Wikivoyage/Naming straw poll

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Information

This straw poll is now closed.

While there's been strong support for the name Wikivoyage, there have also been strong arguments expressing the desire for a more open-ended process and no overall consensus to go forward without it. The Wikimedia Foundation therefore would like to invite participation in an open process, which is described here, and begins immediately with the submission of suggested names (please note the submission process). Thank you for your participation.

Current discussion is here Travel_Guide/Naming_Process

Question: Should the new Wikimedia travel project be called Wikivoyage?

Background

WikiVoyage is an independently run travel project, organized and hosted by Wikivoyage e.V., a non-profit organization based in Germany. WikiVoyage e.v. recently decided in favor of negotiating transfer of WikiVoyage operations (including the domain name) to WMF.

WV was forked from Wikitravel by a group of mainly German WT admins just after Internet Brands bought WT in 2006. Until recently, it had only German and Italian versions. When a group of current WT admins became interested in getting away from IB, they naturally contacted WV who responded favorably. Currently WV hosts a full copy of the English WT material, which can be seen here. Improvements are ongoing there.

In the meantime, the WMF Board of Trustees decided to launch a travel project under the Wikimedia umbrella.

One of the first decisions for launching the project is whether the new project should be called Wikivoyage, or whether it should be launched under a new name. If the answer is the latter, this would substantially complicate the potential for integration of the existing Wikivoyage projects, as the community and non-profit organization supporting it would need to be persuaded to support the new name and be subject to legal approval.

Moreover, any public process to decide upon a different name may present challenges. Typically the choice of a name is a confidential process to ensure that domain names are not squatted or trademarks are not registered by third parties in an effort to sell back those names at high prices. The Wikivoyage name is well-established (the project has been in operation since 2006) and the non-profit currently owning the name has committed to supporting the idea of potential integration of its operations with WMF.

It is therefore WMF's stated preference to launch the new travel project under the name Wikivoyage, and to forego alternatives. With that said, we want to open up this process for a straw poll. If a majority opposes launching under this name, we suggest that we run a more open-ended naming process (with the risks that this entails, both for a successful Wikivoyage->WMF migration, and for fully securing a name).

Duration

This poll will run for 7 days, to terminate on 09/26/2012 at 23:59:59 Pacific Time.

Voting eligibility

Wikimedia Community Members

You may vote from any one registered account you own on a qualified wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must:

  • not be blocked on more than one project; and
  • not be blocked on the project you are voting from; and
  • not be a bot; and
  • have made at least 25 edits (edits on several Wikimedia wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account)

Affected Travel Community Members

You may vote from any one registered account you own on a qualified wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). Please provide a backlink to a contribution history with no fewer than 25 edits on an affected travel community site. To qualify, this account must:

  • not be a bot; and
  • have made at least 25 edits there.

Developers

MediaWiki developers qualify to vote if they:

  • are Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; or
  • have commit access to Wikimedia's code repository and have made at least one commit.

Staff and contractors

Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors qualify to vote if they are employed by or under contract with the Foundation on the date of their vote.

Board members and advisory board members

Current and former members of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and WikiVoyage and the Advisory Board are qualified to vote.

Voting options

Option 1: Launch the new travel project under the WikiVoyage name

This assumes that WMF will be able to negotiate a migration of WikiVoyage operations to WMF servers, and a transfer of the domain name.

Support - The Wikivoyage association made a decision to negotiate with the WMF and make a transfer of domain name and data possible. Wikivoyage is a well established and known project and about to apply as a Thematic Organization. -- DerFussi (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. Support. I prefer this, as it acknowledges the efforts by the Wikivoyage community to-date, and avoids wading into trademark/domain name issues with a new name that has yet to be established. (I don't think it diminishes the efforts of others wanting to join to adopt the identity of an existing project.) Eloquence (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Unless somebody comes with a good alternative name -- Tinu Cherian - 06:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support Keep the Wikivoyage name. To Yann, "Voyage" is a recognizable English word as well. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support It's an established name that works across different languages, and the people currently running Wikivoyage are ready to join the Wikimedia family as a whole (community, content, trademark, association). This will make things so much easier. As a side effect, chosing the name of an already existing project helps avoiding the false impression that the new Wikimedia project is all about forking Wikitravel. -- Arne (akl) (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support What Arne said.--Strainu (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support --NetAction (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support I can only support Fussi's explanations above --Mulleflupp (talk) (My contributions) 09:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support -- Following Fussi's, Eloquence's and Arne's explanations above. Hansm (contribs) 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support -- only thing that makes any sense. -- Der Reisende (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support -- (contribs) Benreis (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support -- Berthold on Wikivoyage:de -- Balou46 (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support Several reasons: The word voyage is like travel a word for travel. It is used in Romanic languages but also used in English or German. So, we can show that this new site would be become a real international one not be dominated by German or English speaking authors. It is the first time for the Wikimedia movement to take such an international name. We can great our readers and writers with Bon voyage. The name is already used by one part of the new travel guide and it is well established and working since almost six years. So we have a tradition we could be proud of. And at least the migration of Wikitravel articles took place at Wikivoyage including the adaption of site-related extensions. All it's done ncludig the change of the namens. Therefore joining with Wikivoyage is time-saving. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support: Agree to User:RolandUnger — universal name that does not belong to any one language.--Aschmidt (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support: keep old name. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support -- Bbb (contribs)--80.81.13.134 12:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support Makes sence to build up on an existing name. And 'voyage' is a familiar word in many languages because of French and English influence. (Abbreviation possibly WiVo.) Ziko (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support Lukas²³ (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support -- Pedelecs on German Wikipedia and Wiki Commons & Pedelecs on Wikivoyage -- Pedelecs (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support --Vlad (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support Pablo000 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Established name, helps in continuity. Courcelles 16:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. The name is good enough that in a vacuum, I would consider it mildly superior to Wikitravel for our purposes anyway. As noted, it has an established history and community, which helps a great deal as well. Any transition will have some challenges, but I don't think this choice of name materially affects those. Assuming that Wikitravel is problematic, then not using this would mean settling for at most the third-best option, whatever that would be. I feel like as you move down the list of possibilities, the returns diminish rapidly, so I can't imagine why we would unnecessarily reject a good opportunity that presents itself. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support. -- Jensre (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support. -- Arunram (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support The name does not matter much. Because Wikivoyage is one of the good names, and because other benefits come with this name, I support it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support - I am fine with Wikivoyage. Also fine with Wikitravel, but we know the difficulties with that name. Using the existing name of a community helps continuing the already existing projects and those communities. Romaine (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support -- The name works and our collective brainpower is better served on writing its articles better rather then spinning on choosing a name Tfinc (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support -- There are reasonable arguments that we should just use travel.wikimedia.org, or choose some name that includes neither 'wiki' nor 'travel' to avoid trademark hassles. Unless we do one of those, I'd say Wikivoyage is the obvious choice. if we do do one of those, keep wikivoyage.org as a redirect. Pashley (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  31. Support - Long time contributor of WV. I like the name, it is much more eloquent. Africaspotter (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) (contributions on Wikivoyage)
  32. Suppport - The old name should be kept ( My edits on WV ) -- Jr7 1 (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  33. Support - see Tfinc and Ziko. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support --CroMagnon (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC) (also active at Wikivoyage under the account kkkr)
  35. Support -- Creando on Wikivoyage:de, also longtime contributor on de.wikipedia -- Creando--Creando (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support -- longtime author in german Wikipedia and german Wikivoyage --Dirk Schmidt (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  37. Support -- Elelicht (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  38. Support -- Tine, contributions on wikivoyage
  39. Support -- After giving this a lot of thought I realize that Wikivoyage is probably the best of the names under consideration for several good reasons: first the Wikivoyage community have spent years building up the value of the name as a travel mark, we should take advantage of that effort since they are keen to allow it. Second, all of the language versions should share a name, and the German-speaking and Italian-speaking communities are certain to choose Wikivoyage. Fourth, the name doesn't really matter because it will take on a secondary meaning once we start using it, even in our own minds. Fifth and finally I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Wikivoyage for taking us on during this difficult transition, and this is a way to honour their good faith and effort. -- MarkJaroski (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Option 2: Run an open-ended process to decide the name for the new travel project

  1. Stong Support – This poll is atrociously misleading. This entire movement was led by the English Wiktravel community, with the idea from the start that we would be choosing a new name, whether we landed at WMF or not. After picking up speed, we asked Wikivoyage (which is only German and Italian at the moment) if they would like to join us. So, how did we get from that, to stating that WV is simply trying to decide whether to keep their name or not? This was clearly written by someone who hasn't been following this process very closely, is very weighted towards using WV right out of gate, and IMO should be fully rewritten to reflect reality. – cacahuate talk 16:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Cacahuate. Sorry if the process feels frustrating/unfair. We have to deal with multiple realities here, both legal/practical, and the fact that there's more than one community involved in this process (in fact there are at least three). As you know, there's been a travel project operating under the name Wikivoyage since 2006, and any other outcome than launching a new Wikimedia project under the name Wikivoyage would force this existing community to undergo an avoidable name change, whereas people joining this effort who've participated in Wikitravel will need to deal with an unavoidable new name no matter what. So I think one can reasonably argue that the stakes are in fact higher for the Wikivoyage community at this point in time; they've invested (volunteer hours, money) in setting up the legal and support structures, including a dedicated non-profit organization, for supporting the Wikivoyage brand and mission. And I think we agree that we want them to be part of this effort? That's why this straw poll is intended to first test the temperature on whether we can in fact shortcut the process on naming the project.--Eloquence (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
        • @ Eloquence: Let me give you an example to better illustrate: Say 90% of the English Wikipedia community, including pretty much all of the admins, decided to fork. Well after they were into this decision, they decided to approach Citizendium to see if they wanted to join in the cause and create a new unified project. Then let's say after the effort is well underway, a poll such as this one is sprung up overnight that tries to hijack this whole new effort and insist on it just being called.... Citizendium. Can you see that from the start, the large group of Wikipedia editors and admins, much much much larger than the Citizendium community, clearly wanted to start a new project, rather than just defect to citizendium? And would then naturally be upset that their plan is being hijacked, without so much as any fair and open discussion on the matter? Cause that's exactly what is happening here. (And in fact, even that doesn't do the situation justice, when you consider that WV is tiny – just German and Italian – so redo that example above, where they only approach the DE and IT communities on Citizendium  :) We easily, any time since 2006, could have taken our community over to Wikivoyage and started an english branch there. But there's been very very little support for that idea. A new project is precisely the reason we are all here having this conversation at all – cacahuate talk 16:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's what you get when you start with an ambiguous RFC that fails to address actual user concerns before it asks if there's support for a new project; you risk getting support for that project from people who end up opposing it once they find out what the project actually is. Wait til we have to address policy changes, who gets to admin, etc. etc etc. once the fork is actually up and running. Oy vey!--93.174.93.145 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support - Agree with sentiments above. J1729 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC) (Here's my several thousand WT edits)
  3. Support - Although I like the name "Wikivoyage", I think that the community should be able to choose between different names. Moreover, at least ten domain names are presently available. I don't see any reason why they can't be included in this poll. Atsirlin (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC) (contribs)
  4. Support The name seems hard to spell for speakers of most languages. --Harald Krichel (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. This is ridiculous. We (Wikitravelers) decided to migrate to WMF if they would have us, and we asked WV to come along if they wanted to rejoin forces. Taking their name was never part of the deal. This is two communities remerging to become one. Since we can't use our original name -- Wikitravel -- then we should come up with a new one to represent this new union. LtPowers (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support Agree with sentiments above. --Saqib (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - I find it exceptionally tactless to run this poll without consulting or at least notifying the ex-Wikitravel community (currently preparing for the migration at English Wikivoyage). The matter was discussed and a request made not to speculate on a public forum at Talk:Travel Guide#WikiGuide for both travellers and locals. I don't have a problem with the name, but object to the process as presently conducted. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support I'm as new as possible to this discussion but I would like to see what the community thinks about it if they have a choice. I agree with some of the sentiments in the other section that Voyage is a fairly international word but we're still only saying that in the context of traditional Wiki* audiences. WikiKusafiri would be one (playful) alternative using the Swahili for travelling, but there might be a great word waiting for us out there. Dan Andreescu 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support open ended discussion Personally I've been a strong believer that if multiple communities are coming together the best way to do so is a new name along with mostly newly negotiated policies that probably borrow from the older communities but have the backing and buy in from the new one. I worry that if one community comes into the process with a lot more of the 'history' they will dominate the new community much easier and I'd like to avoid that. My perfect end goal would be one great new community, not multiple communities merging into another old one which moves here. Jalexander (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  11. Vehement Support for an open ended discussion provided we are cautious not to encourage any domain squatters to pre-empt our choices. --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support - as an admin over on Wikivoyage EN, I'd also have appreciated a bit more of a headsup about this before it got going. Tsandell (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support - ignoring the politics here, 'WikiVoyage' just doesn't strike me as an effective brand name. For me, 'voyaging' means traveling on a boat. Whenever I'm abroad, I tend to think of myself as 'traveling' or 'visiting', or being a tourist, not really 'voyaging'. I'm not sure that I'm voting for an 'open-ended process' here, I'd rather see a public call for suggestions for a name followed by a vote on what the project should be called to make the decision. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    Mike, it's important to say clearly that the process as you describe it above will not happen. There's a very good reason for it: the second names were suggested here, they would be purchased by domain squatters. So about the best that we could hope for is that the WMF would lay out the list of domains that it has already purchased, as well as any others that might be owned by supportive individuals who have pledged to transfer the domains cost-free to the WMF, and a decision could be made from among those. But an open process such as you describe is untenable. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    I completely understand your points here, although I'm somewhat saddened by the human nature that it describes. I note that the cost of registering potential domains is negligible - somewhere around £10/domain for one year (which is all that's needed here at this point in time). So perhaps a good approach would be for there to be an email address that suggestions can be sent to on a given timeline, after which the key suggestions can be identified and the appropriate domains purchased, and then a public vote can be held. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support - A new name might be better to reflect how 2 communities joined and mark a fresh start. The problem is just that there aren't that many synonyms for "travel" that would sound better. Mutante (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support only on the grounds that "Wikivoyage" doesn't sound quite right in English to me. — Ravikiran r (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support. Open consideration of all possible names is the best way to proceed. Jpatokal (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support I was an Admin on wt but have not been active in some time. I have done a few edits on EN and hoping to put in a little effort and help out with the clean up. I am not totally against the name WikiVoyage, but it suggests to me a trip on a boat as mentioned earlier by Mike Peel and I think we should have some open discussion first. I am not sure of the rules here, but it looks like anyone from EN is going to be out numbered and I wouldn't think that is really fair and some EN's may be prevented from voting due to the edit count. For now I will support strongly that we slow down, cool down and give a little time before locking into a name. Thanks! Xltel (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support We should definitely run an open ended process, and look at all available names and options. If after that process, Wikivoyage still emerges as the preferred option, than we should defer to that. --Inas (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support More than one community is coming together here so I think there should be an open discussion of the name. If Wikivoyage is chosen as a result of that process, that's fine, but I feel we should at least have the discussion. -Shaundd (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC) (Shaund on WV and WT)
  20. Support - I am a strong supporter of the Wikivoyage name. The name is common and accepted, in English-speaking Australia at least. So why am I on this end of the argument? I don't like how the WMF has gone about this at all; all names deserve to be heard. I think it's outrageous that they start this sort of discussion with no involvement of the WV or WT community. We were in the process of discussing the idea of a poll like this, but they just completely ignore us and do it anyway. So much for consensus-building... JamesA (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    Hey, it's okay, JamesA, don't get ruffled. We're (the Wikimedia Foundation) just asking a question here, designed to test where people are at. If a majority wants a more open-ended process, that's what we'll do. Sue Gardner (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    But the question is heavily biased, which is against what the WMF is about. So users are not fully informed of the entire situation and what the alternatives are. This can be seen with comments like "keep the old name". The old name of who? We're forming a new site here from the merging of two communities, and those sort of comments overlook that fact. The question also fails to discuss domain names. There's always the possibility of hosting at travel.wikimedia.org, then having different names for different languages or just deciding from that point onwards. But that suggestion was conveniently ignored. JamesA (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm surprised that your lawyers allowed you to do this during a lawsuit. By having the Foundation actively involved, they are potentially invalidating their protection. This is especially true when the process for creating a Wiki has been abandoned and the community has been highly restricted compared to the standard process. This is pretty bad form and I think this will only destroy Wikimedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Which "you" are you referring to here? James Heilman, the Wikitraveller sued by IB, is not JamesA. Jpatokal (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    It was clear from indenting and context that I was responding to Sue Gardner. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support I support a broader approach in searching the name as my preference would be travel.wikimedia. I'm a long standing admin at Wikitravel (about 7'500 edits) and just crossed the 100 edit line at WV. Jc8136 (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support. We can have the few variants. Digr (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. --Itzike (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support - this is standard, and it is a shame that we are no longer following our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support - I'd prefer to choose from several options, including WV. - Cardboardbird (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  26. Strong support/strong oppose to this current process itself. I think the obstacles to integration posed by... using a new domain name, are clearly outweighed by a) allowing this to be a community decision, not determined by a surprise poll, the drafting of which completely (and honestly offensively) excluded the community; b) allowing us to put our creative minds together to come up with and choose the best possible name to allow this new project to flourish (be it Wikivoyage or otherwise); and c) to not simply disregard former WT contributors' concerns about joining our communites 'as equals'. --Peter Talk 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  27. support, per above. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  28. support - Wikivoyage should be a candidate, but I'd like to see some alternatives. (Disclosure: I was a WT editor many years ago but left during the IB takeover). Manning (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. --DenisYurkin (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

  • Abstain - I think some things have changed meanwhile. When poeple came up with the idea to establish a travel guide here at the WMF we wanted to create something big. One of the main aims was the reunification of the WT and WV communities. We gave the WT community a new home as a first step to the migration and used hours of work and money to manage it. But currently we face a quite big gap between the communities. One of these issues may be this poll. I think the intention of this poll was to shorten the time to the start the new travel wikis. If the community likes the name anyway, then a long-term and open-end process of finding a new name will become unnecessary. Although it's just a straw poll it went to a completely wrong direction. People who actually like the name voted for a different process and feel not well informed. Me and WV, we face some cases and even insults against us. Both communities are not longer considered as equals. There are many single small reasons. One bigger reason may be this poll, that is created suboptimal. Some ex Wikitravellers may think somebody wants to push WV through. I really want to point out that the most important aim is the reunification of the both communities. That's why I remove my support from the list above and abstain. Let's focus on the main targets and bring it up as soon as possible. Let's act rational and fast. Long term waiting lets the communities breaking down. -- DerFussi (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree the most important thing is the bringing together of all involved. I do not think an extra week or two of discussion and making sure that we look at all the options is an issue. I support the drafting of a "straw poll" as a group before we open it to "votes" to make sure all are sufficiently happy. Have started a possible and very rough outline here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The whole point of the straw poll was to survey opinions. I don't view this as simple matter of looking at the poll result and saying "Oh, we have a narrow majority, let's push forward". If there are strong concerns from key community members about simply going forward with the Wikivoyage name, then I think that's a strong reason to consider a more open format.
One caveat: Having multiple very different names would complicate communications, messaging, trademark protection, advocacy, and even technical maintenance if domain names differ. There's a big difference between the situation that's normal on WMF projects (where projects like Wikibooks can carry localized names like "Wikilivres" which derive from the same origin term, but are hosted under the same domain name / URL pattern, use the same logo, etc.) vs. a situation where we have truly different branding across different languages. So WMF has major reservations about a "multi-name" solution for this reason.--Eloquence (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. You realize you are basically shutting down this community's efforts here, by another means, right? If you say we can't have independent names for the language versions (which I personally MUCH prefer and think will eventually be the community's preference as well), you're saying either the Wikivoyage community wins (naming every version "Wikivoyage") or they are going to be *forced* to change the name of their community to something else.
Why was this whole naming issue brushed under the carpet during the RFC? This is only the first of many many issues that will face us, and it's already highly contentious. What a cluster*#@&.--96.30.13.12 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anything was "brushed under the carpet", indeed the issue was discussed on Talk:Travel Guide#Plan? with many of the same concerns about using multiple names raised there as well. Yes, James added the suggestion to use both to Travel Guide; had I spotted that earlier, I'd have commented more extensively on why multiple domain names for a single project (other than secondary redirects) aren't workable. In any event, I've responded in some more detail here.
I wouldn't despair. This is a pretty complicated coming together of communities, and it's normal for some friction and misunderstandings to be part of the process. Nobody's trying to screw anyone over, but different folks come to this with different perspectives and beliefs. Assume good faith, and let's see if we can work out something that works for everyone.--Eloquence (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've edited User:Philippe_(WMF)/Name to indicate a bit more clearly what such a process would look like, but we'll still need to clear it with legal before we can run it.--Eloquence (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • WikiVoyage seems strange to me, it looks very much French. ;o) I would expect an English name, but I don't mind this proposition. Yann (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Voyage comes for french, but it is also an English word. I think the second definition at the link is very appropriate for the scope of this site.--Strainu (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Names of languages / nations, such as French, must be written capitalized. WikiTravel is already taken, if one wants pure English name I'd suggest WikiGo. However, I do not think that "wiki" is an "old English word". QuestPc (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What's the abbreviation of this name? "wv" conflicts with "Wikiversity". Liangent 07:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ha, this is a good question :) We rely a lot on those two-letter abbreviations... -- phoebe | talk 20:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary hasn't wt: as abbreviation (what is a pity), and for Wikivoyage we can use wy:. Romaine (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe we thought about merging with Wikitravel at that time and reserved wt: for it, but it's WikiVoyage now... Liangent 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that I'm not voting, but I wonder a little about the community dynamics of merging fragments of several communities (plus a whole WikiVoyage community) into an existing name. I'm not sure whether an entirely new, fresh, shiny name might not be a better thing. But I've got nothing to base this on but gut instinct.  :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The "whole WikiVoyage community" was to date focussed on German (and Italian) content, while the community "fragments" from other projects were mainly working in other languages. Considering that some of them even have a shared history on Wikitravel (before the WikiVoyage fork), I can't imagine how these communities should not get along with each other pretty well. But even if there would be underlying issues between these communities, then I very much doubt that a new name would help fixing those - at least not to an extent that is worth the trouble. -- Arne (akl) (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I speak only for myself, but for me there is no political problem with merging into the Wikivoyage name, it is merely that if there is a better name, we should use it. So far there isn't, but we shouldn't stop looking. Wikivoyage also suggests travel by boat to me, which is not ideal, as relatively very little travel is done by boat these days, to my great regret. In the age of steam, the name would have been perfect. This objection only applies to English, and if we are going to require all language versions to share a common name, it falls away, as it is perfect in French. However, I also support the right for each language version to choose a different but compatible name. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that we shouldn't start off on a bad foot for this project. What about a period to suggest names, and then vote on them as we've done in the past? WikiVoyage can certainly be one of the options; it's a strong contender imho, and I would likely vote for it in a poll, but I also don't want to ignore the possibility that there are other better names out there! -- phoebe | talk 20:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed since it appears we aren't going to get this through on the no what alternative names are people thinking about?Geni (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Note: the WMF strongly suggests that names not be discussed publicly, so as to prevent domain name squatting. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Phoebe, Geni, an open comment period such as you suggest is not likely. There's a very good reason for it: the second names were suggested here, they would be purchased by domain squatters. However, it is possible that the WMF could lay out the list of domains that it has already proactively purchased, as well as any others that might be owned by supportive individuals who have pledged to transfer the domains cost-free to the WMF, and a decision could be made from among those. But an open process such as you describe is untenable. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As a UK based English-speaker, Wikivoyage doesn't sound great as a travel guide name. Maybe it's a bit too intergalactic or maybe it's just too seafaring, but it doesn't feel like its generic enough to cover all kinds of touristic activity. And, to a Brit, it certainly doesn't really roll off the tongue like Wikitravel used to. Tsandell (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While it might be better to share the same name across all language versions to avoid confusion and facilitate referencing, if :de and :it versions decide to stick to "WikiVoyage" then :fr will probably choose "WikiVoyage" too since it's the most obvious one for this language. Otherwise, I'm happy with a new common name. Fogg (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC) (WV, former WT:fr admin).
  • What is a "qualified wiki" as used in the eligibility for voting explanation? Also clarify if one vote per qualifying category or one vote per person, no matter how many categories one qualifies in. It is rather ambiguous as it stands. I qualify by two categories if I interpret the "qualified wiki" criterion correctly, but see no point in voting more than once per person. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that "you may only vote once" and the fact that there are two voting options, means that it is one vote per person - so you can't vote for both options. A qualified wiki in the context of Wikimedia would be any of our current wikis (so excluding locked/shutdown ones) where you have an account that meets the criteria stated. For Travel Community members I would imagine this would be if they have/had an account on WikiTravel or WikiVoyage. I'll point someone this way to clarify this though. Thehelpfulone 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you, That is also what I think, but it would be preferable for somebody who is in a position to give a definitive clarification to specify exactly what they meant. Not that I think it will matter in the long run, as I think also that this entire straw poll was ill advised and it should be cancelled with as little further damage as possible. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You may only vote once, per person. As to an affected travel wiki site, that would be exactly what it says: a wiki that's affected by this process (for instance, WikiTravel, WikiVoyage). Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in assuming that any name using the word "Wikimedia" is safe from domain squatters? I have an idea for a possible name in this class.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe if it is at the *.wikimedia.org subdomain, it's secured. Technically, if it's just another domain with wikimedia in the title, such as wikimediadictionary.org (non-travel suggestion used to avoid squatters!), it can be squatted and Wikimedia may need to file a (legal?) complaint to reclaim it as a trademark. I'm no legal expert though. JamesA (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, *.wikimedia.org is just a subdomain, but I imagine we would want a separate domain name. Taking your wikimediadictionary.org example, for the English Version it would be en.wikimediadictionary.org. If this was en.dictionary.wikimedia.org though, this could cause problems with SSL certificates if my memory serves me well. Thehelpfulone 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • All the technical things to the Name of the (new/old) baby have been said by the other voices before.
Now seeing the reactions in the last hours my personal opinion to this discussion about the Name:
I am one of the most engaged Authors from the first days of the Project WV, and I once thought, that a wiki for "Reisende" (I am a German, the mostspoken Language in Europe) is a very good idea. I then had once the question, whether to support WT/de, or WV (both no German words !). Then I supported the "Reisewiki" WV, which was new, with a very small community, with a very low ranking at the Search Tools in the Internet and with Low Traffic. All against the big existing WT/de. It was because I thought, working as an Volunteer, no one should earn money with my work, and because the community should decide and not the owner of the "Brand". The name of the ReiseWiki did not matter. Some years later things are different. Ranking of the Project has changed a little bit with the work of the community of WV, and most things in the community went right.
There was no realy need for any big change at WV. I did not vote for changing to wikimedia, because i did not see what will happen in Future, but we (=WV) will lose parts of our independency.
I do not like the Definition in the mediums, that Wikimedia will "make" a new Travel Guide or what else the name will be: The Truth is, that Wikimedia will use the Contents, that have been created by WV and WT and also wants to continue the work, the Community of WT and WV have started, with this community.
I want the Community of WV and WT to decide of the Name of the Wiki, and I think it would be fine, if this name, all in all, is WV. And if the name for the other languages like en is then different, because the community wants it, then thats OK to me.
But if WT/en does not like WV, cause its to "spacy", what should we think in German ? No one of the new proposals is in German Language. I think, the name will never be "Reisewiki" for the German Version. So whats the real Problem with Voyage in English ?
Whether I will work for any other Name than WV in the new (old) German "Reisewiki" i do not know, but reading my text before, would anyone understand that i do not like the word "Travel" in the name in any way ? In WV the name Travel was big "Goliath" to us, a very long Time. Bbb (contribs)
Bbb, I agree with you and support your standpoint, but it is not WT/en who don't like WV because it is "spacy" that is the opinion of one person, maybe a few others, and that does not look like it was intended as an insult. In English the word voyage does to some extent imply travel by sea or through space, more than by land or air, and unfortunately we don't do that much space or sea travel at present. Speaking for myself, I would like the opportinity to consider alternative names, as there might be better ones that I have not yet heard. If there are not, Wikivoyage is acceptable to me. The point here is that I want to have the choice to consider alternatives. A good name is important as people have to remember it if they are to use it, and it is easier to remember if it suggests the subject, So, in answer to your final question, I don't think that there is a real problem with voyage in English for many of us, but we want the option of choice. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • We already discussed how we would go about choosing a new name, and I'm pretty shocked at this surprise poll, which simply railroads over concerns and desires expressed by, at least, the former WT folks (myself included), who have dedicated untold hours, days, months, and even years to help this happen, have also already spent our money purchasing potential domain names, and have in return suffered legal threats, harassment, slander, and now what seems like a dismissal. This just isn't right, and I'd like to register my strong opposition to the way this is being handled. --Peter Talk 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to alternative names, we have been discussing them for over a year, and have come up with a good 3 or so really good ones that deserve discussion. With this surprise poll, though, we haven't had time to secure all the various domains (especially the .coms). --Peter Talk 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to the name Wikivoyage itself, I see two real problems. It certainly treats the WT refugees as an inferior partner in the merge. The other is that I don't think it works that well outside of Western Europe. I travel a lot in places where even WT was hard to convey--voyage is a much, much harder word for speakers of non-Indo-European languages. A name that a) would be easily pronouncable for a globe full of linguistic backgrounds, and b) would be familiar to people of diverse linguistic backgrounds would further one of the WMF's core goals as of right now, to attract more contributors from the global south and other regions that are currently underrepresented here. For the same reasons stated for WP, it's simply essential for a world-wide travel guide that we do. --Peter Talk 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely no offense meant, but is there anything the ex Wikitravel people will not complain about? They got what they wanted, WM and WV have bent over backward for them, they left WT because of complaints about the same host they've had for the last 7 years, and now they refuse to commit to this unless they get to name it exactly what *they* want? You can keep looking gift horses in the mouth, or you can say thank you and call it a day. Jesus.--198.228.216.32 02:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually anonymous critics is probably another thing to complain about when they misrepresent the situation. The statement that we refuse to commit unless we get to name it exactly what we want is inaccurate and appears to be intentionally provocative. As this is standard trolling behaviour I will leave it at that. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There is one more point I already talked about on a different place. Peter. As you can imagine. The association backed the plan 100%. But if you read all statements during RfC and here carefully, you can see that not every member of WV backs the move. You should be aware that we endanger our own community, a healthy and active one, to make this possible. We even gave you a new home. Instead of a "Thank you" we have to bear an insult there. Like the one above from you. We never treated somebody as an inferior partner. But the ex Wikitraveller have to accept, that we have the legal responsibility for the wikis (It will be the same here at the WMF). Besides that you can do what you want. Can create your own community policies. We dont interfere. -- DerFussi (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Fussi, you and the rest of the WV people have been exemplary in your hospitality. I certainly have no complaint against WV, and I dont read Peter Fitzgerald as complaining against WV or insulting you either, but he can speak for himself too. Our complaint is against the person or persons who misrepresent the situation and don't consider that people who will be part of the project should be consulted about the name. Bear in mind that there are people who would like to derail this project - some of them are monitoring this forum, and some of them might even be working on WMF. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
For me it is just about choosing the best name. I do not see WV as a different community. The only reason I have contributed to WT and not WV is that I contributed English text. Before IB, I was working on WT with users that are now on WV and I am happy that we will again be on the same platform. Wikivoyage as a name is OK with me, but if we find a better name, then let us use that Elgaard (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)