Difference between revisions of "Wikivoyage/Naming Process/ProposedNames"

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 164: Line 164:
 
# 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

Information
Voting has begun. No further names may be submitted.

The following names have been proposed:

(language-code).travel.wikimedia.org/com

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. DenisYurkin (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Sometimes straightforward is the way to go. --J1729 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (WT admin as Jonboy)
  3. Simple is best --Vlad (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. Best choice. Yann (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. Not my first choice, but acceptable. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel}
  7. Although a bit lengthy, this name could be a good compromise solution. Atsirlin (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (admin on WV ru: and en:)
  8. My second choice - because of its clout and clarity for marketing purposes --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. Something with "Wikimedia" in it, makes sence. We should be more careful about our brand in general. Ziko (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  10. 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)
  11. This works. Not the greatest, but better than a lot of stuff here. Courcelles 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  12. ok, -jkb- 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  13. 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. --Peter Talk 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion

Comment: This name requires no registration, but note that it would lead to links like <http://en.travel.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paris> or <http://en.m.travel.wikimedia.org/wiki/Paris> for the mobile site.

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.--67.159.5.242 18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 m 18:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use a <http://travel.wikimedia.org/languagecode/> format instead? --Peter Talk 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Not in favor, no other projects use this schema, tl;dr. Catchy helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. don't like the enormous urls, do like the idea of travel.wikimedia.org redirecting. -- phoebe | talk 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
I agree. It's too complicated. Not a good idea. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. worst option from a brand perspective. We don't need another Commons... -- 23:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. A real brand is urgently needed. However it will be named. -- DerFussi (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
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)

rugendo.org

Name belongs to: User:Peterfitzgerald.
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. Catchy. Without baggage. --Inas (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. I like the sound of it, and the Wiki- prefix shouldn't be an absolute requirement (c.f. Commons). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. (?) Catchy, but unsure because the "wiki" part may matter a lot for project brand/identity. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. LtPowers (talk)
  5. Not my first choice, but quite catchy. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel}
  6. My first choice - for all the good reasons cited by Peterfitzgerald --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  7. Worth trying! Atsirlin (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (admin on WV ru: and en:)
  8. 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. --Peter Talk 01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. My second choice. Would have been my first if not for the potential trademark problems with the .com domain issue. — Ravikiran r (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. 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).
    How it is actually spelled? IPA [rʊgɛndɔ] as suggested by the proposed „russian version“ below?--Tchoř (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    Extreme ease of pronunciation? It begins with the letter "r", which is hard for Chinese/Japanese speakers to distinguish from "L". See w:Lallation and w:Japanese speakers learning r and l for more. -- The Anome (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Not easily translated/transliterated to Russian. --DenisYurkin (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it just be Ругендо? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    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)
    Should we completely ignore interlingual aspect therefore? --DenisYurkin (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    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)
  3. What? Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. 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)
    1. I have the .net and various other common domains—just not the .com. --Peter Talk 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. No. Meaningless to almost everyone, and lacks the key "wiki" part. Kill it with fire. --Piotrus (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    1. 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)

viawiki.org

Name belongs to: User:ErrantX.
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. (4th) Sort of ok, nothing special, "if all else fails" choice. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Kinda catchy, actually. LtPowers (talk)
  3. Grows on you. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel}
  4. Good especially if URLs are like Paris.viawiki.org/en. --DenisYurkin (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. Catchy, short, contains the word "wiki". I like it. -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. 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)

voyagewiki.org/com

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. ...
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. Wondering if moving both to a new name might give both a "new" boost? Hard to judge. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    No, search engines penalize new domains, so this name is the worst of both worlds. Jpatokal (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

wikiadventure.com/org

Name belongs to: User:Bluerasberry.
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. I like adventures. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. (1st) Has some "zing", encourages curiosity and adventure. Works for me. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Not bad; I wonder if Wikiventure might have been better... moot point now, though. LtPowers (talk)
  4. 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)
  5. (1st) per FT2 Quiddity (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. 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)
Discussion
  1. "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)
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)
  1. problematic that it scans as wikia-venture (at least to me?) Nonetheless it is an awesome name and should be used for something. -- phoebe | talk 21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

wikicompass.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. Really like this one. Point the way! TONS of logo possibilities. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Looks like a very natural name for the travel guide/project. Atsirlin (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (admin on WV ru: and en:)
  3. I like it, though I think we should use this URL for a wiki how-to guide if not for the travel project :) -- phoebe | talk 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. 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)
    What does this comment (about "destination") have to do with wikicompass? LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    Corrected, thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

wikidestination.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. ...
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. Too static (a destination is a place not a dynamic thing, the word has to match the feeling) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

wikiguidebook.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. (3rd) Staid but encourages people looking for a "guidebook". Adventure seems more enticing. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. If we need an original name, this makes a lot of sense. Adventure is fun, but too ambiguous. This is clear. --Piotrus (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. DerFussi (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. 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)
  2. ...

wikiholiday.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. Upbeat. Meaningful. --Inas (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. 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)
  2. Holidays are only one of the reasons to travel. Trivialises the concept. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Peter above, there's more to travel than holidays. -- The Anome (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

wikilocale.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. ...
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. Too ambiguous. --DenisYurkin (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. reminds me of the (awesome, non-wmf) LocalWiki project, which might be confusing. -- phoebe | talk 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. I'd prefer WikiLocal. Or even better, WikiPlaces. --Waldir (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

wikinomad.org/net

Name belongs to: User:Cacahuate.
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. I have confidence we could get the .com eventually. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. I think this has the best feel of the new name suggestions. No preference on plural or non. Translates well into many other languages – cacahuate talk 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. Not bad: snappy, contains the word "wiki". Although I think wikivia / wikivoyage are definitely better. -- The Anome (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. I do like this and the plural (below). -- phoebe | talk 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. Support. Memorable, short, little risk of confusion. (Well, there's always World Nomads, but they sell insurance, not travel guides.) Jpatokal (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  8. 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. --Peter Talk 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. What Jpatokal said — Ravikiran r (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
  • "Nomads" here are the Chapter of Hell's Angels. Amqui (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So? —innotata 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 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. —innotata 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

wikinomads.com/org/net

Name belongs to: User:Cacahuate.
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. Simple. Wide range of TLDs held --Inas (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. I think this has the best feel of the new name suggestions. No preference on plural or non. Translates well into many other languages – cacahuate talk 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support, although wikinomad.com is ever so slightly shorter and thus better. Jpatokal (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. Ditto what Jpatokal said. --Peter Talk 01:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion

wikipassport.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. (2nd) Encourages people looking for a "passport" to other places, works for me though adventure seems more enticing. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...
  3. ...
Discussion
  1. Too specific. --DenisYurkin (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Sounds like a literal passport site of some sort, some people will be confused. —innotata 01:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

wikipath.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. ...
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. ...
  2. ...


wikivisit.org

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. ...
  2. ...
Discussion
  1. Can be easily adapted to Russian; simple to remember. Has a slight one-time-visit meaning in Russian though. --DenisYurkin (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...


wikivista.org/com

Name belongs to: WMF.
Ownership confirmed?: n/a.
Willing to transfer?: n/a
Support
  1. (4rd) Is "vista" over-used for travel? Will this communicate welll in other cultures? FT2 (Talk | email) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...
  3. ...
Discussion
  1. I think it's too similar to Windows Vista. - Presidentman (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. ...

wikivoyage.org

Name belongs to: Wikivoyage e.V..
Ownership confirmed?: yes.
Willing to transfer?: yes
Support
  1. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. Russavia (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. Seems like the clearest, least "wtf?" option, from the perspective of a user coming across it. Fluffernutter (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  7. Yes. Seems the most reasonable option. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. My third and final choice - out of gratitude to the hard working (interim) hosts of our wonderful new Travel Guide --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  11. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  12. I just like the idea of staying at Wikivoyage. Atsirlin (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (admin on WV ru: and en:)
  13. Catchy, meaningful, contains the word "wiki", already established. -- The Anome (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  14. Definitely still my first choice. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  15. 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)
  16. Amqui (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  17. 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)
  18. (Edit conflict. × 2) If it works, keep it! Deryck C. 21:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  19. does have a good sound, translates well to many languages; would be happy to keep this name -- phoebe | talk 21:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  20. --Aschmidt (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  21. Saves us the process of redirecting Wikivoyage to the new site. - Presidentman (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  22. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  23. Completely agree. A very good name, easy to understand for many people. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  24. If it ain't broke... Courcelles 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. DerFussi (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  27. 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)
  28. Best name here --Pilettes (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  29. Established name. Lot of participants already and a recognition of the work of those people. ChristianT (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  30. Works for me! Cindamuse (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  31. Definitely the best, and already used ("If it ain't broke..." —Courcelles). —innotata 01:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  32. (2nd) Definite benefits, with minor drawbacks. Quiddity (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  33. Helder 02:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  34. 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)
Discussion
  1. it should be languagecode.wikivoyage.com. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. 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. Courcelles 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. 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.--66.90.73.223 20:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    Didn't know, great! —innotata 01:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    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)
  3. 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... :/ --Peter Talk 01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)