Jump to content

Abstraktná Wikipédia/Súťaž na pomenovanie Abstraktnej Wikipédii/Ďalšie návrhy

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Abstract Wikipedia/Abstract Wikipedia naming contest/More proposals and the translation is 80% complete.
Other languages:
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 19 November.

Wikiabstract

Singular form 'abstract' of abstracts. I write here so everyone have more options.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Henrydat

Discussion


Wikigenesis

From the words "Wiki" + "genesis", meaning something related to the creation/begining, and also related from the Book of Genesis from where comes the mythe of Tower of Babel.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Christian Ferrer
  2. Support Support Ameisenigel (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak support. The religious undertones might be a bit too much. --Mormegil (cs) 09:28, 29 October 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


Omniwiki

A variant of the Uniwiki proposal, with pretty much the same rationale.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support not bad GiovanniPen (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support per GiovanniPen. Mahir256 (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikisynthesis

According to English Wiktionary, generally the word "synthesis" has the meaning of "the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things." At the same time, in terms of grammar, "synthesis" also means "the uniting of ideas into sentence(s)." Since we are going to utilize functions from Wikifunctions and structured information stored in Wikidata to "generate" natural language sentences, that act itself is a form of "synthesis".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2. Oppose Oppose The included definition shows how this project is not about this at all. It doesn't format things into simpler things at all. It just generates natural language sentences, mostly from data in Wikidata. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Core Wikipedia

A variant on the Wikicore proposal, but explicitly using the Wikipedia brand in order to simplify branding and trademark processes.

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.

It is argued that "Wikipedia" in the title narrows it down to only encyclopedic articles, but I don't think that is necessary the case. It just plays to the strength of our strongest brand, and we can still have the community decide to support other projects such as Wiktionary as well.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Denny
  2. Oppose Oppose Shouldn't be confused to be like the Wikipedias by people. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment Comment I appreciate you making your stance explicit regarding whether using "Wikipedia" in the name is a good idea for this project. I won't log an opposition vote since I now understand that this is meant as a brainstorming stage, but I'd like to share some thoughts:

    I am afraid I don't share your confidence that the name won't discourage the production of non-encyclopedic articles, but that's a minor problem. Most importantly, I am concerned that if we use "Wikipedia" in the name on the hopes of leveraging its brand, whilst not explicitly declaring the project to be meant for encyclopedic content, it might backfire the same way a similar effort to consolidate the movement branding under the Wikipedia name generated community backlash (not to mention that using a wiki with "Wikipedia" or "pedia" in the name for non-encyclopedic content would generate confusion and produce the name another instance of poor/ambiguous naming in our movement).

    Now, we could avoid these issues if we do make a decision to make the new project explicitly a Wikipedia; of course, that would mean we might have to set up separate wikis for non-encyclopedic language-independent content, and build new communities from scratch, with a more niche focus, increasing the risk of failure to take off. But IMHO that would be preferable to the risk of branding confusion or controversy.

    All that said, I understand that a discussion section of a single proposal in the brainstorming stage of the naming contest is not the most appropriate place to have this conversation; but I do think the conversation needs to be had, probably before the community makes a final decision on the name (even if just to reduce uncertainty in participants about which options are appropriate in eliciting the right mental model, in addition to their phonetic/simplicity/i18n/etc. strengths as a project name). I hope you can agree! --Waldyrious (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think that is indeed a good and important discussion to have. Looking at the current top proposals, it does look like we are going to have to make that call as a community, and we should expose those arguments clearly and visibly. Between November 3 and 17 we will be setting up the pages for the second round of voting, and I will make a note to explicate that point. We will also make a public call to help with making those points visible, explicit, and helpful for the voters in the final round of voting. It is a difficult decision, as I can see pros and cons for both sides. --denny (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Galactica

After Isaac Asimov's Encyclopaedia Galactica. Strays away from the wiki- or -paedia naming conventions but invokes the multilingual and automated aspects of the project.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GoEThe
  2. Oppose Oppose Undescriptive, not fitting. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Short Wiki

It is a wiki for small/short articles compared to the long article Wikipedia. The term short is well known term for small content forms on other platforms.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GPSLeo
  2. Support Support somewhat fitting, relatively clear and not misleading; better than most alternatives Prototyperspective (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikipedia Polyglottos

Derived from Ancient Greek term πολύγλωττος for "speaking many languages, multilingual".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Ameisenigel
  2. Support Support Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  5. Support Support Nice (Greek-based) name that captures the intended multilingualism. Red Sneak (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). Some other name based on "polyglot" could work. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose A bit too erudite obscure of a meaning. Nearly every WM project name can be easily understood. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support NemesisIII (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Polyglotos is an intermédiaire concept to connect with multiple language. It is less overused thanks Babel (sée Wikibabel) so not every can know the idea. Sicarov (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  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 "Wiki Polyglottos" instead (though I wouldn't necessarily vote for that either). Or alternatively, the existing proposals Polywiki and Wikiglot. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [support after voting has ended] Polyglotos is an intermédiaire concept to connect with multiple language. It is less overused thanks Babel (sée Wikibabel) so not every can know the idea. Sicarov (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Universal Wikipedia

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2. Support Support Arnd (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Sound nice to me as the next generation cross-language but unified Wikipedia. Hakimi97 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  5.  Strong oppose Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (see hidden discussion)[reply]
  6.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (see discussion)
  7. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia). YoshiRulz (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Holowiki

Combination of the holo- prefix ("all", "whole") with "wiki". Inspired by earlier "Holopedia" proposal by User:FocalPoint, but adapted to not be specific to encyclopedic content.

Support

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2.  Weak support Nice that you used Greek, however may cause confusion with some Anglophones (i.e. wouldn't be their first guess for the spelling it). Red Sneak (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


WikiHub

Hub is a central place that provides resources to related services. I think WikiHub can be a good name for a wiki that contains content that will be available in many languages. And it's also independent to the type of content that (wikipedia or wikivoyage).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Reciprocus
  2. Oppose Oppose Not that original really and not that descriptive either. Airline hubs come to mind.--Snævar (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak oppose Might be confused with hub.toolforge.org, and the name is a bit generic, not relating to the natural language aspect of the new project at all. YoshiRulz (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikimorph

Originally proposed by User:Path slopu.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


Wikipedia X

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GZWDer
  2.  Weak oppose Waldyrious (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion


Generated Wikipedia

From a reader's perspective, the experience will be not too different from Wikipedia, so I think keeping Wikipedia in the name is helpful. From an editor's perspective, it seems like the primary difference would be that each page is "generated" from language-neutral markup (yes, technically Wikipedia pages are also generated from wikitext, but wikitext is largely human-readable while I suspect the Abstract Wikipedia markup won't be).

If the project is also used to generate versions of e.g. Wikibooks and Wiktionary, then names like "Generated Wikibooks" and "Generated Wiktionary" may be used as well.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Habst
  2.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  •  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 to consider the more generic "Generated Wiki" instead (though I wouldn't necessarily vote for that either). --Waldyrious (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. Moreover, it's not using generative AI so many people will also misinterpret that part. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [support after voting has ended] an easy concept to understand de creation of language. I like itSicarov (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikimedia Stencil

Did you know that the software powering the first wiki w:WikiWikiWeb, which at the time was also named WikiWikiWeb and now is named WikiBase (not to be confused with the Wikimedia software called Wikibase which powers Wikidata and other structures data repositories), was intended to be used to collect together 'patterns' (ways to do a particular thing well, in that case software development) in a sort of reference work called the Portland Pattern Repository? Well, if you didn't, it's not really relevant except that Wikipedia wouldn't start with wiki- in a timeline that didn't include the PPR, and neither would any other WMF project, so it's historically influential.

A w:stencil is a machine to make more of a pattern, and it occurs to me that at the heart of the idea once known as Abstract Wikipedia is the desire to take something that is working (a model encyclopedia article) and not have to completely reinvent it in order to share it with any given additional language community.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Arlo Barnes
  2. Support Support I find this interesting, and it inspired a similar suggestion from me "... Blueprint". --99of9 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Connected to art, especially drawings, more so than functions in Wikipedias.--Snævar (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Datapedia

Abstract Wikipedia will not be a real wiki but it will build content through Data extract from Wikidata. It's seems import to keep "pedia" to indicate a use as Wikipedia, but also to informe that the content come from data.

Votes

  1. Support Support Accurate, somewhat clear, not misleading. Similar to my proposed "Natural language Wikidata". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Weakens both the brands of Wikipedia and Wikidata. If established it would be difficult to distinguish between all three names. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 2le2im-bdc (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Weak oppose -Mdktb (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion


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


Metalogos Wiki

A variant of the Metalingua Wiki proposal, using "logos" instead of "lingua", so as to refer to an abstracted representation of actual content/discourse, rather than of language (which is the vehicle upon which that content will be expressed).

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. Oppose Oppose --Snævar (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion


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


WikiBabel

Originally proposed by Andy Mabbett, and separately by Hay.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support leaning Neutral Neutral, nice idea but the "babel" name has been a bit used and overused on the internet... VIGNERON * discut. 08:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Babel is an easy concept to connect with multiple language. More it's overused so every one know the idea. Sicarov (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


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]


Wiki Essence

I suggested this because we're capturing the essence of the meaning, and not clouding with any "natural language". I don't feel particularly happy with it, but I wanted to contribute to the discussion. I think this aspect needs to be in focus when naming (even if not the name exactly).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Egezort
  2. Tend to Support Support at least making the 'essence' aspect clear. Mahir256 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiprose

According to English Wikipedia, a prose is a "language that follows the natural flow or rhythm of speech, ordinary grammatical structures, or, in writing, typical conventions and formatting." So, it fits the aim of the project: to allow users to merge the data from Wikidata using functions from Wikifunctions to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages into articles, as stated on Abstract Wikipedia/Abstract Wikipedia naming contest.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2.  Weak support as slightly more inclusive than 'Wikisentence' or 'Wikiclause'; anything more general might overlap with other existing names for things. Mahir256 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiparse

From parse. Almost all other projects begin with wik-.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:~2025-28418-41
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Basewiki

A variant of the Wikicore proposal, with pretty much the same rationale.

This version has the benefit (or downside, depending on your perspective 😁) of providing a fun parallel to the whole Wikimedia vs. MediaWiki naming confusion (this time, of course, referring to Wikibase).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


Wikiclause

Another alternative to "Wikisentence" since we might not want to limit the wiki to form only complete sentences but also form "clauses", which according to English Wiktionary: "A group of words that contains a subject and a verb; it may be part of a sentence or may constitute the whole sentence, depending on the syntax in each instance."

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2.  Weak support as slightly more inclusive than 'Wikisentence'; any more general might overlap with other existing names for things. Mahir256 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Monowiki

Proposed by fgnievinski as an alternative to the #Uniwiki proposal.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


Merewiki

"Merewiki" is a name combining the established "Wiki" brand with "Mere" to signify "abstract". It avoids using "Wikipedia" to prevent the potential confusion that the project is some version of Wikipedia. I believe it is a fitting designation for any wiki utilizing this content generation architecture.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mdktb
  2. Neutral Neutral I could see this being a name for any new MediaWiki extension (or even new wiki software) that must be built for this project, but less so for this project itself. Mahir256 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Representational Wikipedia

Trying to get at the Abstract vs Concrete meaning using a clearer word. Unfortunately it's long.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment Comment I thought of a related proposal: conwiki, for "constructed wiki", after constructed language. fgnievinski (talk) 18:08, 20 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.). Besides, I'm afraid "representational" isn't that much clearer than "abstract". --Waldyrious (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


interWikipedia

Inspired by “Interlingual Wikipedia” but generalising the familiar Latin prefix to represent something deeper than a mere interlingua: the interaction between Wikidata, Wikifunctions and the monolingual Wikipedia editions, as well as the international community needed to sustain the new content. The possible confusion with interwiki links is just an added bonus!

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GrounderUK
  2. Support Support Harej (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support fgnievinski (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose simply because it reminds me of "interwiki" linking concept used across various Wikimedia projects --Hakimi97

Discussion

  • Oppose 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.). Unfortunately, the more generic version "Interwiki" would create confusion with interwiki links. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading and inadequate to give it a Wikipedia name, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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


Autowikipedia

Highlighting the fact that content is generated automatically.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Escargot bleu
  2.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  •  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 to consider the more generic name "Autowiki" instead (though I'd probably oppose that on different grounds — due to giving the impression of a lifeless, automated project rather than an active community, as well as likely evoking the image of a wiki about cars). --Waldyrious (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikilingua

I propose the name Wikilingua. Wiki + Lingua. Lingua in Latin means "language" or "tongue". I think this name clearly and universally communicates the project's core mission: the generation of natural language from structured data. It also has a multilingual and language centric vibe or hint.


Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Asked42
  2. Neutral Neutral but it appears this is already used for various other things. Mahir256 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikipedia Babel

Same idea as the "Wikimedia Babel" proposal, but uses the name Wikipedia since it produces Wikipedia-style content and people are familiar with the name.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Harej 21:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Krinkle (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support Only obvious option. Nardog (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose Not a normal Wikipedia and therefore misleading. Also unclear and Babels is not fitting what this is about. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose as the proposed utility is not useful at Wikipedia, also it is useful at sister wikis. Gryllida 11:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose per above (it's not a Wikipedia, and it would sound like you're referring to Extension:Babel). YoshiRulz (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose Too much religious and fictional baggage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 27 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]


Natural language Wikidata

I think this best conveys what the project is about and is much clearer, easy to understand and accurate.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Prototyperspective
  2.  Weak oppose. --Waldyrious (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Weak oppose. The entries in this new wiki are not supposed to be complete representations of all the information of a given data item (from Wikidata or otherwise), simply spelled out in natural language as if the latter is merely a frontend for the former; instead, they are supposed to be a manual selection of relevant content, weaved into sentences and paragraphs that should read as closely as possible to what one might write if doing so directly in the target language. Therefore, I'm afraid this proposal might give people the wrong impression about what the project is about and how they might contribute to it. --Waldyrious (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be specific: what are you referring to with "or otherwise"? Where else does it get the data from and is that not just a minor addition to data in Wikidata which is the main source of data? I think most other proposals give people the wrong impression what the project is about while this does communicates it quite clearly even if not 100% of data is from or stored in Wikidata. Please support your explanation with some link, thanks. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Section 10.5 in the technical report introducing this project lists the kind of knowledge that Wikidata cannot capture, but Abstract Wikipedia can. Text in abstract articles may be generated using statements from Wikidata, but there is no requirement to do so. It can go well beyond that. The limitation to just Wikidata is a misunderstanding. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation and link. I was kind of aware the AW in theory can also be used to write things that aren't in Wikidata. However, 1. a large fraction of that is just data that will be written/stored into Wikidata when not present there at first 2. it may be possible in theory but in practice I can't see how that will be extensively used; maybe an article here or there and a few sentences here and there but most data would be from Wikidata; this is partly due to the difficulty of specifiying sentences in the AW way. I mean just look at the examples for a simple sentence about city statistics data. 3. It doesn't change that this would be a fitting name since "Natural language Wikidata" doesn't imply that 100% of its data is from Wikidata. It also suffices that the majority will be – not even that is required: it suffices that it's like Wikidata but with natural language. The project is described as an extension of Wikidata etc; it's closer to it than to Wikipedia by which people will get a wrong impression about what the project is about. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 'natural language' is sometimes used specifically to mean 'not a constructed language'. Arlo Barnes (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. A natural language or ordinary language is a language that occurs organically in a human community by a process of use, repetition, and change and in forms such as written, spoken and signed 2. The natural language here refers to the output / results, not the complicated syntax used to write/code these Abstract Wikipedia pages. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiglot

Portmanteau of "wiki" and "polyglot". Originally proposed by Hay.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Metalingua Wikipedia

Alternatively, Metalingual Wikipedia. Variant of "Metalingua Wiki." If we really want to make distictions between "written in multiple languages" and "outputs in multiple languages," we should use "multilingual" (e.g. Wikisource) vs "metalingua(l)."

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:魔琴
  2. Oppose Oppose Hard to grasp the brand message (mix of Multilingual, Meta-wiki, Wikipedia), worse than Abstract Wikipedia. Midleading (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  •  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 Metalingua Wiki instead. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


WikiExpress

I believe WikiExpress could be a good name for this project. Why ? Because it's identified as a Wiki and it is the expression of datas in a human language (sentences instead of lexemes, a kind of Codec process, encoding for databes and decoding in natural language for humans).

It also is "express", fast, in the sense that it brings quickly in a nutshell the vital informations.

So, for the qualitative expression of raw datas as well as the fast info it provides, WikiExpress describes clearly what people may get when they visit the site. Fast and personified wiki information. WikiExpress.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waltercolor
  2. Tend to Support Support at least making the 'expression' aspect clear (cf. 'Wiki Essence'). Mahir256 (talk) 21:32, 28 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


WikiFluentia

Latin variant of Wikiflow. Based on speaking fluently. Congruent with Wikipedia.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Difool

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]


XWiki

An easy-to-remember acronym associated with the wiki ecosystem. The "X" stands for abstraction and multilingualism, which aligns with the abstract, multilingual goal of Wikipedia.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mr. Ibrahem
  2. Support Support --حبيشانtalk 06:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose (see discussion at Abstract Wikipedia/Abstract Wikipedia naming contest/Wikipedia X) Mahir256 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Mini Wiki

It is a wiki for miniature/minimal/small/short articles compared to the long article Wikipedia: The Mini Wiki.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GPSLeo
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Panwiki

Combination of the pan- prefix (meaning "all") with "wiki".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


WikipediaAbstract

This is an alternative to Wikiabstracts, emphasizing it is Wikipedia but not derived from Wikipedia.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Henrydat
  2. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of mostly Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata (even if not all its short sentences use its data) than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiideas

Per Cambridge Dictionary, an idea is an understanding, thought, or picture in your mind. In my opinion, it's exactly what we refer to by abstract content. And idea is a cognitive picture, which doesn't require words or a concrete language – rather, languages are here to express ideas. The word idea itself is quite common across languages and simple, which makes it a good name for a multilingual global site.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Msz2001
  2. Oppose Oppose Doesn't fit the project at all. It's misleading and gives people a wrong impression of what this is about. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


AI-Wikipedia

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Motoranger
  2. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • AI-generated sentences is the main idea of proposal type of Wiki, not multilinguality (whole Wiki is multilingual). We never can do only one Wiki with AI-translator, cultures are unique. The common name for all of AI cannot be without "AI" in the name. -- Motoranger (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Motoranger! Thank you for proposal. Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding: the proposal very explicitly rejects the idea of AI generating sentences, or using AI to translate sentences from one language to another. The content is created and maintained by human volunteers, and turned into natural language text through a library of functions that is also maintained and controlled by human volunteers. I hope that clarifies the misunderstanding. I am happy to answer any further questions. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. Moreover, it's not really AI either. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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


Wikipedia Machine

This name represents the evolution of Wikipedia from human-written texts to text that is generated by machine based on functions developed by humans.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Harej 03:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose misleading, unclear and a name that shouldn't be taken by this project. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


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


Wikistract

Wikistract is the combination of two words Wikipedia and Abstract. As we are choosing the alternative name for Abstract Wikipedia, so Wikistract would be the better option to opt. Because it's very closer Abstract Wikipedia and easy to remember, attractive and eye-catching word. I'll recommend you all to choose Wikistract as the name for Abstract Wikipedia.

Thanks, ᱯᱨᱚᱯᱷᱮᱥᱥᱚᱨ 💬 16:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:ᱯᱨᱚᱯᱷᱮᱥᱥᱚᱨ
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Per discussion below. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Polypedia

Poly stands for many, implying that there will be more than one language version available, while pedia makes clear that it will be an encyclopaedia, not just any sort of wiki. Regards, Aschmidt (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Aschmidt

Discussion


Wikipedia Pulse

Taking inspiration from the Wikinews Pulse proposal, ultimately to standardize the addition of the word “Pulse” after any Wikimedia project name. This naming convention is intended to convey the idea of a multilingual, data-enabled service for each respective Wikimedia project, for example: Wikipedia Pulse, Wiktionary Pulse, Wikibooks Pulse, Wikinews Pulse, Wikispecies Pulse, and so on (if there is a need for them in the future).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2.  Weak oppose due to the "Wikipedia" in the name. This project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles. Besides, the "Pulse" term feels kind of meaningless unless one already knows what it means. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikifabric

That the content is generated or fabricated (in a positive sense). Though it makes more sense in German, e.g. with Denkfabrik. So also consider -factory, -forge, -mill, -works, -smith, -craft and similar, playing with the same analogy. (Looking at it now, all common words are already taken, what did I expect..)

What else can we do.. -foliage? Or to make it more obscure, -foilage? Following from an analogy of trees, with knowledge from the root is expressed in the leaves of languages?

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Smlckz
  2. Support Support Challwa (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support I work with a "fabric" project already and think that term might be apt here too. Mahir256 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiflex

A name for a new type of wiki: not one that passively serves whatever static content was put there, but a dynamic system that flexes to adapt to the user, e.g. by serving content in their language, regardless of how it was inputted in the first place. The system is also flexible in its ability to support more than just Wikipedia-style encyclopedia articles.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Harej 22:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak support I like the way it sounds — it's short and pleasant without being too generic. I'm just unsure "flex" is sufficient to intuitively evoke the intended meaning, hence the weak support :) --Waldyrious (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Hohonupedia

This is not my suggestion, but @135.180.44.152:'s from the Wikifunctions naming competition (take a peek for more context). According to them, "hohonu" means "deep" in Hawaiian, in contrast to "wiki" (literally "quick") in "Wikipedia". They also propose "Deep Wikipedia" as an alternative.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Red Sneak
  2. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC) (see description)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose Undescriptive/unclear naming. Also I don't see how it would fit the project. Also oppose "Deep Wikipedia" (even more so than this proposal since it gives people who likely already know Wikipedia a wrong impression what the project is). --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikisentence

Since the project will be a wiki to act as a platform for the users to form natural language "sentences" that can be transformed naturally to different languages using structured data from Wikidata and functions from Wikifunctions, it will be natural and direct to the point if we call the new wiki as "Wikisentence".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Hakimi97
  2. Neutral Neutral although it is clear from this name what's being produced, the output of the underlying system won't be restricted to sentences (cf. 'Wikiclause'). Mahir256 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Henrydat (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


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]


WikiSubstance

This new project could be seen as the substance of the Wikipedia, in the original meaning and in the philosophical sense, i.e. the matter that can be formed into particular instances, formed through the particular languages.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mmh

Discussion


HyperWiki

Originally proposed by User:Niklitov.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


WikiScribe

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:GrimRob
  2. Oppose Oppose Per discussion below. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Also likely to cause confusion with Wikisource --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 13:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or confused with Scribe. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 09:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps also easily confused with Scribd? Hakimi97 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Atom Wikipedia

Wikiatom

Synonymous with the idea for journalism: News Atom.

Support

  1. Proposed by User:GreenC
  2. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose on Atom Wikipedia It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. Neutral Neutral on AtomWiki or WikiAtom (but only because that is not as bad as most alternatives; it's not descriptive and unclear). --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Artificial Wikipedia

Nothing natural about it.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mishuletz
  2. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


WikiGeneration

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Zwiadowca21
  2. Oppose Oppose GeneratedWiki or WikiGenerator makes much more sense. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 23 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]


Wikibe

Simple name, Wiki with BE which is arguably the most important verb in the English language.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mahmoudalrawi

Discussion


Translingual Wikipedia

This was proposed (by Deryck Chan) in the previous naming discussion, and still seems appropriate.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:99of9
  2.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • It might be relevant to review the conversation surrounding the original proposal. --Waldyrious (talk) 07:53, 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 to consider "Translingual Wiki" instead. --Waldyrious (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:16, 21 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


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]


Polywiki

Poly for many; wiki for wiki.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Glrx
  2. Neutral Neutral I'd support this if it weren't likely to be confused with a wiki about polygons, polyamory, or even polyphasic sleep. Mahir256 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiversal

Wikiversal captures the central promise of the project: a universal wiki of meaning, capable of expressing knowledge in every human language. The name blends the familiar Wiki brand with universal, evoking inclusiveness, interoperability, and linguistic reach. The word "universal" immediately signals scope, inclusivity, and unity — values already embedded in Wikimedia’s identity. The prefix "Wiki-" preserves continuity with established sister projects while asserting this project’s collaborative nature. Sounds positive, global, and human-oriented.

It is simple and easy for anyone to say, remember, and type. And also scalable: Works equally well as a domain (wikiversal.org) or subdomain (wikiversal.wikipedia.org).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Geraki
  2. Support Support Challwa (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Hakimi97 (talk) 05:59, 28 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


Factpedia

Abstract Wikipedia will represent facts independently of language. This prevents the added information to be biased towards a given opinion.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Csisc
  2. Support Support far less misleading than other proposed names and quite clear. It conveys what the project is about or can do, turning wikidata facts into natural language. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  • Facts? It's just some variation of the usual hallucinogenic artificial dumbness, that's en vogue today, to make real wikimedians redundant. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment In order to avoid confusion, I think it is imperative to clarify that Abstract Wikipedia's approach is quite different from that of generative AI or large language models alluded to in this comment. Wikifunctions, as a mechanism for producing text, operates in a fundamentally different way. The only real similarity is that they both ultimately produce text, though through very different processes. --CristianCantoro (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiFunktions is another misleading name, like WikiAbstract, as there is no connection to functions. But it fits in the realm of Structured Discussions, the misleading renaming of FLOW, that took away structure from discussions.
    Euphemistic false-naming of unwanted nothings ist the new hype in the ivory tower of the WMF. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you clearly don't like the project, but quoting from the Wikifunctions website: "Wikifunctions is a Wikimedia project for everyone to collaboratively create and maintain a library of code functions [...] in the world's natural and programming languages.", it is quite obviously referring to functions in computer programming. Have a nice day. --CristianCantoro (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but now it's for prose, for article generation, not just templates or graphs. That's a complete different ballpark. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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.). --Waldyrious (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikione

There will be one wiki for all languages, so i propose WikiOne or OneWiki. Since "One" is a well known word outside English speakers, it can stay as is, or can be translated such as "VikiBir" or "WikiUn".

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Joseph
  2. Oppose Oppose Per discussion below. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikipendium

Wikipendium combines “wiki” and “compendium,” reflecting the project’s goal of collaboratively creating a concise yet comprehensive collection of knowledge. According to Wiktionary, a compendium is “a short, complete summary; an abstract,” which perfectly aligns with the project’s aim to present clear and summarised knowledge across languages.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:JhowieNitnek

Discussion


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


Uniwiki

A short, memorable and evocative name that refers to the notion of a single wiki that can serve as the source of content in all languages supported by Wikimedia.

Although it may sound a little pretentious, and perhaps somewhat vague, I think neither attribute is unfit if we consider, respectively, that (1) we do want the new project to inspire the possibility of a quantum leap in the Wikimedia community's ability to execute on the vision of bringing the world's knowledge to all people — specifically those that speak languages that have traditionally been less represented in Wikimedia projects; and (2) we want to allow this new wiki to serve all content in Wikimedia wikis that might benefit from such a multilingual reach, not just encyclopedic articles.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Oppose Oppose --Snævar (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose, ambiguous with a (hypothetical) Wikipedia in the Uni language (ISO 639-3 code "uni", dbname uniwiki). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikipedia Multilingua

This is similar to Multilingual Wikipedia but beginning with "Wiki". It would be in line with the names of the currently existing Wikimedia projects, since all of them have "Wiki" (or at least "Wik") as their first letters.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Ameisenigel
  2. Support Support Why not? At least there's no confusion with Interlingua or Interlingue. Red Sneak (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Not a linguistic project.--Snævar (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Weak oppose --Waldyrious (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC) (see discussion)[reply]

Discussion

  •  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 to consider "Wiki Multilingua" or "Wikimedia Multilingua" instead. --Waldyrious (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not a Wikipedia but a few sentences of Wikidata statements being turned into natural language. It's misleading, especially for most readers who aren't very active editors, and inadequate to give it a 'Wikipedia' name. This is closer to Wikidata than to Wikipedia so I wonder why there is only one proposal with Wikidata in the name. --Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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


Wikiverse

Emphasizing the universal nature of the Abstract Wikipedia.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Csisc
  2.  Strong oppose See hidden discussion below, that's the name for the whole Wikiverse, not just for this tiny piece. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose. Wikiversity already exists; this name is far too easily confused with it. Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Wikiverse is widely used for all activities in our Wikimedia universe (more than the social Wikimedia movement). It shouldn't be used for a single project only. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose: Wikiverse is the name for the whole Wikiverse, not just this small project of artificial dumbness, that's supposed to contaminate the Wikiverse with hallucinated stuff. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Sänger just to clarify: the proposal does not suggest to AI-generate any text, and therefore there is no opportunity for hallucinations to be surfaced to the reader. If you think that this statement is wrong, please let me know. I really do not understand how you think hallucinations would play a potential role in this project. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is supposed to be some automagically generated stuff from unproofed data somewhere in WD, thus hallucinations are inherent. Lots of data in WD is included without valid sources, thus untrustworthy or prone to hallucinations.
    And of course it's just a project for esoteric small languages, that don't have a real user base, real wikiprojects like deWP, enWP, esWP and so forth must never be contaminated with this junk, so Wikiverse, the overarching name for everything, is completely out of bounds. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be better to have this discussion on a dedicated discussion page. You seem to be using a definition of hallucination that is not what is generally understood under this term. I am not sure that a naming contest like this is the best place to raise criticisms about perceived data quality in Wikidata in a constructive way. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


MultiWiki

An alliterative name originally proposed by User:Gkellogg.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


Plural Wikipedia (pluriwiki)

The Plural Wikipedia (or pluriwiki for short; originally Abstract Wikipedia) is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit – in any language. It seeks to gather and combine a plurality of worldviews by removing language barriers.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Fgnievinski
  2.  Weak oppose the "Plural Wikipedia" option, since this project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles. I would be Neutral Neutral towards "pluriwiki". --Waldyrious (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiflow

From 'speaking a language fluently', and how structured data flows into readable text. Short and easy to say.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Difool

Discussion


WikiStructure

This project would be something like the structural part of the particular language versions.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mmh
  2. Support Support Gryllida 11:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support --Henrydat (talk) 23:12, 30 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


Wikidatapedia

Might be too long a name, and I’m not sure if it fits the adjective rule. But I think it does well on giving all the information we want.


Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Immanuelle
  2.  Weak oppose due to the "pedia" suffix — this project should not be limited to encyclopedic articles. (By the way, this name kind of reminds me of wikipmediawiki) --Waldyrious (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


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]


Wikisumma

summa stands for abstract or summary, summa means also the highest: wikisumma is above all language wiki's. And the name fits with wikisource, wikidata, wikivoyage etc.. The plural Wikisummae could be envisaged, but as for wikisource, wikivoyage, plural is not needed.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Havang(nl)
  2. Support Support Besides alluding to summaries, and to the high-level, abstract nature of the content, it also can be thought of referring to a summation — the joint set of content brought together by people from many language communities. On top of this, it is short and easy to sound out. --Waldyrious (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tend to Support Support for the 'summation' meaning per Waldyrious and not for the 'summary' meaning. Mahir256 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support --Mormegil (cs) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Dynawiki

Inspired by the Wikiflex proposal. It's meant to evoke the dynamic, on-the-fly (though deterministic and community-curated) conversion of the abstract content into language-specific prose.

It is short, memorable, easily pronounceable, and based on a prefix that is present in many languages with a broadly compatible and positive connotation — not just for the content itself, but also inviting the image of a living, thriving community.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2.  Weak oppose Sounds nice, but doesn't really convey any of the linguistic or computational aspects of the new project. The name also seems to be used by one or more AI projects. YoshiRulz (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiblocks

An allusion to both the content of this wiki providing the foundation upon which a given language wiki (Wikipedia or otherwise) can grow from, as a starting point that avoids having to build the content entirely from scratch; and also to the nature of the abstract content as abstract building blocks that are pieced together by the natural-language output wikifunctions to produce a finished, human-readable prose.

The term is short, memorable, easy to pronounce, and matches the existing Wiki* naming scheme (-pedia, -source, -quote, etc.). The "block" terminology is common and approachable, and has close cognates in many languages.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Oppose Oppose The term "block" is already heavily overused. * Pppery * it has begun 23:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Love it Léna (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikilexis

Relates to the lexical aspect of composing abstract content meant to be converted into words, phrases, and paragraphs in specific languages.

The name is is short, clear, and evocative, and with roots dating back to Greek, it is likely to be widely recognizable, while also providing a nod to the foundations that the project aims to provide.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2. Support Support better than most other props; somewhat fitting & not unclear (partly because most people don't know what's referred to/meant by "lexis") Prototyperspective (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tend to Oppose Oppose simply because this looks like a better name for what is now Wikidata lexicographical data. Mahir256 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Semawiki

A name built upon the concept of semantics, which in this case connects to the abstract content as a representation of meaning, independent of language, that then gets translated into concrete text using words and phrases from the target language.

It is a concise, easy to pronounce, and memorable name. The "sema-" root has cognates in many languages, making it broadly accessible and linguistically versatile.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious
  2.  Weak support might dwell on this a bit before changing this to either a full support or neutral. Mahir256 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


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]


Refipedia

The name Refipedia comes from the word “reference”, reflecting the essence of this new encyclopedia — all its statements are drawn from well-sourced and verified references stored in Wikidata.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:حبيشان

Discussion


Wikifission

I propose Wikifission — directly inspired from fnielsen's proposal of "Wikifusion", and Leobard's vote description on that proposal.

I believe this could be a great aptronym for the project, making use of the nuclear fission analogy: a neutron (Wikifunctions) splitting an atom (Wikidata) into multiple smaller atoms (article snippets in a secondary language).

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Kdoccnatl

Discussion


Vera

“Vera” means truth, a simple and universal idea found in many languages. It comes from the old word verus, meaning true. The name suggests honesty and clarity, and reflects the belief that all knowledge is built on truth, something that everyone can share beynd language or culture.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Castellbo
  2. Oppose Oppose Undescriptive, unfitting / unrelated. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikipiece

The word "piece" is a suitable alternative word for "article" in many contexts. Also, it can be used as in "a piece of data", and the verb form means to join, or assemble.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mdktb
  2. Support Support Arlo Barnes (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Wikiforge

Evokes both the forging of natural language prose out of raw abstract material, and the forging of new fleshed-out projects via the gradual production of hand-written content, catering to the specific linguistic and cultural context, out of a baseline of more generic content.

Originally proposed by Smlckz as one of the alternatives for the Wikifabric proposal.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Waldyrious

Discussion


Wikiplexa

Wikiplexa (or Wikiplexia) combines Wiki brand with Plexa (Latin for "network" or "weave"). The name highlights the core goal: interweaving Wikidata's data with Wikifunctions' functions to generate language-independent articles.

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Mdktb
  2. Support Support Henrydat (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


WikiMultilingual

Votes

  1. Proposed by User:Harold Foppele
  2. Support Support + Nice and to the point Johnwilliamsiii (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Not the best approach to making Wikipedia multilingual (see also) & other wikis like Commons are also multilingual. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:53, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Abstract_Wikipedia_naming_contest/More_proposals/sk&oldid=29685541"