectify sooner, rather
: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett
Sent: 14 September 2011 22:40
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] uk. or gb.
The Scotland vs. UK debate has reminded me that we're using
uk.wikimedia.org which
On Sep 15, 2011 12:11 AM, Andrew West andrewcw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
x.wikimedia.org subdomains use country codes (ISO 3166).
x.wikipedia.org subdomains use language codes (ISO 639). uk is the
language code for
On Sep 15, 2011 12:16 AM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
In answer to Andy's original question: I'd rather sort it out later, after
the fundraiser. There is quite enough on our collective plate at present,
and perhaps this should wait until after the CEO is in
On 15 September 2011 00:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
While you may be right that it isn't strictly accurate to call uk an
alternative country code for the UK, it is definitely incorrect to call it
Ukraine's country code. That is ua. uk is Ukrainian's language code, but
13 matches
Mail list logo
