Name of Wikipedia

Moved from the Village Pump on 13 August 2003

Wikipedia >> iPedia or ePedia or ... I suggest shortening the project name for easier publicity of the internet site. Tonius 20:55

wPedia, but are you really serious proposing a name change? -- till we *) 21:15, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Do you think journalists don't write articles on Wikipedia because they can't be arsed to type the extra letters for our name? CGS 21:42, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not an excessively long name. The wiki part of it is one of the things that makes it different to other "ePedias" which is why I wouldn't want to remove the wiki from the name. Angela

If Wi-ki-pe-di-a (5) is holding an international competition for a flashy logo then it should also hold an international competition for a catchy name. SErvice GAmes of Japan renamed itself to Se-ga (2). Of course people can type extra letters, especially if it's a popular name like Nin-ten-do (3). United States of America = USA ... (numerous examples). Tonius 23:29 (2003.08.12)

We should rename Wikipedia to "W". It's catchy, it's only one letter, and it only requires three syllables to pronounce. Seriously, though, I think you are going to be alone in suggesting a name change. You can't get much shorter or catchier than "wikipedia" without seriously altering the perceived meaning. Having a catchier name is not going to make Wikipedia more popular, more useful, or more accurate. Nintendo and Sega were popular because they made good video games and marketed them well, not because they had short names. -- Wapcaplet 23:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I say we keep the name Wikipedia until the Encyclopedia Britannica (their popularity long encumbered by that 10 syllable name) calls itself "EB". At that point, I say anything goes. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 23:44, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger has like a dozen syllables in his name and whose name nobody except Germans or his fans can spell right -- And he's a big hit and household name (even when I was in Taiwan). So, as long as our name isn't Wikipefanasticapedia. We're fine. --Menchi 23:52, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

If we can hold a competition for a new logo then we can hold a competition for a new name. At that time a majority vote will choose the name. If we can edit everything on Wikipedia, then we can edit the name just as well. This is the democratic principle of Wikipedia, to edit other person's words:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...then don't submit it here" (bottom of the Edit Page)

Just like for our new logo, we'll have to establish a practical time frame for when every new competition will be held: every 5 years?

Let the populous hold a competition & let the populous vote. Tonius 00:27 (2003.08.13)

NO! already too many votings :( Do you really have a catchy name in mind? BTW, I don't understand why we need a new logo..... wshun 00:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See International logo contest#Background, History, and Reasons for Update for reasoning on why a new logo is needed (the best reason to my mind is that the current one is in English, therefore not international). --Camembert

I would say that before you go about setting up a vote on this, you should at least find one regular Wikipedian who supports you. I doubt you will. But hey, it's your time to waste.—Eloquence 00:56, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

The liberally minded want a democratic competition for an international name; They are interested in what possibilities the world can suggest, especially those which are not biased with only roman characters. Tonius 01:12 (2003.08.13)

I think we should stick to characters most people can understand. マイカル (MB) 01:37, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

And that all broswers can read. Anyway, no-one is claiming that Wikipedia is an international name. It is Vikipedio is Esperanto and 위키백과사전 in Korean for example. Who are these they you are talking about Tonius? Angela 01:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(1) True, there are software limitations to the range of characters that the nominal candidates can use.

(2) Yes, other wikipedian sites have either phonetically, phonemically, or grammatically 'transliterated' the name Wikipedia into their respective sites.

(3) The referential antecedent to the aforementioned pronominal determiner 'they' is 'the liberally minded' (those who believe in democratic election).

(4) Let the Users provide entries, vote, and elect per majority the name. If there's a logo competition then there can be a name competition as well. This encyclopedia can edit every word (and image) including its name. Let there be a competition and let there be a majority vote. τονιος |Tonius| 02:25|2003.08.13

I don't think that a name change is necesary, but if it is make sure that at least the .org and .com domain banes are available. "epedia.com" is regiostered to Expedia, Inc. and "ipedia.com" to Enterprise Network Solutions. --Anon

You've got to be kidding me. This has got to be one of the most oddball suggestions I've seen in some time (Wikilove prevents me from using other adjectives). We have spent well over 2 and a half years developing the Wikipedia brand name while creating 300,000 articles and just when we can say that our name will be a household term (like Linux) in the forseeable future, some newbie thinks it would be a good idea to change our name. Ridiculous. We are, above all else, a wiki encyclopedia. Thus "Wikipedia" and its transliterated variants are perfect just the way they are. --Maveric149 07:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(1) Yes, availability will be a restricting determinant in the competition.

(2) epedia.org & ipedia.org are available [Check Domain Name Availability Here]

Yet these are just a few of the many suggestions that an international competition will solicit from the global population of Users.

75 entries have been already submitted for the International Logo Contest, to date.

(3) The proposal is legitimate, if the international community of Users can call for a new logo selected by plurality vote, then the name can be selected by plurality vote as well. This will be the popular name which will be transliterated, the one elected from the worldwide entries by the majority of Users. Tonius 08:28|2003.08.13

I think that it would be best if Wikipedia changes its name to a more interesting and very catchy logo name. Also, I would love to hear as many creative suggestive logo name ideas for Wikipedia, even though coming from either an administrator or even from 'some newbie.' I'm sure comming up with a more creative catchy logo name to Wikipedia should be a most entertaining and thrilling task for everyone. The rewards of all this shall be an everlasting treasure to the past, present, & future contributors of the Wikipedia continuum. UniversalRebel 08:50 Aug. 13th, 2003 A.D.

I think it would be best if we concentrated on writing articles and spelling "its" properly. -- Tarquin 10:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Tonius, go ahead and set up a vote if you like. Make mine "Wikipedia". -- Wapcaplet 14:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not agreed. To reiterate Eloquence's suggestion above, "you should at least find one regular Wikipedian who supports you". Your own pseudonyms don't count. Angela 15:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A name change is the most profoundly dumb idea I've seen in some time. A vote can only be held when there is a consensus to do so. I see no such consensus here. --Maveric149 18:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Eh, let Tonius set up a vote if he wants to. I am confident that any vote will be a landslide anyway. If it's the only way to prove to the "liberally minded" that the majority prefers to stick with the well-established name, so be it. -- Wapcaplet 19:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A straw poll then. But the set-up of binding votes has to be agreed to by consensus. --mav

(1) Every User must respect the call for a competition and the elected name, whether original or anew, yet only a fair competition and organized election can show a consensus among Users.

(2) IP addresses should be used in conjunction with User names in order to avoid multiple castings of 1 person's vote.

My only signature is Tonius, or my IP address: 68.162.244.204 (if I get logged out or if I'm on this meta-site). (τονιος is the Classical Greek form of the Latin TONIVS [generally, Romans only used upper case letters])

(3) The competition and election must be given written announcement to all Users via their individual User-talk pages, in each respective language. Tonius 21:03|2003.08.13

1) You can't make every user respect this. I, for one, don't.
2) That won't help. I've edited under five different IP blocks, 3 of which I have access to at home.
3) Are you volunteering to do this? Good luck. Come back when you've finished going through every user's page.

Angela 22:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This proposal has generated a great deal of vitriol. I disagree strongly with changing Wikipedia's name, but the reasons for that weren't immediately obvious to me. Some of the practical reasons have been mentioned above, but I think a name change is strongly resisted for other reasons as well:

We think of it as "Wikipedia". My given name is easy (to my ears) to confuse with many English words, and comes from a Roman surname meaning "short", but I sure wouldn't consider change it to a more "practical" one.
~~Not everything~~ Almost nothing is done with elections on Wikipedia. As Maverick149 points out, consensus is the main decision-making technique here. It isn't just efficiency to individually make changes in a way that everyone agrees with them, it is a way of assuring that everyone, not just a majority, approves of them. People who don't approve of, say, representing all views on an issue, are supposed to go to a website that suits their needs (or fork the project), rather than changing 5000 peoples' idea of what a encyclopedia is supposed to be.
Long names do get abbreviated when neccessary, for example: http://www.eb.com. Wikipedia is sometimes called the "'pedia" [1], but most of the time it isn't abbreviated because doing lots of typing is unavoidable to those who write articles. http://www.wp.org doesn't exist, if you want to propose a nickname redirect, but I don't think that it would be too useful.

Paullusmagnus 02:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)t

As for interesting modification that may be useful, I can propose Wikiedia. Or even Wedia.

It's combination of tree words - wiki, encyclopedia and to edit. It can be considered as WIKI E-encyclopeDIA.

Yes but, WEEDia is even better: rhymes with "media", and implies w:weedy species (centipedes, vandals, trolls, control freaks, etc.) whichy is what we are all about. We are a weedy garden. We pull the weeds out in one place, where they are unwanted, and plant them in another, where wanted.

Also, it allows to avoid pedo- and pederast derivatives that are significant for many indo-european languages, namely for Russian.

For the Wedia, it has great indo-european root: as most of you know, there are en:Vedas - and the indo-european "veda" word means "knowledge". It is kept in Russian - Vedat' (Wedat', Ведать) means "to know", and so "Wedia" - [book] of knowledge.

It also can be considered as Wedia = WEb encyclopEDIA.

And it is short enough.

However, nevermind. On the other hand, Wikipedia is good enough to exist.

Drbug 16:03, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)