Jump to content

Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Abstract Wikipedia
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Quiddity (WMF) (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 19 October 2020 (linebreak needed, otherwise the header isn't formatted properly). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Other languages:
Abstract Wikipedia
(Discussion)
General
Development plan
Notes, drafts, discussions
Examples & mockups
Data tools
Historical

Please help pick a name for the new Wikimedia wiki project which is currently known as Wikilambda. This project will be a wiki where the community can work together on a library of functions; create new functions, read about them, discuss them, and share them. Some of these functions will be used to help create language-independent Wikipedia articles that can be displayed in any language. As such, it is a component of Abstract Wikipedia (explained below). But functions will also be usable well beyond the goal of Abstract Wikipedia.

The goal of this naming contest is to create a memorable new name that helps people understand the purpose of the new Wikimedia wiki as easily as possible. The process detailed below is intended to help encourage many possible submissions, and then narrow them down to the top choices that clearly communicate that meaning.

Proposals should be submitted by 29 September. There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with early voting beginning 22 September, and broad voting beginning on 29 September and 27 October. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on 8 December.

What is a function?

A “function” is a sequence of computer program instructions, that makes a calculation based on data you provide. Functions are a form of knowledge that can answer questions, such as how many days have passed between two dates or the distance between two cities. More complicated functions can calculate more complicated questions, such as the area of a three dimensional shape, the distance between Mars and Venus on a certain date, or whether two species were alive at the same time. We already use functions in many types of knowledge inquiries, such as asking a question to a search engine. The {{convert}} and {{age}} templates are also examples of functionalities that are already used in many Wikipedias, written in Lua and manually copied to each wiki where it's wanted.

More examples of functions are at Abstract Wikipedia/Early function examples, and very rough sketches of how the interface might look are at Abstract Wikipedia/Early mockups.

In short, functions make a calculation on the data you provide, and answer a question you have about it.

This new Wikimedia project will build a library of functions, written by volunteers, to help answer questions like these across languages. By building out our library of functions, we can enable more people to access and explore free knowledge in new ways. To make this happen, the project needs a name. Please join in to propose and choose the best one.

What is Abstract Wikipedia?

A visual explanation of the Abstract Wikipedia project and the wiki of functions

The term "Abstract Wikipedia" itself refers to the long-term goal - that this library of functions will someday enable the creation of language-independent articles. Once more pieces of this project are in place, this will mean that any wiki - especially small to medium wikis - will be able to dramatically increase the number of articles available in their language. It also means that editors can share knowledge from their culture and contexts with a larger and more global audience.

The new wiki of functions will develop the coding infrastructure to make this vision possible. The Abstract Wikipedia part of the project will start in roughly one year's time.

In other words: we will be able to combine the functions from the new wiki, with the data and linguistic-information in Wikidata, in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).

More details about the overall project are at Abstract Wikipedia. Right now we are not looking for a name for the long-term "Abstract Wikipedia" project goal, but only for the new wiki of functions.

Timeline

  • 15 September: Publish this page and ask for feedback. Ask for translations. Ask for multilingual-volunteers to check the proposals during the submission step.
  • 22 September: Reminder announcements to submit proposals, and participate in early voting
  • 29 September: First round of broad community voting begins
  • 13 October: Close of first round voting; First legal review begins
  • 27 October: Second round of community voting begins
  • 10 November: Close of second round voting; Second legal review begins
  • 8 December: Announcement of new project name. Begin request for Logos.

Name proposal criteria

  • The name should somehow reference or be connected to the goal of the wiki, which is to be a collection of functions. A good name is likely to:
    • Make use of established movement terms that are well-known and recognizable such as "Wiki"
    • Highlight a key detail of the project (think of the "data" in "Wikidata") so first time readers or listeners have a clue to the project's focus
    • Be simple to say aloud and easy to spell (remember, people are going to be using this name frequently)
    • The name should not only be a reference towards the goal of the Abstract Wikipedia or only be about natural language and content abstraction. The name should reflect that the functions may be used in a large diversity of ways and places.
  • The name must translate well.
    • A group of volunteers will check the proposals in their own language(s), and add discussion notes if there are any concerns.
  • Be able to stand-alone as a domain or subdomain name.
    • The wiki will be created at either "foo.org" or "foo.wikimedia.org". This is currently undecided and will be based on technical and legal decisions.
  • The name must not violate the intellectual property rights of any third party and is subject to final review by legal counsel to ensure that it does not.

Name submission rules

  • Number of submissions. During the submission period you may submit as many names as you wish. (Duplicates will be consolidated prior to voting.)
  • Agreement implicit upon submission.
    • (a) By submitting, you implicitly acknowledge that you have read and agree to these rules.
    • (b) By submitting names, you agree to enter into a contract to assign all of your rights in your submission to the Wikimedia Foundation, including any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, and any other intellectual property or other proprietary rights.
    • (c) You warrant that you (or the Wikimedia Foundation) are the owner of all copyright, trademark, moral, publicity, and other intellectual and proprietary rights to the proposed name and that to the best of your knowledge it does not violate any rights of any third party.
  • Disputes. While we hope that there is no dispute between you and the Wikimedia Foundation, we need to set some rules about how any disputes that may arise will be handled. By participating in the name selection process, you agree that your submission, your assignment of rights in it, and any dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States of America and will be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

== Naming process details ==

  1. Submission period. There is early voting during the submission period, and discussion is encouraged. Names may be modified during this period, and derivatives may be submitted. All names must accord to the criteria rules (see below). Please be particularly friendly and constructive during this brainstorming period.
  2. After this, we introduce two tiers of visibility for the voting: The top ~20 proposals, roughly, by number of supports at this point will be visible on the default (current) voting page. There will then also be a second page with all proposals to vote on that is linked from the main voting page, the second tier.
    • During the vote, once every working day or so, we will check if there are any proposals that should be moved to the main voting page or dropped from it. We use some discretion here, but basically if anything has more support than the least supported proposals on the main voting page, it should be on the main voting page.
    • Adding completely new proposals will be possible even after September 29, but only to the full list of proposals, i.e. the second tier.
  3. Elimination round. After the submission period, entries are presented in randomized display for at least one week of voting.
    • Each voter may vote for as many as they want.
  4. Finalist review. After the top six submissions by vote are determined, legal counsel will make an initial cursory review of the top six names for any legal issues, the ability to be registered as a global trademark, and make a determination as to suitability.
  5. Final vote. As many as six names may be entered into the one-week final vote and presented in randomized display for voting. Votes will be counted using the Instant-runoff method.
    • You may vote for up to three submissions. Voters who vote for more than one submission will be required to indicate whether a vote is first, second, or third choice. E.g. "1st. ~~~~"
  6. Final legal review. Legal counsel will make an in-depth review of the top name. If, in the discretion of legal counsel, the top choice name is not appropriate, because of legal concerns (trademark, copyright, etc), the name will be withdrawn from consideration (with a public explanation for why) and the second choice name will be reviewed using the same criteria. If the second choice name is unacceptable, legal counsel will continue down the list to the first available and clear name.

Voting eligibility and rules

Each person may vote from only one account. In the first round of voting you may vote for as many names as you like. In the second round of voting you can rank all candidates (i.e. "1. ~~~~" for your most favorite choice, "2. ~~~~" for your next most favorite choice, and "3. ~~~~" for your third favorite choice, etc.).

You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote from a single account, regardless of how many accounts you own, although you may vote for as many names as you'd like). To qualify, this one account must:

  • not be blocked on more than one project; and
  • not be a bot; and
  • have made at least 25 edits as of 1 September, 2020 on any public Wikimedia production wiki (like Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource, etc).

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

Second round vote tallying: Up to six candidates will enter the second voting round. At the end of the voting period, using a modification of the instant-runoff system, the first (or only) choice of each voter will be counted and used to order the submissions by preference. Each first (or only) choice counts as one vote for the chosen submission. If, at this point, there is a simple majority, this submission will enter the final legal review. If there is no simple majority, the submission with the fewest votes will be eliminated, and all votes who expressed a first choice for this submission will be recounted for their second choice. This will be repeated until a submission has a simple majority of all remaining votes. The resulting submission will then undergo final legal review. In case the submission fails the legal review, we simply eliminate that submission first and start the counting process anew, until a submission passes final legal review. No third round of voting is planned.

Proposed names

Please remain civil and polite during discussions.

Please help keep this page readable by focusing your comments more on your favorite proposals to help others understand their strength points, rather than commenting on the weaknesses of proposals which aren't gaining traction anyway.

100+ more proposals are listed at .../More proposals.

For an alphabetical list, see Category:Wiki of functions naming proposals.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Round 1 complete. Round 2 will start 27 October.

Wikilambda

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

  • The status quo.
  • It's mostly fine. It's somewhat cryptic for people who aren't familiar with lambda calculus and its relationship to the concept of function, but it's a problem because even in the most optimistic scenario I don't expect a lot of people to contribute directly to the functions' code, just like not all Wikipedians directly contribute to the code of templates, modules, gadgets, and extensions. This name is also easy to translate because many languages have a standard way to write the names of Greek letters. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated. See Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Name#lambda_is_too_'Western'.--GZWDer (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't be the name informative to all those aware of d:Q242028? --CamelCaseNick (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this. It's a mathematical symbol, used just as much by Chinese speakers as English speakers. What makes it hard to translate? --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with GZWDer. There are only transcriptions/transliterations of λ in Chinese. Unlike the romanized “lambda” used in “lambda calculus”, such transcriptions/transliterations are not widely used (and in particular not commonly used in Chinese translation of “lambda calculus”, for which the Greek letter is normally used directly), so cannot easily recognized even by those who are familiar with lambda calculus. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it. I have a strong preference for a name that incorporates (to at least some extent) the Abstract Wikipedia-side of the project. ("Lambdas changed my life" -- Barbara Partee) --Chris.Cooley (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think Wikilambda is great: it means Wikifunction but in a less Anglo and more universal symbol. Admittedly less familiar to non-math/CS types, but there is no denying that unlike any other sister project, this will be largely maintained and cultivated by people with some math/CS familiarity. And math terms are as close as we can practically get to a universal term. I am so convinced of these points, that not only is status quo superior to every alternative proposed so far, but I have a hard time imagining a term that could possibly beat it in more than a single aspect. Ijon (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see this abreviated as λ/lambda internally or stylized as Wikiλambda, e.g. in a word mark, see proposal for λ. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is a bit too techie for my taste, but it's growing on me.--Pharos (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a copy of AWS (Amazon) Lambda, and thus bit uninventive/corporatey/cloudy. – Jberkel (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's at all obvious what a project called wikilambda would contain, compared to, say, Wikifunctions. Ideally someone should be able to reasonably guess what this project is for without knowing any context. EdSaperia (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with EdSaperia. The name of the wiki must express its purpose obviously and easily-to-understand. However, with the name "Wikilambda", users won't understand that is a wiki of function. --Atmark-chan <T/C> 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with users above. Lambda is both unobvious and hard-to-translate. -- 羊羊32521 (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does pronunciation matter? For a lot of speakers whose first language is not English, this is going to come out like wiki-lama, wiki-larder, wiki-ladder, wiki-lander, or wiki-lunder. (To USA readers: I speak a non-rhotic variety of English, so I'm thinking along the lines of [lama], [laːda], [lada], [lædə], [landa], etc. – i.e. lahduh not larrderr.) I imagine some awkward feelings for people giving speeches on the topic. We could make it an item of pride by turning it into an in-joke. Picture a promotional image banner: “wiki- 🦙? … wiki- λ!” On the other hand function and algorithm also have difficult sound combinations. Pelagic (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately puns and wordplay are very language- and culture- specific. Applies also to func ↔ funk. Pelagic (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone know how λ is pronounced in Modern Greek? Alfa, vita, yama, thelta, ... l—?
  • If I thought that I needed to understand lambda calculus to participate, that would be a turn-off. “Lambda” or “λ” is fine as an abstract label, but then apart from lambda calculus it doesn’t convey any sense of programming or building blocks to me. Pelagic (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found that “Wikilambda contains a full implementation of the Lambda calculus” here. So maybe the name “Wikilambda” is more applicable than I thought. (But seriously, Church numerals?) —Pelagic (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wiki will also includes things are not lambda calculus, won't it? "Lambda" isn't enough to explain the purpose of the wiki. Though I think "lambda" isn't so hard to pronounce in each language (it has its own transliteration system: for example, "lambda" says "ラムダ" ("ra-mu-da") in Japanese (as rhotic consonants are looked same in Japanese), "拉姆达" ("Lā mǔ dá") in Chinese and "람다" ("lam-da") in Korean), similarly, "function(s)" or "algorithm(s)" isn't, too. --Atmark-chan <T/C> 16:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, at least in Chinese and Korean, names of Wikimedia Projects wiki are formed like: (the transliteration of "wiki") (not the transliteration but the translation, of the word that follows to "wiki"). But "lambda" cannot be translated (though can be transliterated) because "lambda" is a name of a Greek alphabet, so that won't apply to the custom as mentioned above and the criteria "the name must translate well." --Atmark-chan <T/C> 15:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So wiki is transliterated 維基 wéijī rather than translated as 'quick' / 快 / kuài? I'm not sure that representing the sound of la-mu-da or la-bu-da rather than the meaning of function or algorithm is such a bad thing. But if we didn’t want to break with the established pattern (wiki-encyclopedia, wiki-dictionary, etc.) , then would it be acceptable to have phonemic transliteration of wiki-lambda in most languages, but then translate wiki-function, wiki-algorithm, or wiki-program in Chinese (and in any other languages where the transliteration doesn’t work well)? —Pelagic (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Atmark-chan, GZWDer, and anyone else who knows Chinese languages, what translation do you think best captures the idea of the new project? From Google Translate I get 維基功能 wéijī gōngnéng and 維基算法 wéijī suànfǎ, but these could be way off-base. Wikidata has 函數 / 函数 hánshù at d:Q11348; 函數式 hánshù shì ('letter-number-formula'?) at d:Q193076; 算法 / 演算法 suàn fǎ / yǎnsuàn fǎ ('perform-calculation-law'?) at d:Q8366; 程式 / 程序 chéngshì / chéngxù at d:Q40056. —Pelagic (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a speaker of Chinese, but I comment as a native speaker of Japanese, a language in the hanzi (kanji) culture region. Hanzi are ideograms, so probably there is not great difference about thing that hanzi mean between each language.
        • First, "函数" has no problem as the best translation of "function" to Chinese, I think. "函" means a "box", so the etymology of "函数" is probably a thing like a box that operates with some arguments, numbers (="数"), in accordance with an algorithm and returns some values; in other words, that's a function.
        • Second, the best translation of "algorithm" to Chinese is "算法" or "演算法", I think. "算" and "演算" means "calculate" and "法" means a thing like "way" or "order" in this case, so "(演)算法" means "order to calculate", "algorithm".
        • Third, the best translation of "program" to Chinese is "程序" or "程式", I think. Though the translation of "functions" in "Wiki of functions" to Japanese is "関数" (="函数" in Chinese), that to Chinese is "程序". --Atmark-chan <T/C> 11:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifunctions

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

  • Same comment as for "Wikifunction". I do have a slight preference for "Wikifunctions" over "Wikifunction" though, since the latter only refers to a single function. Kinda like how Wikibooks is the name of the project, and wikibook would be a single book on Wikibooks. "FunctionWiki" and "FunctionsWiki" could work as names for the project too. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this works better in the plural. Pretty straightforward and clear, but not very catchy. Husky (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wikifunc" or "funkywiki" for short. - Jmabel (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read "functions", first I thought to mathematical functions. After reading some information in this page I realized (a little bit) what this project is about. The term "function" has too many meanings... Because of these language ambiguity, I would oppose to any name where it is used "function". Instead I prefer names where correlation to Information Technology is more evident and not ambiguous, but other proposed names look to me less relevant than this... --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "functions" expresses the means of this project most obviously, I think. Also there is a proposed name "Wikifunction", but "function" should be plural. I thought that which is better, "Wikifunctions" or "Wikimedia Functions", and I found "Wikimedia Functions" confusing because it might be abbreviated as "WMF" that is same of the abbreviated name of "Wikimedia Foundation". --Atmark-chan <T/C> 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikimedia Functions" sounds like the things that cashed-up wikimedians attended in Ibiza or Oslo pre-pandemic. Same with functions.wikimedia.org. WikiFunctions or FunctionsWiki work fine. In English, WikiFunctions reads as "functions for wikis" and FunctionsWiki as "wiki of functions", but not sure how the different variants come across in other languages. Is functions.wiki available? ... though I dislike breaking away from having everything under the wikimedia.org umbrella. Maybe func.wikimedia.org inspired by Jmabel above. Pelagic (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicode

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

  • The name does convey the purpose of the project (a hub for function code and the like). Worth mentioning that the word "wikicode" is already used to refer to "wiki markup", but that issue may not be a dealbreaker. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree on both points. I do not see translation issues. In fact, this would be highly translatable (although "law" or "rules" comes up in a few). Hmm, didn't know this but there's a linguistic sense here as well, see [1] --Thadguidry (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicodex

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

Wikimedia-Codex

Voting

Discussion

Wikimodules

Voting

Discussion

  • Listing for completeness as Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/Module Wiki exists. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modules are linked to the existing "modules" feature of Mediawiki, written in Lua via Scribunto; it seems too limitative because: this project is independent of the language and does not directly describe the "implementation", but is only a repository of "interfaces" to describe these "functions"; the "functions" are designed to be pure, so they do not distinguish really *input* and *output * parameters but should allow forward and backward infererence in any direction (using multiple implementations in various languages, for each type of input/ouput, under the generic concept of "free variables" which may become "bound variables" independently to solve a problem; we are near from the concepts of IA and related languages working at this level, like Prolog, and as well the type of binding is not restricted to a single value but could be a set of values with probabilities; similar to the current researches on quantum physics, working with probabilities, intrication of states, undetermined/infinite number of internal states); it is also tied to the problem (and paradox) of compleness and algorithms complexity (think about Gödel's theorem on incompletude). For this project to be useful and productive, we'll need to go beynf a simple repository of code (implementations) and the imperfect vision of functions, which are a subclass of mathematical objects, and tied as well to the modelization of infinities and orders of magnitudes (or meta-orders). The purpose of this project is to help describe how we can *compose* the "functions" in a suitable representation as a graph to create larger objects, rather than describe how each component ("function") is implemented: the project could even (and should even be able to) describe functions that (still, for now) have NO implementation at all: very useful to manage projects with desired but still unmet goals. verdy_p (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Functions

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

Wikompute

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia Algorithms

Voting

Discussion

@1234qwer1234qwer4 and PiRSquared17: Hi greetings, changed the name as per your suggestion. Regards.--Path slopu (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimethods

Voting

Discussion

Wikifusion

Voting for the 1st round (from 29 September to 13 October, 2020)

This round is terminated.

Voting for the 2nd round (from 2 November to 16 November, 2020)

See Wiki of functions naming contest/Names.

Discussion

  • This is surprisingly good. It will probably be transliterated, but the English word "fusion" was already loaned to many languages so it won't be too hard, and to some languages it can probably be even translated, so Hebrew could be both ויקיפיוז׳ן or ויקיהיתוך, whatever the community will prefer. Russian can probably be Викифьюжн or maybe Викисплав (there could also be other options). --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can also see a link to the term "diffusion" (which is also a process with multiple input but many more outputs than a simple "function"). If you see "fusion", it exhibits first the many inputs. "Diffusion" is also used in French for "liste de diffusion" (mailing list), which also performs a transform from many inputs, can create a summary, change the format, then redistribute the composed input to many recipients with various formatting options (including some possible translations where possible).
      • This is also looking less "technical" than the term "abstract" used above to describe things, it will frighten less people than "function" (too much related to mathematics, including the term "lambda" related to calculus and formal computing languages, or to personal positions/roles at work or in organizations). But the initial examples are still very technical and concentrate only on a few basic datatypes and the "Asbtract" project seems to be larger: if we include features demonstrated above, we should have IA technologies. And translation is also just a final step for the presentation so just a small part of the goal (even if it's important, it also requires for itself a "fusion" process where various types of sources are merged to produce something else and increase the number of outputs). the term "Abstract" seems wrong as well due to the usual meaning which is just to produce a summary: it.e. taking lot of input but generating a simplified/reduced aggregate, hiding some details. I correlate the term "fusion" with "merge" (also like in the feature used since long in word processors to create many personalized letters from a template and a data source, or to create large documents or creating large indexes for collections of documents). For me this project also has strong links with the search engine (which could be extended in Wikimedia to provide more services than just plain text search without any intelligence).
      • Note also that this "fusion" feature could also be used as an interesting tool for monitoring changes in wikis, and help detect abuses: it is not limited to produce contents intended to be read by all users in all languages, it could compute many other things, including metrics and surveys (and it could also be used in A/B tests for new features for some communities with volunteers). It should also be usable with other no-text contents, notably Wikidata/Wikibase and Semanticwiki. verdy_p (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that I found this older use of the name, for a quite similar old project in Wikimedia : Wikifusion (which tried to unite Wikipedia and Wiktionnary, in a more modest goal, using linkage rather than content generation: this goal is fully covered by Wikidata today). this name exists and is published in Wikimedia since 2005.
      • It predates other use, notably "FusionWiki" (the label displayed on http://wiki.fusenet.eu/) which was the result of the merging of two separate wikis speaking of nuclear fusion (notably for energy production), under the scope of "fusenet" in Europe (notably around ITER). "Fusionwiki" was a subdomain in a Spanish wiki created in 2009, it kept the displayed name (without registering it because it could not; if you look at its logo, you may eventually read it top to bottom as "wiki! Fusion", but the text description says "Fusionwiki", not "Wikifusion") even if it was transferred to fusenet.
      • Wikimedia was in 2005 the first to use the Wikifusion term and even if this was for a project now archived, it has still been published all the time since 15 years! So Fusenet (official) or now Fusionwiki (unformal since 2009) cannot contest this continuous use by the Wikimedia community. When Fusionwiki was created in Spain in 2009, the Wikimedia project was still active and already published worldwide by Wikimedia. No one has contested it since 15 years, so Wikimedia could in fact contest the informal use of "Fusionwiki" by Fusenet (they did not ask for legal council before broowing the Spanish subdomain name), but a court would probably state that this is different from Wikifusion which is unambiguously owned and used by the Wikimedia community and that we can safely reactivate for a more interesting larger goal, whose vision as a necessary component of AbstractWikipedia was already drafted/visioned 15 years ago. verdy_p (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this, as well as "Wikilambda." It just seems cool, and you can easily imagine that this "fusion" process includes Abstract Wikipedia. (My strong preference is for a name that incorporates the Abstract Wikipedia-side of the project.) --Chris.Cooley (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside of the box, but might be fitting and appropriate for multilingual use.--Pharos (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBlocks

Voting

Discussion

Wikiscripts

Voting

Discussion

@PiRSquared17: Hi, removed the space. Thank you.--Path slopu (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirithm

Voting

Discussion

Wikicurry

Voting

Discussion

Wikicompute

Voting

Discussion

Wikirepo

Voting

Discussion

λ

Voting

Discussion

  • I hesitate a bit but do propose this seriously. It’s definitely very cryptic, and hard to type for most people and all that. But it’s also more accurate than any other proposal in my opinion, with the added bonus of being more succinct. The domain name would be λ.wiki. I think everyone who would participate in this project would get it immediately and see the connection to lambda calculus more than with “wikilambda”. But maybe I’m crazy, feel free to tell me I’m crazy. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milimetric (WMF) (talk)
    I don't think it would be a great official name, but I could see the λ.wiki and lambda.wiki domains in conjunction with the Wikilambda official name stylized as Wikiλambda and λ or lambda in internal use, such as a “currently in λ” news section. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - This name is hard to type, especially in mobile phone. In addition in many places (such as database name) only Latin characters can be used. --GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this is hard to type, but the written-out "lambda" could be used instead. However, I would prefer a name suggesting the project is a wiki. Concerning the domain: The wiki will be created at either "foo.org" or "foo.wikimedia.org". This is currently undecided and will be based on technical and legal decisions. I'm not sure Greek and Latin letters can be combined in a domain name either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They can be. Punycode is pretty flexible. --Yair rand (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • λ.wiki sounds like a sexy modern 2020 startup domain name, I guess. At least it gives me those vibes. That could be a good thing. Regarding technical issues, the internal database name could be lambdawiki, and there could be a redirect from lambda.wiki, so I'm not sure how big of a deal this is. All major browsers support punycode. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the domain name! If I understand it correctly, the .wiki TLD doesn't allow it, though :( I checked which other TLDs would work, and found a few: λ.community, λ.studio, λ.works, λ.codes, λ.services, λ.plus, λ.show, λ.gives, λ.construction, λ.media, and my favorite, λ.church (due to Church, not church. --denny (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Church would be a nice reference. By the way, would λ.wikimedia.org work? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the benefit of this over "Wikilambda" would be. A lot of people won't be able to type the lambda symbol and both the symbol and the word lambda would be difficult to search for. I could see the lambda symbol being used unofficially and in logos though. - Nikki (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw, I love the very thoughtful comments people left on my weird idea, thank you. I agree with all the practical disagreement, and I learned something about the .wiki TLD, thanks Denny. I do hope "lambda" somehow sticks around in the name and that we can use the symbol in the logo. Milimetric (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLogic

Voting

Discussion

Wikiroutines

Voting

Discussion

Wikifun

Voting

Discussion

  • from Wiki and function
not entirely opposed to this. I don't see any translation issues. It's simple for bonus points I guess? Attracts positive tone (who doesn't want to have fun?) --Thadguidry (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the abbreviation "fun" for "function" doesn't work in all languages. For example, the word for a mathematical function in Mandarin is hánshù (函數). So you could either just use the regular word for "function" in Chinese (something like Weiji Hanshu?), or try to transliterate "fun". PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimonad

Voting

Discussion

Wiki(x)

Voting

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki_of_functions_naming_contest&oldid=20551589"