Jump to content

추상 위키백과/함수 위키 이름짓기 대회/추가 제안

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/More proposals and the translation is 100% 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.
1라운드 완료. 2라운드는 10월 27일에 시작됩니다.
  • 이들 중 하나에 투표하세요.
  • 이 페이지에 새 제안을 추가하세요.
  • 자세한 정보는 명명 절차 세부 사항을 참조하세요.

WiKi-K'e

Voting

Discussion

Wikisetta or Wikirosetta

Voting

Discussion

Project Eco

Voting

Discussion

Project Aquinas

Voting

Discussion

  • more a play on words on the term "knowledge acquisition" than the philosopher Thomas of Aquinas
  • I don't know much about Catholic theology, but is there any connection between Aquinas and "knowledge acquisition" other than his surname kinda looking like the word "acquisition" if you squint? I guess his Five Ways are about acquiring knowledge of God, or something, but that seems like a stretch. Regardless, using a specific religious figure is probably a no-go for something intended to be cross-cultural. (Would Muslims and Hindus be okay with the name?) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name does not indicate it is a wiki.--GZWDer (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not bad, although somewhat Western-centric and doesn't make the functionality obvious. The problem with the lack of "wiki" can be addressed by calling it WikiAquinas. It can be easily translated to Russian and Hebrew, although there will be a lot of K and W sounds in "Wikiaquinas": "qui" is actually pronounced as "kwi", which is very close to "wiki", so it can be a bit of a drag to write and say aloud in some languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki". For this one, "Wiki" is not in the name at all.--GZWDer (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifunction

Voting

Discussion

Universalpedia

Voting

Discussion

WikiWords

Voting

Discussion

Wikigram

Voting

Discussion

Wikiprogram

Voting

Discussion

Hohonupedia

Voting

Discussion

MultiWiki

Voting

Discussion

AIMO or Aimopedia

Voting

Discussion

  • Abstract Input, Multilingual Output
  • The acronym is in English, so how would it be translated into other languages? Would they keep "AIMO" or translate it word by word and then turn it into an acronym? Also, probably doesn't meet the desideratum of The name should not restrict the wiki only towards the goal of the Abstract Wikipedia or be only about natural language and content abstraction, but should reflect the potential that the functions may be used in a large diversity of ways and places. But I do think it sounds okay, it's not bad by any means. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Aimopedia"; the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. Just "AIMO" does not indicate this is a wiki, and any other variant with "aimo" will not tell an external visitor sufficiently what the project is about either imho. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiglobal

Voting

Discussion

Wikiglobe

Voting

Discussion

Wikitemplates

Voting

Discussion

Wikiuniverse

Voting

Discussion

  • This would rather fit Meta in my opinion. It does not address the purpose of the project well enough. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that this is too broad in scope (according to the description above that would encompass also the long-term goal and all existing wikis, or that it could bring a confusion: "Wikimedia" is already the dedicated name for this "universe".
    The concept is not to generate everything, but just being allowed to generate some contents that could be brought to existing wikis, at least to create much better articles than very poor "stubs" (also frequently partly translated or with frequent problems of presentation, navigatibility, usability, accessibility: the need is evident from small and medium wikis that have a very slow and complex startup, even after the initial test in Incubator
    We've all seen problems caused by the fact that these small wikis could not easily be sourced reliably while being able to source at least interesting features, which would be immediately usable by natives
    This would greatly help their understanding and then improve that content and adapt it to their culture and current local communities of interest and even help develop their interest in many topics for which they have no clue or that find them to difficult to start with, while also benefiting of the experience gained in other languages, and even allowing mutual cooperation for administering these wikis, possibly even in talk pages to create more buinds between communities that have difficulties to talk each other and understand a sufficient common language). It would also allow easier cooperation across wikis to find more experienced admins to solve complex issues (notably those related to NPOV, and respect of peoples, while also setting a better limit to avoid conflicts of interests by the few experienced users that can decide against more the legitimate needs of modest contributors so that everyone can find a suitable space of work and cooperation also with their own sets of cultural interests). but even this larger goal can describe what could be Wikipedia abstract later, which will still be a part of our existing "Wikimedia" universe. clearly the goal for now is jsut being allwoed to compose several sources to generate modest contents (probably not more than a simple sentence or just a single phrase, such as to help build a navigatable structure, or sets of nav templates, or an index of topics, a reliable set of categories and all the necessary and suitable interwiki links, or a set of disambiguation pages appropriate for each language but still pointing to relevant stubs pages to be later completed; for this reason the initial pags would be bot-generated but still editable: we've seen that method used effectively in a rare language, notably Waray-Waray, except that this is made by a bot controlled by just a single user and it is not so open; instead of posting "stubs pages" the stubs could use templates with their content fed and basic presentation from functions but still in a form correct for the target language; but the Waray-Wray wiki is now usable by its community which now update it with less efforts but still with all the set of links to other more populated wikis and more possible sources in various languages). This could also be used to greatly accelerate the development of Wiktionnary (with basic definitions for some meanings/lemmas, while the local community would add their own language-specific expressions, or could find examples of use and citations in their culture to support each lemma; as well they could benefit from data-driven generated contents such as conjugations, declensions, transliterations, usable input methods; in Wikipedia thee data in Wikitionanry could have a Wikitionnary-based spellchecker, and we could create out own automatic translartos with smarter intelligence to help others understanding what is happening in the small wiki where problems are reported by very few users but difficult to assert). verdy_p (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishare

Voting

Discussion

Wikisum

Voting

Discussion

Wikibabel

Voting

Discussion

  • I kinda like it, but (1) "babel" might be too Judeo-Christian-specific, e.g. would it work as well in a Chinese cultural context? (2) it might not meet the desideratum of The name should not restrict the wiki only towards the goal of the Abstract Wikipedia or be only about natural language and content abstraction, but should reflect the potential that the functions may be used in a large diversity of ways and places. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had immediately thought of this name also, but dismissed it for the same concerns you are raising here. --Thadguidry (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversal

Voting

Discussion

Wikitolk

Voting

Discussion

Wikiglot

Voting

Discussion

WikiPreTranslate

Voting

Discussion

Wikifacts

Voting

Discussion

WikiCortex

Voting

Discussion

WikiChunks

Voting

Discussion

Wikigeneral

Voting

Discussion

Hyperpedia

Voting

Discussion

Hyperwiki

Voting

Discussion

Datapedia

Voting

Discussion

BigDaPedia

Voting

Discussion

You are not missing it. ;-) Agree, not the right context. --Thadguidry (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewWiki

Voting

Discussion

  • Seems too vague; not really related to the ideas of translation, functions, templates, etc. Possibly better suited for Abstract Wikipedia than for Wikilambda. Also the name is too temporary, e.g. in 5+ years do we still want it to be called "NewWiki"? Finally, "newwiki" is the internal database name for https://new.wikipedia.org. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree, really vague --Thadguidry (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newpedia

Voting

Discussion

Alphapedia

Voting

Discussion

Х-pedia

Voting

Discussion

Voting

Discussion

  • Could vaguely convey the idea of functions or translation, in the sense that input is linked to output, that might be a stretch. The word "wikilink" is already used to refer to a hyperlink to a wiki article, but I don't know if that's a dealbreaker. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honupedia

Voting

Discussion

Holopedia

Voting

Discussion

  • The prefix "holo-" means "whole" in Greek, but in common use it is most associated with holograms, or maybe with the Holocaust, neither of which really fits as far as I can tell. Holomorphic functions are a thing in complex analysis, but the functions we're concerned with here have little to do with that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Jewish, and the similarity to "holocaust" doesn't bother me. It's also used in words like "holistic", and it's not a big deal. For better or worse, however, "Holopedia" is used as a nickname of the Minnan Wikipedia, so it can become ambiguous. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the prefix "holo" has no direct relation to nazi's Holocaust. It is related to the English term "holy" (saint/spirit); "holocaust" is a composed as a name created after the genocide to describe it as a mass murdering/attack ("caust", related to "caustic") based on spirituality/religion ("holo"). And this is not proposing the use of "caust".
    Yes the proposal is highly related to "holomorphic functions" ("holo" because the space where the transform is not defined is very thin, almost invisible/transparent, insignificant, infinitesimal, compared to the space where it has a defined meaning, so it is difficult to observe and it just exists as a "spirit"; you can like it as well to "hologram" where this transparent space is diffused/spread "everywhere" but you don't see anything if you try to locate a point where this occurs; it also applies to "fractal spaces" and "fractal dimensions", i.e. non-integer dimensions that smoothly link spaces with countable finite dimensions), but it's too much technical for people not aware in advanced mathematics (and that also have difficulties to understand the base concept of "morphism", which actually means a transform by a regulated relation between different entities so that some properties are preserved by the transform, and which sometimes an produce no result or multiple results, possibly with uncertainty margins, i.e. just probabilistic or fuzzy results for which no universal decision can be concluded). Note that "morphism" is based on the greek radical "morph" (used also on Slavic languages) which just translates to the "form" radical in Latin (and most Italic or Germanic languages).
    But Greek terms in Italic/Germanic languages are considered too much scientific terminology. If we reduce "homomorphism" just to "holo" (which is also used on scientific terms based on Greek), we loose the important "form"/"morph" meaning that this feature better describes ("holo" is not a requirement), that's why I would not use it in "holopedia" which would be better used to describe a wiki-based encyclopedia about religions/spirituaty... I would largely prefer some variation based on the term "mutate" (change of form/morph, i.e. "transform"). verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose you meant "holomorphism" when you mentioned "homomorphism", as you did not mention homomorphisms in your text before. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You suppose badly. see w:en:Holomorphic function which is also mostly the same as "holomorphism", but don't confuse it with "homomorphism" which exists too (not all homomorphism are homoporphisms, this remark applies also to the reverse; however all holomorphic functions are holomorphisms, the reverse being false). Yes it is a too technical term for what would in fine would be a repository of code to transform a set of data from any types to another set of data, plus some design feature to describe them like an API, and implement them with some guided processing model matching the described API. For Abstract Wikipedia only the output would be limited to some wikitext that is embeddable in some page, a sort of "supertemplate", except that its input would not limited to just text, and its implementation not limited to be using the wiki syntax or a Lua module and the output is still transformable. The above functions could take the whole existing database of some wiki or external source in input, so the functions are just like "bricks" you can combine in a graph-like structure and it may also have timing constraints and synchronization points I can think these "functions" like an extensible API offering a set of objects with accessors or methods but working as standalone modules and insatiable many times with their own internal state, much like a javascript or Lua "object" (that you can duplicate with a "new" to copy its internal state), and in fact the "functions" describes above are most like "morphisms" rather than true "functions" in the strict mathematical meaning.verdy_p (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too technical for most external visitors. Also, the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiZinfo

Voting

Discussion

  • I get why the Z is there, but it still looks weird. Maybe InfoWiki would be better, although that's probably taken already. In any case, the name doesn't really convey a sense of functions/transformations/translations IMO, and maybe would be better suited to Abstract Wikipedia than to Wikilambda. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistream

Voting

Discussion

Wikimorph

Voting

Discussion

Transmutewiki

Voting

Discussion

NeoWiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikilibs

Voting

Discussion

UniWiki

Voting

Discussion

Wiki-optimum

Voting

Discussion

Wikiverse

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia Ultimate

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia compendium

Voting

Discussion

Compile-Wiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia TITAN

Voting

Discussion

Primewiki

Voting

Discussion

Zen-Wiki or Wikizen or ZenithWiki

Voting

Discussion

Layman's Wiki

Voting

Discussion

Wiki of Everything

Voting

Discussion

Tempo Wiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikiabs

Voting

Discussion

Tractwiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikitedia

Voting

Discussion

Wikimuldia

Voting

Discussion

Wikioperator

Voting

Discussion

Wikend

Voting

Discussion

Lingista

Voting

Discussion

Wikidatopedia

Voting

Discussion

Wikiglobia or Globipedia

Voting

Discussion

Wikifedia

Voting

Discussion

Wikiquest

Voting

Discussion

Wikireply

Voting

Discussion

  • Unclear how "replying" relates to the idea of translation, or functions, or templates. "Reply" evokes two-way communication, which is not what the site is for. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't a function sothing where you give some input and the function will return a response with some output? If there's no input, there's no output; if there's input but no output, it's just a blackhole that has no use... The description above seems to indicate that the "'function" will have some intelligence, look like an "artificial brain" (possibly using IA technologies, or BigData collection and aggregation to produce something else in various forms, not just translating the input?). verdy_p (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're meaning "artificial intelligence" by "IA", I'm unsure this will be used at all (there is enough of that already), and it certainly will not be the only aspect of the project. How your description fits "replying" is unclear to me either, and I don't think it will be clear to an external visitor. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similar to wikiquest: two necessary parts of the same thing. The initial description is too much centered to functions described in mathematical terms. But clearly the goal is not mathematical "functions": there's not necessary any valid output and there can be output without any input of custom data. The goal is too abstract to be usable, when in fact it will not be that but will ba a shared reusable library that will extend the API and that will also be largely independent of the language used (not just Lua modules, or Javascripts, or a set of extensions to Mediawiki API, or Mediawi hooks abut any mix of them and using also the potential of data already inside Wikimedia projects (pedias, dictionnaries, data, commons media) and related support projects (Phabricator, GitHub or other open source code repositories and open data repositories, and external open APIs based on web services or file sharing protocols and communication tools: social medias, RSS, mailing lists...). Each described "function" may be in fact composed of multiple components workign together. The result/output may also be variable over time, evolutive. And translated if possible (both in the questions or the replies and in input forms that could be used, where the input form will also be part of the function and will have various forms bving the result of another function generating it). These results may also be evaluated (with some automated metrics or from user's notation in order to qualify or order them under various criteria). verdy_p (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwiki

Voting

Discussion

Flexipedia

Voting

Discussion

Wikiama

Voting

Discussion

Wikimentum

Voting

Discussion

Module Wiki

Voting

Discussion

Mod-wiki

Voting

Discussion

Axial wiki

Voting

Discussion

Pref wiki

Voting

Discussion

Algo-wiki

Voting

Discussion

  • I like "algo" in some form: algo-wiki, wiki-algo, AlgoWiki, algo.wikimedia.org, ... (I considered making a late proposal for WikiAlgo after seeing "Wikimedia Algorithms". We have split entries elsewhere for a-b and b-a, but we also need to consider that in some languages word order will be swapped.) Pelagic (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Para-wiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikivars

Voting

Discussion

Structwiki

Voting

Discussion

Wiki++

Voting

Discussion

Bashwiki

Voting

Discussion

Wiki-sharp

Voting

Discussion

Build wiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia sharp

Voting

Discussion

Wiki logics

Voting

Discussion

Bonwiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikiport

Discussion

Wikimedia Polymorph

Discussion

Wiki gate

Voting

Discussion

Wiki-progs

Voting

Discussion

Curry

Voting

Discussion

WikiREPL

Voting

Discussion

  • Probably to technical for some visitors, but I don't think the project will be directly viewed by that many visitors either. What about translatability? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the wiki actually have a REPL? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually thought about this one also last night before falling asleep!, the entire REPL as a flow, which we definitely will have and currently do! REPL, in general can be thought of as overlapping workflows or just processes. R, read, is the extraction parts that will mostly be automated when the community opt-in to have pages created or maintained. But for a Wiki of Functions, that will only be the E, eval part from REPL, so maybe that's a subtle vote for WikiEval. The P, print, I would say would perhaps be renderers and I quite like that aspect of alignment. L, loop, could be thought of as the continual refinement as well as counter vandalism operations. Overall, REPL is a good way to think of the entire set of workflows or processes that generates knowledge and would probably be a great way to document as an example of those very new to Wikidata/Wikipedia and wondering/hearing about how the "Wiki of Functions" fits into the whole picture. --Thadguidry (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Functionwiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikihana

Voting

Discussion

WikiNexus

Voting

Discussion

WikiAlchemy

Voting

Discussion

  • Transmutation of substances, with a little bit of magic. "Alchemy" is such an old idea there are direct translations in European and Middle Eastern languages, and similar concepts for most others, as far as I can tell.

Wiki Etymology

Voting

Discussion

Wikigenerator

Voting

Discussion

Wikistructure

Voting

Discussion

Wikiinfo

Voting

Discussion

Wikibasic

Voting

Discussion

  • Is this supposed to be a reference to the BASIC programming language? If so, I'm not sure it's appropriate, since that language will probably not be used on the wiki. If it's supposed to refer to something else, I don't understand its intended meaning. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTrans or TransWiki

Voting

Discussion

WikiAda

Voting

Discussion

WikiCalculator

Voting

Discussion

  • To quote the definition of function provided for this contest "In short, functions make a calculation on the data you provide, and answer a question you have about it." The WikiCalculator will provide (the definition for) various calculations that could be useful in different Wikimedia projects.

WikiMath

Voting

Discussion

  • To quote the definition of function provided for this contest "In short, functions make a calculation on the data you provide, and answer a question you have about it." WikiMath allows people to do all kind of (math) operations to transform some inputs into new outputs, which then can be used in different Wikimedia projects. Also, the word "Math" is universally recognizable, as it is taught starting with elementary school.

WikiQuarks

Voting

Discussion

Wikiexec/-s

Voting

Discussion

Wixecutable/Wikiexecutable

Voting

Discussion

Could there be issues with w:Wix.com? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

f(Wiki)

Voting

Discussion

Wikiutilities / Wikitilities / Wikimedia Utilities

Voting

Discussion

  • From wiki and utility (in the computing sense).

WikiIO / WikIO

Voting

Discussion

  • From wiki and IO (input/output). I'm not sure how universal "IO" is, though.

Wikipoly

Voting

Discussion

Wikiresult

Voting

Discussion

  • From the point of view of a user, the contents of this wiki will be the result of some function or computation.

Wikiμ

Voting

Discussion

Wikisoft

Voting

Discussion

Wikido

Voting

Discussion

Wikibutton

Voting

Discussion

Wikibuttons

Voting

Discussion

WikiThought

Voting

Discussion

Wikifx

Voting

Discussion

Wikiroutine

Voting

Discussion

Wikireturns

Voting

Discussion

  • Because the point of a function is that it returns something based on some input. While the wiki would host the functions, it would serve the returns, so this name would kind of emphasize the service nature of the project. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilisp

Voting

Discussion

Wikompose or Wikicompose

Voting

Discussion

Wikombinator(s) or Wikicombinator(s)

Voting

Discussion

Wikimorphisms

Voting

Discussion

WikiLogic or WikiSense

Voting

Discussion

WikiLib

Voting

Discussion

Wikifuncs

Voting

Discussion

  • ​ What do you mean: "Who told you that?" I wrote "I thought it meant etc.", wasn't that enough information? And now please stop this useless discussion, especially since I find your tone pretty aggressive and not pleasant at all. Not to mention the amount of your comments in this contest is proposterous and bizar already. Eissink (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WikiCore

Voting

Discussion

Arithmowiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikialgebra

Easy to translate (d:Q3968) or even transliterate to many other languages; Meaningful name; Not too short, not too long; In rhyme with Wikipedia.

Voting

Discussion

Wikigebra

Pros:

  • Portmanteau of Wikipedia and algebra;
  • Easy to translate (d:Q3968) or even transliterate into many other languages and in many other scripts;
  • Meaningful and memorable name related to math (see algebraic function and abstract algebra: the word algebra is a link between the two new Wikimedia projects; math is probably one of few abstract and international languages understood anywhere in the world);
  • Not too short, not too long (both gebra and pedia have 5 letters), and in rhyme with Wikipedia and Wikidata (all of which finish with the letter a);
  • Interwiki links will be possible by the distinct and available letter g, for example g:test.

Voting

Discussion

curate.wikimedia.org

Voting

Discussion

Curating info. Em-mustapha User | talk 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiphi

Voting

Discussion

WikiCalc

Voting

Discussion

FunctionalWiki

Voting

Discussion

WikiMix

Voting

Discussion

WikiProcessor

Voting

Discussion

Phrasemaker

Voting

Discussion

WikiLua

Voting

Discussion

WikiFunk

Voting

Discussion

WikiEval

Voting

Discussion

WikiEquals

Voting

Discussion

WikiPlex

Voting

Discussion

  • With WikiPlex we will be able to raise to the power the value provided by the different WikiMedia projects, by weaving into their content newly created information through functions (check out this for the multiple meanings of -plex). Plus WikiPlex is just a cool, catchy name.

Wikiware

Voting

Discussion

Wikimedia Executables

Voting

Discussion

  1. ↑ Ah, didn't notice this section on the talk page. ~~~~

Eval

Voting

Discussion

Wikibackend

Voting

Discussion

Wikifyit

Voting

Discussion

WikiFyIt

Voting

Discussion

WikiWidgets

Voting

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki_of_functions_naming_contest/More_proposals/ko&oldid=21365063"