Jump to content

Abstract Wikipedia/Abstract Wikipedia naming contest/First round voting

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Translate this page
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 provisionally known as Abstract Wikipedia.

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 15 November.

Metalingua Wiki

This name uses the modern interpretation of "meta" to refer to an abstraction, a higher-level concept — here meant to stand in for a "higher-level language". It builds upon the already existing term metalanguage, which refers to a language for describing languages — quite appropriate, I'd say.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support Clearly shows the project's language abstraction. Red Sneak (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Per Red Sneak. Lvova (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support per Red Sneak. This is my favorite proposal. --CristianCantoro (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose Not really linguistic, it uses functions.--Snævar (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support I think this hits the meaning very well. 99of9 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose Brand message is unclear, just like why "Wikilambda" loses in favour of Wikifunctions. Midleading (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak support since it almost sounds like all the content would be meta-linguistic, as in, articles about languages and grammatical concepts. But there'd be some truth to that, and I like the assessment of abstract content as a higher-level natural language, analogous to low- and high-level programming languages (trading depth to gain breadth). YoshiRulz (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support Strong support I think its the most clarifying name so far. --Miguu (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Meta and lingua combined in one word express the core of this idea Leobard (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak support though might revise strength later; re Snævar, the functions themselves should be based on principles found in grammars and other linguistics literature. Mahir256 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikibridge

Abstract wikipedia links together other wiki projects. Bridge is therefore an apt and intuitive name which suggests information travelling from sources to a destination.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GrimRob
  2. Support Support Una tantum (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Clear naming conflict with mw:Wikidata bridge.--Snævar (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Edroeh (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Nt (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Gryllida 11:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support I like it Empat Tilda (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Sounds neutral. Henrydat (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose YoshiRulz (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose per Snævar. * Pppery * it has begun 03:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Per discussion below. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Akaibu (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Multipedia

Emphasizing the multilingual aspect of the Abstract Wikipedia.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Csisc
  2. Support Support Nice name that definitively conveys the project's multilingual aspect. Red Sneak (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support as a possible shortening of 'Multilingual Wikipedia' Xeroctic (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support GiovanniPen (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Sabil Khoer Al Munawar (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support fgnievinski (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose It’s missing the fact that it’s a wiki. Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose The prefix or suffix "wiki" has become the trademark for all Wikimedia projects, removing it would also diminish its foundation powered by wiki platform. Hakimi97 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak oppose YoshiRulz (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Seems too vague. * Pppery * it has begun 03:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support 2le2im-bdc (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Weak oppose due to the "pedia" suffix. This project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles; instead, it should enable (and encourage) the community to produce multilingual content of many kinds (for Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikidata item descriptions, Meta page contents, Commons category descriptions, etc.). I would suggest the proposer and supporters to consider the more generic name Multiwiki instead. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I feel this name would characterise the new project as an encyclopedia, which isn't really the case. Other than that, my only thought is that it has the vibe of a renamed-for-legal-purposes Wikipedia used in a film. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose too vague Leobard (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiglossia

From "wiki" and "gloss", styled after "Wikipedia".
"Gloss" is an English word (with cognates in other European languages), defined in enWiktionary as A brief explanatory note or translation of a foreign, archaic, technical, difficult, complex, or uncommon expression. I feel this is apt for a project which produces (at the moment) short passages in natural languages but is working with these esoteric data structures under the hood.
The word "gloss" can also refer to a term's definition e.g. in a glossary, which brings to mind the proposed uses for the new project in Wiktionaries and Wikidata.
A web search for this name returned no results.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:YoshiRulz
  2. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Mbupipaupi (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Rotana🦋 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak oppose glossary is not so commonly used in daily language. It describes a source of definitions, which is technically not what the underlying system does (it stores the meta-data from which glossary definitions can be defined). Also, I don't like it as it reminds me weirdly of lip gloss. Leobard (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support JakobVoss (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose per Leobard.--Namoroka (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose A bit too much of a stretch to represent what the project is. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Weak support --Mormegil (cs) 09:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak support --Waldyrious (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support --Henrydat (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose; "-glossia" means language or tongue, so this sounds like a name for a wiki about languages. Enaldo(discussão) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikifusion

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Fnielsen
  2. This is an inviting name for community-building, and adequately expresses the intent, if a little vaguely. --99of9 (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak support I think I see the link between "fusion" and linguistic diversity, but mostly I just think this name is cool. And it invokes the idea of nuclear fusion as a moonshot goal, not unlike the new project. YoshiRulz (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak oppose a fusion connects parts. The project rather comes from an abstract representation that then spreads into language-specific wikis. More like fission. Leobard (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak support per 99of9 and YoshiRulz. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Kdoccnatl (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak support --Mormegil (cs) 09:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support --Henrydat (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I queried ChatGPT about the name and it came up with more than 20 suggestions. "Wikifusion" was the only that caught my attention and it explained 'merging data and language; also alludes to “functions”' which I agree with. "fusion" is of latin origin, so not too anglocentric. English Wiktionary (a dictionary that anyone can edit - so do not trust it) explains the senses as "outpouring", "melting" and "duty". No camelcase like "Wikipedia" and "Wikidata". And one word instead of two-words "Wikimedia Commons" or "Abstract Wikipedia". Could it be confused with a wiki about the physical phenomenon of fusion? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikicore

The term "Wikicore" is short, simple and memorable, and follows the naming pattern of most Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, etc.). An alternative form of this name could be Corewiki.

The "core" part is a reference both to it being the origin of content that gets rendered into multiple languages, and a nod to the core encyclopedic content which will probably be part of the priority content to be developed in the new project.

Furthermore, this name does not suggest a narrowing down of the content of the new project towards encyclopedic articles only, and therefore would make it more inviting to other multilingual content like (as speculative examples) Wikidata item descriptions, Meta page contents, Commons category descriptions, Wikivoyage guides, etc.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support -- Asked42 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support This is strong and modern IMO. --99of9 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Captures the essence of the project (and is also quite easy to remember); you've got my vote! Red Sneak (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support This was what I thought immediately when I saw the proposal, a tool that produces the core information about a subject. Evel Prior (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support shb (t • c) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Arian Talk 11:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Support as a second choice to 'Multilingual Wikipedia' Xeroctic (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Hehua (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Léna (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Agree with the logic that this is inline with naming of other Wiki projects. And the use of work 'Core' denotes that it has core/abstract info DhavalTalk 15:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support I like this name and the explanation relating to things beyond the language wikipedias. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support RailwayEnthusiast2025 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support Reciprocus (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support 𝓛𝓮𝓸𝗞 𝗮 𝗻 𝗱 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Not so understandable for non-english though :/ 𝓔𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓹𝔂 Fighter 💬 08:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support Challwa (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support Repakr (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  23. Support Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support -- Ferien (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support -- clear and catchy for muggles, makes significant intuitive sense, and isn't Wikipedia-specific. Ijon (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose due to the word "core" in terms of overall wiki infrastructure refers to "MediaWiki core". Hakimi97 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose see hidden discussion below. Name ist already in use, and this is not the core of the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Gryllida 11:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Captures the essance perfictly! JhowieNitnek (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Oppose YoshiRulz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose per Hakimi. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose per Prototyperperspective. * Pppery * it has begun 03:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Oppose Per Prototyperspective. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose too generic, could be the core wikipedia tech engine or similar. Leobard (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose ambiguous name. --Namoroka (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support THE IT (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • The core of the Wikiverse are the users, that generate the content. Some dumb algorithm, that creates sentences from data is in no way the core of the Wikiverse, not even remotely. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. It is not and will not be the core of Wikipedia. Corewiki would be even more misleading, confusing and false. However, I prefer Wikicore above all the proposals with both "Wikipedia" and a reference to languages in the title because that will be misleading to even more users. Wikicore does kind of make sense in that this could maybe be used to create a few imo likely usually rather useless sentences about data points across languages which would form a 'core' of an article to develop an actual article from. Again, it's nevertheless misleading as people wouldn't know this and may not understand it even if it was explained somewhere. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose This name is generic for sure, IMO to a fault. "Core" does invoke the idea of something that's shared between Wikimedia projects, but for code rather than content (an association probably due to my experience as a programmer). In any case, if this new project is the "core", what does that make Wikifunctions? YoshiRulz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Multilingual Wikipedia

It is intended to be multilingual, ie. usable by people with a lot of different mother tongues. Wikipedia is a strong trademark - everybody I ever met knows what it is. This is a multilingual version (that anyone can read in a mother tongue given a minimum of infrastructure and effort).--So9q (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:So9q
  2. Oppose Oppose because it has Wikipedia in the name and the wiki is going to span multiple projects.--So9q (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support — Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support -- Asked42 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support. This can work if we will be using mul.wikipedia.org as the URL of the Project. --Csisc (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support. A straightforward name. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 09:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support It's long and a lot of syllables but also a very direct explanation Harej (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Xeroctic (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support DinhHuy2010 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support Nil Nandy (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support CristianCantoro (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support Of the proposals that have a chance of going through, this is the best. Demetrius Talpa (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral Neutral Not a big fan of the lingual bit, but it is okay.--Snævar (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support It communicates the most information. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support Clear and plain denny (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Simple and clear. Hakimi97 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose will be misleading to many who expect it to be a full-grade/normal "Wikipedia" (+ "multilingual" is unclear & ambiguous). --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  20. Support Support Name justifies the aim. --रोहितबातचीत 19:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. --Gryllida 11:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). But of the "<something> Wikipedia" proposals, this is my favourite. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support sounds kinda bad but it's the last bad we have FaviFake (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose The project is not multilingual per se. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose --Namoroka (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support Layéniba (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Shahadusadik (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Emptyfear (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support Tiputini (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support As the least bad name. It is a Wikipedia/other project written in multiple languages. Goodlucksil (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • The only project in the Wikimediaverse that currently calls itself 'multilingual' is s:mul: (called sources in its Wikidata sitelink and mulws in some of the interwiki tables), which has some pages in multiple languages (mul) and some pages with nonlinguistic content (zxx) or content in an undetermined language (und) but mostly it has pages each in single, identified languages that are not currently served by their own Wikisource instance. Since it is most useful to keep source documents in their source language (although some translations are hosted on the Wikisources), presumably there wouldn't end up being a Abstract Wikisource which might get confused with the non-abstract one. Arlo Barnes (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the name, but I feel like "Multilingual" comes off as "one Wikipedia that contains every single language". Unless I'm understanding wrong, this would not be a "replacement" for the different Wikipedias for other languages ItzSwirlz (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This concerns me too. --99of9 (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Just as a historical curiosity, this name was one of the earliest proposals back in 2020 for the new project (before it was decided that Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia would be two separate wikis) --Waldyrious (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose As also mentioned above, this approach won't work beyond a few sentences-long rather useless paragraph about some data points like population number of a city and even that which excessive difficulty and effort. It will be misleading and confusing if people expect it to be a full-grade "Wikipedia" that is characterized only by being "multilingual". --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose due to the "Wikipedia" in the name. This project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles; instead, it should enable (and encourage) the community to produce multilingual content of many kinds (for Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikidata item descriptions, Meta page contents, Commons category descriptions, etc.). I would suggest the proposer and supporters to consider the more generic name "Multilingual Wiki" instead (though that would perhaps be too generic).
    That said, I do want to acknowledge that the points mentioned by Csisc and Arlo Barnes are indeed compelling. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose ce n'est pas une encyclopédie Wikipédia ce sont des bribes de texte générées automatiquement à partir de quelques données de base. --NemesisIII (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Proto-Wiki

Emphasizing the importance of the Abstract Wikipedia as a cross-lingual and cross-continental project.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Csisc
  2. Support Support I find this interesting. Probably without the hyphen or camel case is best (just "Protowiki). --99of9 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Rbnvrw (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Interesting reference to w:Proto language. Can be extended to Proto-Wikipedia, Proto-Wikivoyage, etc. 魔琴 (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Proto in the sense that a few sentences about data points would generate texts that are something like protoarticles – not useful Wikipedia articles but e.g. something to start these from. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Expresses the idea well. Lanhiaze (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support DaWalda (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support And I agree with 99of9: "Protowiki" works better. Waldyrious (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Gryllida 11:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose "Proto" means "before" or "original", as in "protowriting", "protoplanet", or "protohuman". The new project isn't a predecessor to anything. You could call it a "prototype", but hopefully it will mature. YoshiRulz (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support As per Prototypeperspective So9q (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose per YoshiRulz. Mahir256 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support –SJ talk  02:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support per Prototyperspective. A wiki of "proto-content" available to be taken and fleshed out by local wikipedias and other projects. Enaldo(discussão) 16:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose per YoshiRulz. Furthermore, when the name is translated or transliterated into certain languages, it becomes unwieldy. --Mdktb (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Abstract Wikipedia

Votes

  1. Support Support I'll put in a vote for this anyway, because it's correct, and not impossible to understand. Others shouldn't win by default, they need to be better than this! --99of9 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support Rather plain, but gets the idea through. Red Sneak (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Pere prlpz (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support per 99of9. Lvova (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Makes sense - and is really what this is ItzSwirlz (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support I got used to this name over time, but I am sure I could live with a different name. --CristianCantoro (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support GiovanniPen (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Getting something perfect is not necessarily a good thing.--Snævar (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Teukros (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support The best proposal at the time of writing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Amigao (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support While some users may be confused about the purpose of the project, changing its name is only going to add to the confusion. Omphalographer (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Although a little bit longer, but it is the best one to describe the project. Hakimi97 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose Come on... Tc14Hd (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support maybe with a slight tweak: WikiAbstract ? (a bit shorter, less focused on Wikipedia, less confusing with Wikipedia and following the usual pattern of Wikimedia project names). VIGNERON * discut. 08:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is big, but there is other wikis. Challwa (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Asked42 (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 13:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose Confusing to ppl: 1. Abstract in what way? 2. It's not like the Wikipedias. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  22. Support Support Hehua (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support Stang 03:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not only useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support --Wyslijp16 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). I was on board with "abstract", though I appreciate that it's confusing for everyone outside the programming bubble. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:46, 23
  27. Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 03:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Rotana🦋 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Goes back to the initial proposal John Samuel 15:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support This sounds good. What would be even better is to change it to Wikipedia Abstracts. Those overviews at the top of the page are abstracts. Juandev (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC) I have probably misunderstood what the project is about, and I am not sure to uderstand it even now. --Juandev (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose per Gryllida --Namoroka (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support --Wulfrich Talk 18:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support Term Abstract wikipedia exist many years. Unfortunatelly -pedia specifc JAn Dudík (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support Rtnf (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support If drops the pedia part. Let's call it AbstractWiki Sabas88 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support Tiputini (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support Strong support Actually better than any other name I came across. Change my mind. Song Ngư • 🗨️ • 🌐 20:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiblueprint

(Variant Wikipedia Blueprint.) This emphasises that the content on this new project is a pattern from which the actual text in natural languages is made. Nobody still uses the actual blueprint technology, so the word blueprint is now associated with precursor patterns in general.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2. Support Support Quite an interesting proposal, though the translatability might be limited (39 languages on Wikidata: [1]). Red Sneak (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support I like this - it is a blueprint/template that will be applied ItzSwirlz (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Challwa (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Makes most sense. However, it's not a Wikipedia and having that in the title will be misleading to many Internet users – I suggest BlueprintWiki or something like that instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Weak support for Wikiblueprint. It's an interesting analogy, but I don't think it rolls of the tongue very well. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak oppose the "Wikipedia Blueprint" variant. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Gryllida 11:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support The metaphor of a blueprint is understandable, and fitting for the proposal of building articles out of freestanding sentences. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support but need a little explanation. Henrydat (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Weak oppose a blueprint as metaphor is mainly used as a pattern that can be copied, applied. In itself, blueprints do not contain semantics. This is the opposite of the abstract Wikipedia idea, where the semantics is stored. Leobard (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose Blueprint is hardly translantable. Gives sense in en, but notin some other languages (Wikipedia diazotypie?) JAn Dudík (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Weak support --Mormegil (cs) 09:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support Arianit (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Interlingual Wikipedia

Referencing the concept of a machine sitting between languages w:Interlingual_machine_translation. Avoiding the name "Interlingua" since it was used for other specific attempts.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2. Support Support. Embodies the sprit for lexeme based translation. More specific alternative to Multilingual Wikipedia. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support It says what it is! Besides being more accurate than multi-, inter- suggests something beyond merely parallel texts.GrounderUK (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Hogü-456 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Straightforward like "Multilingual Wikipedia" though I am concerned we already have Interlingua Wikipedia and Interlingue Wikipedia Harej (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Xeroctic (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Asked42 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose Not a linguistic project.--Snævar (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Weak oppose I like the concept, but the name is way to similar to interlingua and Interlingua Wikipedia. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by CristianCantoro (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). YoshiRulz (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). --So9q (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose This approach won't work beyond a few sentences-long rather useless paragraph about some data points like population number of a city and even that which excessive difficulty and effort so I oppose Abstract Wikipedia claiming to the be the interlingual Wikipedia. If you're looking for making Wikipedia content available in search results to people worldwide searching in their own language, see Wikipedia Machine Translation Project. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, firstly due to the "Wikipedia" in the name. This project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles; instead, it should enable (and encourage) the community to produce multilingual content of many kinds (for Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikidata item descriptions, Meta page contents, Commons category descriptions, etc.).
    And secondly, due to the arguments mentioned by Harej and CristianCantoro above. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interlingua" and "Interlingual" are too confusible with each other. * Pppery * it has begun 03:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Global Wikipedia

The project serves a global audience.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2. Support Support Name that clearly expresses the project's aim, even if it's not the catchiest. Red Sneak (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Proposed by User:Midleading
  4. Support Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Another nice alternative to "Universal Wikipedia", but with a more layman term. Hakimi97 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support 𝓛𝓮𝓸𝗞 𝗮 𝗻 𝗱 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  8.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). YoshiRulz (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose. Wikipedia already serves a global audience. Omphalographer (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Per Prototyperspective (see discussion below) and Omphalographer. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose absurd und anmaßend, vollkommen untauglich. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose --Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support Weak support. GIves sense and is translantable. JAn Dudík (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose The global Wikipedia is English Wikipedia which also serves a global audience. (Global doesn't mean everybody around the globe can read and contribute to it.) As for content in people's native language this approach won't work beyond a few sentences-long rather useless paragraph about some data points like population number of a city and even that which excessive difficulty and effort. If you're looking for making Wikipedia content available in search results to people worldwide searching in their own language, see Wikipedia Machine Translation Project. I hope it won't take all too long until the community realizes the limitation of Abstract Wikipedia and the new potential for something like what's proposed there – in specific, I hope we're at least faster than potential external organizations (commercial and non-profit) which could readily implement this at any moment. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose due to the "Wikipedia" in the name. This project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles; instead, it should enable (and encourage) the community to produce multilingual content of many kinds (for Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikidata item descriptions, Meta page contents, Commons category descriptions, etc.).

    On that note, I thought I'd mention a couple closely related proposals from an earlier naming discussion: "Wikiglobal" and "Wikiglobe" by Amire80; "Wikiglobia" and "Globipedia" by ExpertEnterpriseProgrammer. Of these four, only the last one explicitly refers to encyclopedic content. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


WikiFrame

WikiFrame keeps the familiar Wiki name while saying this is the framework that stores language-neutral content and hooks up tools to turn that content into clear articles in many languages. The name is short, easy to say and translate, and avoids the cold, technical feel of the word Abstract. It simply says what the project does: separate facts from the words so the same content can be reused, updated, and shared across languages.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:~2025-29439-38
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak support I like the connotation of scaffolding (and there's also a programming jargon term "frame", though I'm not sure it's relevant to the new project or Wikifunctions), but I do feel this name suffers from being too generic. YoshiRulz (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak oppose --Mdktb (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  7.  Weak support --Mormegil (cs) 09:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikigenerator

Seems good name to indicate the purpose, as the proposed tool is a generator of content.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Gryllida
  2. Support Support makes sense; fits the project; somewhat clear and not very misleading albeit it could be misinterpreted as being about something to generating an entire wiki Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak support Clearly states its function, but am unsure if it's memorable enough for a project name. Red Sneak (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak support I also think this name implies a generator of wikis, but that's right in a way, and it has the broadly technical/mechanical vibe that I think the new project deserves. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support per above. Pretty much the only immediately understandable one IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Creative, and fits the bill. --99of9 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support as a possible non-Wikipedia based name Xeroctic (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 23:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Contains Wiki, univesal, translantable JAn Dudík (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support as per Prototypeperspective So9q (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Although I was initially unsure about this name (the reason is included in the discussion), I now think that it might have the potential to align with the objective of the new wiki project. Hakimi97 (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Turning to either  Weak support or Neutral Neutral, due to the concern that I raised in discussion section, in addition to that, I also agree with OutsideNormality regarding the name "generator" could easily confused with "generative AI". Hakimi97 (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support Aca (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Neutral per the same reason Hakimi97 gave in the discussion. Mahir256 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Weak support Clear, simple, gets the "gist" of the proposal (it is a wiki that generates natural-language text), but may be confused with generative AI, which we do NOT want. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favours the curious 10:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support --Henrydat (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiabstracts

Name derived from Abstract Wikipedia. To follow the same structure in naming it Starts with Wiki. Afterwards follows the Plural Form of Abstract. It Shows one purpose of the Project. Generating Data based short Texts similar to Abstracts.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hogü-456
  2. Support Support Best conveys what this is about. Naḥum (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support I like the word "abstract", but "Abstract Wikipedia" sounds too banal, so I prefer this one. Tc14Hd (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support but why the plural? The singular Wikiabstract seems better, maybe Wikiabstracted? VIGNERON * discut. 08:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I also do prefer "Wikiabstract" more than "Wikiabstracts". Hakimi97 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Good that it does not include Wikipedia in the title and so will not be so misleading. The title makes some sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Weak support. I like that this uses "wiki" rather than "Wikipedia", keeping things more generic and not limiting the new project to encyclopedic articles. Also, using the plural "abstracts" may help with the confusion about what "abstract" means, by providing a more "concrete" (heh) image of simplified content snippets that can stand in for fully developed, custom-written content — but then again, I am familiar with the concept of abstracts from academic publications. I'm not sure it would be recognizable to a large portion of the population... --Waldyrious (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Gryllida 11:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support per above. "Abstract" has always been a good approximator of what the project is, and I like the pun on "Abstract" as in "article abstract", which is indeed what the minimally-written articles would amount to. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 03:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support Rotana🦋 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support JakobVoss (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support Namoroka (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose since I wouldn't consider the new project to be producing "abstracts" in the academia sense, and we've already established that the term is confusing. YoshiRulz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support Kdoccnatl (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support Aca (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose per the first half of YoshiRulz's rationale. Mahir256 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support Teseo (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support --Rosiestep (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support Maor X (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose as per Mahir above --So9q (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support Henrydat (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikimedia Babel

Refers to myth of Babel and is also a generic term implying translation technology (like the babel fish).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Ainali
  2. Support Support Harej (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support fgnievinski (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Waldyrious (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Gryllida 11:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose We already use the word "Babel" to refer to too many other things. * Pppery * it has begun 03:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose per Pppery--Namoroka (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Weak oppose It would surely be confused for Extension:Babel. YoshiRulz (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support This is evocative, poetic, and decently representative of how the project will work CMassaro (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose per Pppery. Mahir256 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikisummary

The name "Abstract Wikipedia" itself conveys a nice concept for the project, which means "an encyclopedic content that is conveyed in a more concised manner". However, the word "Abstract Wikipedia" itself is a bit longer compared to the names of other Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, and so on. Another name "Wikiabstracts" has also been proposed but I would like the word "abstracts" be replaced with something more familiar to the general public. Therefore, instead of using the word "abstracts" which is a little bit too academic in terms of usage, I would like to propose the usage of "summary", combined with the word "wiki", finally it would become "Wikisummary".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support No reason to oppose. Henrydat (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support NGOgo (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose Reason to oppose is that these are not summaries & not more so than Wikipedia articles. --Prototyperspective (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Weak oppose Though the outputs of current experiments may be short, the purpose of the new project isn't really to produce summaries. "Wikisummary" to me sounds like something that summarises a Wikipedia article, or is some other teaching/pedagogical tool, like a book summary. (Also, it was a different sense of "abstract" that was intended. It's even in the notes for this contest.) YoshiRulz (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimatrix

"Matrix" meaning a place where things (articles) are created, grow and take form.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:EnaldoSS
  2. Support Support Interesting! I can also see "matrix" as referring to the intersection between the various language-specific representations of content. Waldyrious (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Ameisenigel (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Nice naming ! Léna (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose due to overlap with, among other things, the current auto-generated list of wikis in different languages, a chat system, and a film. Mahir256 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak oppose per Mahir256. In programming jargon, a "matrix" can also be a "feature matrix" or similar table which—if you'll allow my extreme overanalysis—has n×m discrete parts, like writing n articles in m languages... not ideal. YoshiRulz (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose Does not fit & undescriptive. --Prototyperspective (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose as per Mahir above--So9q (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Henrydat (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • But is the mere existence of things called "matrix" really enough to prevent the wiki from being named "Wikimatrix"? Wouldn't the same logic apply to the name of pretty much any of the existing Wikimedia projects? Enaldo(discussão) 16:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


WikiNexus

The name WikiNexus combines "Wiki", representing the collaborative and open nature of the wikimedia movement, and "Nexus", meaning a central hub or connection point. Together, the name evokes the idea of a universal connection hub for knowledge - where abstract knowledge structures and natural languages meet.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:기나ㅏㄴ: Regards, --𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 02:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support nice idea ! Léna (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support This name didn't immediately click with me (perhaps with the CamelCase capitalization it feels a little too flashy?), but I found I've warmed up to the name. I like how it invites thinking of the project as a convergence point, both for content that then spreads to multiple language-specific projects, and for the people, which are bought together to work towards a shared resource that benefits everyone, even those outside one's community — a nice call back to the core of the wiki spirit! --Waldyrious (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Aspere (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak support where the weakness is only due to the comparison noted by Arlo Barnes, which I can't say I knew prior to this contest. Mahir256 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Without camel case. NGOgo (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Weak support since I don't see how it relates to the natural language or computational aspects of the new project, but it at least invokes the idea of being a source for the sister projects. YoshiRulz (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Enaldo(discussão) 00:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support — Sadko (words are wind) 16:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikicompose

The naming of "Wikicompose" indicates that with the help of Wikifunctions and Wikidata, the new wiki will allow anyone to easily compose and then access any wiki contents in any formats (e.g. encyclopedic articles, quotes, dictionary entries, instructional materials, news, journal papers etc.) without being restricted by the language barriers.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2. Support Support Nice Léna (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support fitting & not misleading Prototyperspective (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support per Prototyperspective. Mahir256 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Mormegil (cs) 09:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is an incomplete list of proposals. The full list of proposals is here.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Abstract_Wikipedia_naming_contest/First_round_voting/en&oldid=29626495"