# Too ambiguous. --[[User:Denis Yurkin|DenisYurkin]] ([[User talk:Denis Yurkin|talk]]) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
# Too ambiguous. --[[User:Denis Yurkin|DenisYurkin]] ([[User talk:Denis Yurkin|talk]]) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
# reminds me of the (awesome, non-wmf) LocalWiki project, which might be confusing. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
# reminds me of the (awesome, non-wmf) LocalWiki project, which might be confusing. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
# I'd prefer WikiLocal. Or even better, WikiPlaces. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 02:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
=== wikinomad.org/net ===
=== wikinomad.org/net ===
Revision as of 02:38, 3 October 2012
Proposed names
Voting has begun. No further names may be submitted.
Second choice - I think this and Wikivoyage are the best choices (not because either really sound "perfect" to me, but because I don't see the perfect name on this page). Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are, for all essence and purposes, superseding Wikitravel. This name pays homage to that, and should be less confusing to viewers who care little about the ownership structure. --Piotrus (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable choice to everyone, I think, if not anyone's first choice? Having "Wikimedia" in there is nice, since it's a recognized and very successful brand. --PeterTalk01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have the most zing... but that's what I like about it. Not divisive. Across all languages, the user knows what they are going to get.--67.159.5.24218:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is easiest to satisfy the most people with the bland. We shouldn't be tempted towards the boring just because it is uncontroversial. --Inas (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This url is very large and not functional, it is not pretty. And "voyage" is very close to many words in Latin languages, viagem (pt), viaje(es), viaggio (it), viatge (catalan)..., even Esperanto "vojaĝo"... whereas "travel" leads us to nothing. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m18:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a name like this would get no brand mileage. If it does become a well used site, then people might start calling it wikitravel (I'm thinking travel.wikimedia is a mouthful, maybe people say travel wiki, which sounds a bit odd since wikipedia has gotten people used to wiki-first, so maybe they switch it around and then end up at wikitravel), which may lead to confusion and open Wikimedia Foundation up to more lawsuits from Internet Brands. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitravel will be a project like Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, etc in several languages. The format which is normally used is xx.wikiyyyy.org, like en.wikipedia.org and en.wikibooks.org, and thus en.wikivoyage.org. That is a much more normal and easily name to be used than what is mentioned above. Also a wiki with travel in the name, like (language-code).travel.wikimedia.org, would certainly be called wikitravel too many times (like species.wikimedia.org is called Wikispecies) and that will raise confusion with the other wikitravel which has a lawsuit with the Wikimedia Foundation. Romaine (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surprise, I like my suggested name, for the reasons below. It's outside the box, short and snappy, has its roots in the Global South, a ready-made gorilla mascot, and gives us the opportunity to create our own recognizable brand. --PeterTalk01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rugendo might be a bit controversial, since it doesn't have the familiar old wiki prefix, but it has some real upsides in extreme ease of pronunciation--tell anyone of any cultural background anywhere in the world that it's Rugendo, and they'll probably be able to guess how to spell it--which futhers the WMF goal of increasing contributions from cultures beyond the Global North. It also has strong vowel/consonant combinations that make it catchy, and it has the potential to catch on as a real brand like Google, Yahoo, etc. It means travel in several Bantu languages in Tanzania and Kenya, and is also the name of a silverback gorilla in Rwanda's Volcanoes National Park—a backpacker gorilla could make a great mascot! (as submitted by User:Peterfitzgerald).
Regardless, it's impossible to come up with a term that's easily translated in every language. I daresay none of the other options has been selected with more interlingual concern than this one has. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not. I'm just saying, even if you can find a few language families that don't work well with Rugendo, you'll find dozens more for all of the other options. LtPowers (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not catchy, doesn't contain the word "wiki", meaningless in English, unlike other existing project names. Also, rugendo.com is already registered and is already in use for a travel-related website, making for possible problems estanlishing a trademark, and rugendo.net is also registered, with a domain parking page. -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little strident, don't you think? The meaninglessness is the point; it allows us to define the term, much as Yahoo or Google have. And why does the name have to include the word "wiki"? That's an assumption that needs to be examined before it's accepted blindly. LtPowers (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call me an idiot, but I don't know if it's meant to be pronounced as VYE-UH, or VEE-UH. And I've only ever head the word "via" in context of road directions. ie, head to the city via the freeway. JamesA (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad; I wonder if Wikiventure might have been better... moot point now, though. LtPowers (talk)
Good name in English at least (see discussion for my thoughts on other languages), and I like the rationale articulated for including local non-travellers. To the comment above about Wikiventure, I'm afraid that really doesn't work, too many people in this environment would associate that with venture capital investing. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this. Sounds exciting and gets people interested. Travel is meant to be exciting, conjuring images of exotic places and memorable experiences. 1st preference. JamesA (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (en: Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies)[reply]
Discussion
"We should go to WikiAdventure to plan our adventure! Our last adventure included taking a class, touring a monument, visiting the library, eating snacks at a park, then going back to our hotel."
"Adventure" is a fun term for doing almost anything which is not boring.
Adventure emphasizes personal participation and can include local activities, whereas concepts like "travel", "voyage", or "visit" do not do this to the same extent.
The word "adventure" is nearly the same in English, the Romance languages, German, Swedish, Turkish, and others.
Editing Wikipedia is also an adventure. Wikipedia readers should do more than merely visit or go to Wikipedia. They should be bold and explore options to learn and engage. The term aligns with the brand and it would be great for the Wikimedia community to associate itself with the concept. (As submitted by User:Bluerasberry).
Who says editing Wikipedia isn't already an adventure? It reminds me rather of the early text-based adventure games and MUDs. You find yourself in a strange and unwelcoming town where you have to kill rats before you eventually proceed through a bizarre ritual to be given a mop, at which point you can lead roving bands of rat-killers to write an encyclopedia or something. Let the adventure unfold! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the similarity to other languages, I suspect that while there may be plenty of cognates, they differ enough that the casual visitor is not going to immediately pick up on that. And the English word is not universally known the way "books" is. That being said, plenty of language versions use a translated equivalent of Wikibooks, and I would think that was fine here as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
problematic that it scans as wikia-venture (at least to me?) Nonetheless it is an awesome name and should be used for something. -- phoebe | talk21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too static. Which travel is not. (a destination is a place not a dynamic thing a compass shows you a direction but doesn't go there itself, so to speak; like "destination" the word has to match the feeling... travel is very dynamic and "lets go for it!" exhilarating in a way a "compass" isn't) FT2(Talk | email)18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A guidebook could be anything... it's not obviously travel related. (Granted, neither is Rugendo, but at least that term doesn't have pre-established notions.) LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too "blah". Interesting places are often explored as more than a "holiday", with anticipation and excitement, word should match/evoke that feeling more exactly. FT2(Talk | email)18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has the best feel of the new name suggestions. No preference on plural or non. Translates well into many other languages – cacahuatetalk21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, it gives an adventurous sound without sounding cheesy, it rolls of the tongue easy (granted I speak only English and have my own personal preferences regarding words and sounds) and is easy to remember. I guess if I were to characterize what I like about it, it is a sense of boldness. Moreover, no baggage from previous sites. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Jpatokal says, this is a short, snappy, and very easy one to remember. Nomad is a word that exists in a huge range of languages, and has a very simple phonetic structure for speakers of those that don't. It's a much cooler name than most of the alternatives here as well. Coming up with this one was one of those collective completely serendipitous moments where people unintentionally stumble upon a really good idea. --PeterTalk01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, may suggest a site for RVers etc, not all travellers. Actually most names are similarly vague (too bad Wikitravel is taken!), and generally this is better than most. —innotata01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has the best feel of the new name suggestions. No preference on plural or non. Translates well into many other languages – cacahuatetalk21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not my first choice, but quite a good name and already has good reputation. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel)[reply]
Using the existing name of a community helps continuing the already existing projects and those communities. Also fits perfectly with the goal of the project. Romaine (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word voyage is well-known worldwide and clear, other possible names are too complicated or too vague. Oskarp (de:Wikivoyage [1]) 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess I might jump on this bandwagon too. It's a name I thought before coming to this page, so it may be somewhat intuitive. --Piotrus (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original travel guide proposal called for naming the Italian and German versions of the WMF travel site "Wikivoyage" [2], so I think we should honor that commitment. Using the Wikivoyage name should also simplify the migration to WMF. -- Wrh2 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated in the straw poll: 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) 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no perfect solution. At least Wikivoyage kind of has a brand, and is a word in English, despite difficult pronunciation. JamesA (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (en: Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies)[reply]
Wouldn't that be the setup no matter what is chosen? I think the first one just says it because it would be a fourth level, which would be new on a public facing project. Courcelles19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, whatever name is chosen, Wikivoyage community is coming along, because their domain will be absorbed/redirected to the new travel site. Thus it's not necessary to vote for it just because you want "all" of WV to be welcome; there will *be* no independent Wikivoyage after this.--66.90.73.22320:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like this name, but the previous yes/no poll on this name did not pass, and I think that people who opposed the name for that poll would get pissed if it got overrided by this one. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. I saw serveral people opposing the process (seeking for approval without a real choice), but having no issues with the actual name Wikivoyage. -- Arne (akl) (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do understand that my comments do not come from any sort of hostility towards Wikivoyage, or anything like that (and Paul O'Brien/IBobi, do you really need to flame my posts anonymously? This project is going forward regardless.). I recognize that Wikivoyage is the obvious choice by inertia, given that we have consolidated our content on their servers, but I don't think it is an ideal name for three reasons:
1) Most importantly Wikivoyage is a really difficult word for speakers of non-European languages. Combining it with "wiki" doesn't help, either. There are no hard consonants, and voyage is a pretty advanced vocab word for speakers of non-European languages. I personally have had enough trouble while traveling and talking to locals and other backpackers of very diverse backgrounds, trying to get people to understand Wikitravel, which is a good deal easier! One of the WMF's core goals moving forward is to expand beyond the Global North. As a travel site, it is obviously imperative that this project do the same, and I think having a snappier and more easily pronounceable name is really important for furthering that goal.
2) Wikivoyage is not ideal in English. While attracting English speakers is of course not as big a challenge as those of less-represented linguistic backgrounds, it still hurts if we have an awkward branding. In American English (at least), "voyage" is used almost exclusively to refer to sea/space travel or spiritual quests, rather than to travel generally. It always sounded quite awkward to me, and although I was very sympathetic to Wikivoyage's goals (as opposed to those of Wikitravel's hosts), I didn't think it worth joining their effort because I thought the name could never really catch on in English.
3) Lastly, the idea was always to re-unite our communities on equal footing as a new project. Using the name of one of the communities isn't really in line with that goal, as it makes the WT exiles, who have been denigrated as "refugees" who should just be grateful anyone is "taking them in," as a junior partner. Trying not to treat Wikivoyagers as a junior partner, and putting aside any past injuries, was something the initial project proponents from Wikitravel were really sensitive about... :/ --PeterTalk01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
