Wikipédia abstraite/Concours pour nommer un wiki de « fonctions »

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest and the translation is 100% complete.
Other languages:
English • ‎français • ‎português do Brasil • ‎العربية • ‎ไทย

Merci de nous aider à choisir un nom pour le nouveau projet wiki de Wikimedia actuellement désigné par le nom de code Wikilambda. Ce projet sera un wiki où la communauté peut travailler ensemble à une bibliothèque de fonctions ; créer de nouvelles fonctions, en savoir plus sur elles, en discuter et les partager. Certaines de ces fonctions seront utilisées pour créer des articles Wikipédia indépendants des langues qui pourront être affichés dans n’importe quelle langue. En tant que tel, il sera un composant de Wikipédia Abstrait (expliqué ci-dessous). Mais les fonctions seront utilisables bien au de là de l’objectif de Wikipédia Abstrait.

Le but de ce concours de dénomination est de créer un nouveau nom mémorable qui va aider les gens à comprendre le but de ce nouveau wiki de Wikimedia aussi facilement que possible. Le processus présenté ci-dessous vise à encourager le recueil d’un maximum de propositions, et ensuite de les restreindre aux meilleurs choix qui présentent clairement cette signification.

Les propositions doivent être faites avant le 29 septembre. Il y aura deux scrutins, chacun suivi par une relecture juridique des candidats, avec un vote commençant le 29 septembre et l’autre le 27 octobre. Notre but est d’avoir choisi un nom de projet final pour le 8 décembre.

Qu’est-ce qu’une fonction ?

Une « fonction » est une séquence d’instructions d’un programme informatique qui effectue un calcul selon les données que vous fournissez. Les fonctions sont une forme de connaissance qui peut répondre à certaines questions, comme le nombre de jours passés entre deux dates ou la distance entre deux villes. Des fonctions plus compliquées peuvent répondre à des questions plus compliquées, telle que la surface d’un objet tridimensionnel, la distance entre Mars et Vénus à une date donnée, ou si deux espèces ont vécu à la même période. Nous utilisons déjà des fonctions dans de nombreux types de recherche de connaissance, telles que poser une question à un moteur de recherche. Les modèles {{convert}} et {{age}} sont également des exemples de fonctionnalités qui sont déjà utilisées dans de nombreuses éditions de Wikipédia, éventuellement basés sur des modules écrits en Lua et manuellement copiées vers chaque wiki où ils sont demandés.

D’autres exemples de fonctions sont donnés dans Abstract Wikipedia/Early function examples et vous pouvez regarder des ébauches très grossières de ce à quoi pourrait ressembler l’interface sur Abstract Wikipedia/Early mockups.

En résumé, les fonctions font des calculs sur les données que vous fournissez, et répondent à une question que vous avez posées à leur sujet.

Ce nouveau projet Wikimedia construira une bibliothèque de fonctions, écrite par des bénévoles, afin d’aider à répondre à des questions comme celles-ci dans n’importe quelle langue. En construisant notre bibliothèque de fonctions, nous pouvons permettre à de plus nombreuses personnes d’accéder et explorer la connaissance libre dans diverses nouvelles manières. Pour que ceci se produise, le projet a besoin d’un nom. Rejoignez-nous pour en proposer et choisir le meilleur.

Qu’est-ce que Wikipédia Abstrait ?

Une explication visuelle du projet pour la Wikipédia abstraite et du wiki des fonctions.

Le terme « Wikipédia abstrait » désigne par lui-même l’objectif à long terme – que cette bibliothèque de fonctions permette un jour la création d’articles indépendants de la langue. Une fois une ou plusieurs pièces de ce projet mises en place, ceci signifie que tout wiki (notamment les wikis de petite ou moyenne taille) seront en mesure d’accroître considérablement le nombre d’articles disponibles dans leur langue. Ceci signifie également que les rédacteurs pourront partager la connaissance de leurs cultures et leurs contextes auprès d’une audience plus large et plus mondiale.

Le nouveau wiki de fonctions développera l’infrastructure de codage pour rendre cette vision possible. La partie Wikipédia abstrait du projet commencera après un délai d’environ un an.

En d’autres termes : nous pourrons combiner les fonction du nouveau wiki avec les données et informations linguistiques contenues dans Wikidata, afin de générer des phrases naturellement intelligibles dans toute langue prise en charge. Ces phrases pourront être utilisées sur toute édition de Wikipédia (ou ailleurs).

Plus de détails sur le projet général figurent sur Wikipedia abstrait. Mais pour le moment nous ne cherchons pas un nom pour l’objectif du projet à long terme "Wikipédia abstrait", mais seulement pour le nouveau wiki des fonctions.

Calendrier

  • 15 septembre : publication de cette page et demande des avis. Demande de traduction. Appel aux bénévoles multilingues pour vérifier les propositions durant la phase de recueil.
  • 22 septembre : annonces de rappel pour soumettre les propositions et participer au vote préliminaire
  • 29 septembre : fin du recueil des propositions ; le premier tour de vote de toute la communauté commence.
  • 13 octobre : fin du premier tour de vote ; début de la première passe d’inspection de régularité des votes.
  • 27 octobre : le deuxième tour de vote communautaire commence.
  • 10 novembre : fin du deuxième tour de vote; début de la deuxième passe d’inspection de régularité des votes.
  • 8 décembre : annonce du nouveau nom de projet ; début de l’appel à proposer des logos.

Critères de proposition de nom

  • Le nom doit d’une certaine façon faire référence ou être connecté à l’objectif du wiki, qui sera une collection de fonctions. Un bon nom devrait sans doute satisfaire à certains de ces points :
    • Il devrait utiliser des termes ou radicaux établis du mouvement et sont bien connus et reconnaissables tels que « Wiki ».
    • Il devrait mettre en avant un point clé du projet (pensez au terme « data » dans « Wikidata ») afin que les lecteurs ou auditeurs qui découvrent le terme la première fois ait un indice clé sur la finalité du projet.
    • Il devrait être simple à énoncer vocalement et facile à épeler (souvenez-vous que les gens seront amenés à utiliser ce nom fréquemment).
    • Le nom de devrait pas restreindre le wiki au seul objectif de Wikipédia Abstrait, ou ne concerner que la langue naturelle et le contenu abstrait, mais devrait refléter le potentiel que les fonctions pourraient être utilisées dans une large diversité de manières et d’emplacement s ;
  • Le nom devrait pouvoir se traduire facilement.
    • Un groupe de bénévoles vérifiera les propositions dans leurs propre(s) langue(s), et ajouteront des notes de discussion s’il y a des préoccupations.
  • Doit pouvoir être isolé comme libellé dans un nom de domaine ou de sous-domaine.
    • Le wiki sera créé en tant que « exemple.org » ou « exemple.wikimedia.org ». Ceci n’est pas encore décidé et cela sera basé sur des décisions techniques et juridiques.
  • Le nom ne doit violer les droits de propriété intellectuelle d’aucune tierce partie et il fera l’objet d’un contrôle final par le conseil juridique afin d’assurer que ce n’est pas le cas.

Règles de proposition de nom

  • Nombre de propositions. Durant la période de proposition, vous pouvez soumettre autant de noms que vous souhaitez. (Les doublons seront consolidés avant le vote.)
  • Accord implicite applicable lors de la proposition.
    • (a) En soumettant tout nom, vous confirmez implicitement que vous avez lu et accepté ces règles.
    • (b) En soumettant tout nom, vous confirmez vous engager contractuellement à céder tous vos droits relatifs à la proposition à la Fondation Wikimedia, y compris la totalité ou toute partie des droits d’auteur (copyright), de marque commerciale, de publicité et de toute autre propriété intellectuelle ou autres droits de propriétés.
    • (c) Vous garantissez que vous (ou la Fondation Wikimedia) êtes le propriétaire de tous les droits de copyright, de marque commerciale, moraux, de publicité, et autres droits intellectuels et de propriété relatifs au nom proposé et qu’au mieux de votre connaissanceil ne viole aucun de tels droits qui seraient détenus par toute tierce partie.
  • Disputes. Bien que nous espérons que ne surviendra aucune dispute entre vous et la Fondation Wikimedia, nous devons établir quelques règles sur la façon de traiter toute dispute qui pourrait arriver. En participant au processus de sélection de nom, vous acceptez que votre proposition, vos affectations de droits les concernant et toute dispute seront régies par les lois des États-Unis d’Amérique et seront réglés devant une cour compétente dans la juridiction de la Ville et le Comté de San Francisco en Californie.

Détails du processus de nommage

  1. Période de proposition. Il n’y a qu’un vote préliminaire durant la période de proposition, mais les discussions sont encouragées. Les noms peuvent être modifiés durant cette période, et des dérivés peuvent être proposés. Tous les noms doivent respecter les critères de sélection (voir ci-dessous). Soyez particulièrement amical et constructifs duraint cette période de réflexion.
  2. Après ceci, vous introduisons deux parties de visibilité pour le vote : les ~20 meilleures propositions, en gros, selon le nombre de supports a ce point seront visibles sur la page de vote par défaut (actuelle). Il y aura également une seconde page avec toutes les propositions soumises au vote qui sera liée depuis la page de vote principale à la seconde partie.
    • Durant le vote, une fois par jour de travail environ, nous vérifierons s’il existe des propositions à déplacer dans la première partie ou à retirer de celle-ci. Nous utiliserons ceci à notre discrétion, mais si en fait quelque chose a plus de soutiens que la moins soutenue des propositions sur la page principale, ce devrait être sur la page de vote principal.
    • L’ajout de propositions complètement nouvelles sera possible même après le 29 septembre, mais seulement à la liste complète des propositions, donc dans la deuxième partie
  3. Tour éliminatoire. Après la période de propositions, les entrées sont présentées dans un ordre aléatoire durant au moins une semaine de vote.
    • Chaque votant peut voter pour autant de proposition qu’ils souhaitent.
  4. Revue des finalistes. Une fois que les six meilleures propositions auront été déterminées par le décompte des votes, un conseil juridique fera un examen initial de routine des six noms pour déterminer les problèmes juridiques éventuels, la possibilité d’enregistrer et protéger une marque commerciale d’étendue mondiale, et son adéquation à la finalité voulue.
  5. Vote final. Jusqu’à six noms entreront durant une semaine finale de vote et seront présentés dans un ordre aléatoire d’affichage pour le vote. Les seront comptés selon la méthode Instant-runoff.
    • Vous pouvez alors voter que pour trois propositions au maximum. Les participants qui votent pour plus d’une proposition doivent obligatoirement et clairement indiquer quel vote est leur premier, deuxième ou troisième vote favori. Par exemple : « 1er. ~~~~ »
  6. Revue juridique finale. Un conseil juridique effectuera une revue approfondie du nom arrivé en tête. Si, à la discration du conseil juridique, le nom en tête est trouvé comme inapproprié, à cause de préoccupation juridiques (marque commerciale, droit d’auteur, etc.), le nom sera éliminé de la considération (avec une explication publique de la raison trouvée) et le nom en deuxième position sera examiné selon les mêmes critères. Si le deuxième nom choisi est inacceptable, le conseil juridique reprendra la suite de la liste pour trouver le premier nom clair disponible.

Éligibilité et règles relatives au vote

Chaque personne ne peut voter que depuis un seul compte. Au premier tour de vote, vous pourrez voter pour autant de noms qui vous plaisent. Au second tout, vous pourrez voter pour un nom ou jusqu’à trois nom au plus, mais vous devrez alors indiquer votre ordre de préférence (p.ex. « 1. ~~~~ » pour votre choix favori, « 2. ~~~~ » pour le second, et « 3. ~~~~ » pour votre troisième et dernier choix).

Vous ne pouvez voter que depuis un compte enregistré que vous possédez sur un wiki de Wikimedia (vous ne pouvez voter qu’avec un seul compte, indépendamment du nombre de comptes que vous avez, mais vous pouvez voter pour autant de noms que vous souhaitez). Pour être qualifié à voter, ce compte doit :

  • ne pas être bloqué sur plus d’un seul projet ; et
  • ne pas être un compte de robot ; et
  • doit avoir réalisé au moins 25 modifications au 1er septembre 2020, sur l’un des wikis publics en production de Wikimedia (tel quel Wikipédia, Commons, Wikisource, etc.)

Les membres actuels ou passés du Conseil d’administration de la Fondation Wikimedia sont qualifiés pour voter.

Comptage des votes au second tour : jusqu’à six propositions candidates seront retenues pour le second tour de vote. À la fin du scrutin et en utilisant une variante du système instant-runoff, le premier (ou unique) choix de chaque votant sera compté et utilisé pour ordonner les propositions par préférence. Chacun des premiers (et uniques) choix des votant ne comptera que comme un vote pour la proposition choisie. Si à ce stade il y a une majorité simple, cette proposition entrera en phase de revue juridique. S’il n’y a pas de majorité simple, la proposition ayant le moins de vote sera éliminée et tous les votes ayant exprimé leur premier choix pour cette proposition seront comptés pour leur second choix. Ceci sera répété jusqu’à ce qu’une proposition remporte une majorité simple de tous les votes restants. La proposition résultante passera en revue juridique finale. Au cas où la proposition échoue à la revue juridique, nous éliminerons simplement cette proposition d’abord et redémarreront ce processus de comptage, jusqu’à ce qu’une proposition passe la revue juridique. Aucun troisième tour de vote n’est prévu.

Noms proposés

Veuillez ajouter vos suggestions et commentaires ci-dessous (dans n’importe quelle langue) ou envoyez un courriel à nwilson(_AT_)wikimedia.org.

Merci de rester courtois et poli durant les discussions.

Veuillez également aider à garder cette cette page lisible en concentrant vos commentaires sur vos propositions favorites afin d’aider les autres à comprendre leurs points de force, plutôt que de commenter les faiblesses de propositions qui n’attirent pas encore.


Tractwiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikicurry

Voting

  • Proposed by ABaso (WMF)
  • Support Support I like this for many of the same reasons that “Wikilambda” appeals to me; I still prefer “Wikilambda” over this, but if it’s not available for some reason, “Wikicurry” would be a good option in my opinion. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion


Wikiama

Voting

Discussion

  • "ama" is the first lexeme in Wikidata with the identifier L1. "ama" is sumerian. It has a meaning in that language (mother). The vowel and consonant are probably easy to pronounce for most. — fnielsen
  • Oppose: 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Transmutewiki

Voting

Discussion

  • Not so bad, but hard to translate. Can only be transliterated, and even that is not so easy, because it can be surprisingly hard to transliterate the word "transmute" to some languages, with all those consonant clusters. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm, reminds me of TranslateWiki. Not sure this is on point enough for a project of functions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki logics

Voting

Discussion


WikiLink

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)

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.

Primewiki

Voting

Discussion

  • This name does not indicate what it is about.--GZWDer (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Algorithms

Voting

Discussion

  • I'd prefer a plural form, like with Wikibooks. "Wikimedia Algorithms" sounds not so bad in my opinion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This does seem like an appropriate name. Does Wikialgorithms or Wikimedia Algorithms have a better ring to it? Currently the only project names that have a "Wikimedia" prefix are Commons, Meta-Wiki, Incubator, and -- if you count it as a project -- Cloud Services. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4 and PiRSquared17: Hi greetings, changed the name as per your suggestion. Regards.--Path slopu (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiNexus

Voting

Discussion


Wikimorph

Voting

Discussion


Wikilibs

Voting

Discussion

  • Is this the wiki that owns the libs? Okay, more seriously, I guess a name based on "library" has potential insofar as it could refer to a library of functions, but it doesn't seem directly connected to the idea of functions or translation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this referencing the /lib directory naming convention? --Yair rand (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty good, although I'm wondering whether people won't confuse it with a library of books, which is what Wikisource is about. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure if this slang abbreviation is generally understood by external viewers. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This has too many associations with libraries and books. Husky (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiquest

Voting

Discussion


Wikisetta or Wikirosetta

Voting

Discussion

  • I kinda like the name (maybe "RosettaWiki" would be even better). It 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 don't know how important that is. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a fan, sorry. "Rosetta" and "Babel" are already overused for naming a lot of products related to languages, language learning, machine translation, etc. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As this will be a Wiki of functions and not a Wiki of translations, this is not a name explaining what it is. Though Abstract Wikipedia is at least one of the main goals, afaIk it is not the only application of the functions. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing proposal to use non-CamelCase, per talkpage. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • S-U-P-P-O-R-T as Wikisetta, the Wiki for coding and translating beyond functions and abstractions. It's simple and recognizable almost instantly and without any confusion. --2603:9000:A511:9E76:C4A9:4067:3725:A098 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a good name. Enjoyer of World (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Flexipedia

Voting

Discussion

  • 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) 13:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • How does "flexi-" relate to functions? Moreover, the name suggests the project will be an encyclopedia, which is not the case. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiLogic or WikiSense

Voting

Discussion

  • Using the functions that one can define on WikiLogic or WikiSense, we will be able to provide extra intelligence to the different WikiMedia projects.

Wikiroutines

Voting

Discussion


Wikifusion

Voting

Discussion

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

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)
    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)

Wikimonad

Voting

Discussion


Wikioperator

Voting

Discussion


Wikimodules

Voting

Discussion


Wikiverse

Voting

Discussion


WikiQuarks

Voting

Discussion

  • Quarks are the elementary particles that build up and give mass to every atom in the universe, as well as to the WikiMedia projects. :) See also WikiBlocks.
  • I find this name's relation to functions marginal and think the name is likely to cause confusion—however, I have no knowledge if this word is commonly used in marketing to convey the meaning the nominator described. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Newpedia

Voting

Discussion


Х-pedia

Voting

Discussion


Wikibutton

Voting

Discussion


Wikitedia

Voting

Discussion


Wikido

Voting

Discussion


Pref wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikihana

Voting

Discussion

  • Wiki + Hana. Wiki as in wiki wiki, and hana as in function in Hawaiian. Hana also means flower in Japanese. [1]. GoEThe (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCortex

Voting

Discussion


WikiWords

Voting

Discussion

  • Conveys the sense of translation well, but maybe it 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. Also, it sounds like the name for a wiki dictionary (e.g., Wiktionary, OmegaWiki, or Wikidata Lexemes). PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PiRSquared17. This might fit the Abstract Wikipedia rather than the wiki of functions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikifedia

Voting

Discussion

  • the f stands for Future
  • No. This name is too easy for confusion.--GZWDer (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Too easy to mispronounce in a lot of languages, and totally untranslatable to Hebrew, because P and F are the same letter. So in Hebrew it will look the same as Wikipedia! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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) 13:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • "if the [...] name needs to be informative", I suggest we not use this name in English either. An external visitor will not understand the intended meaning of the f, the project will not be an encyclopedia, and it is not going to be the "future" in a couple years any more. At the same time, the name does not indicate the project's relation to functions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wixecutable/Wikiexecutable

Voting

Discussion

Could there be issues with w:Wix.com? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The beginning of Wixecutable sounds just like the German Wichse, which is slang for semen. I’d rather not have to utter this particular name all the time. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikisum

Voting

Discussion


Wikisoft

Voting

Discussion


Wikigenerator

Voting

Discussion


Wikiabs

Voting

Discussion


Wikilambda

Voting

  • Support Support --Thadguidry (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- better than most. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sure, lambda is Greek - but wiki is Hawaiian. Michaelgraaf (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — recognizable, unique, has deeper meaning for those who wants an etymology and quite functional otherwise. –SJ talk  04:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --LydiaPintscher (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this should be the first name. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Chris.Cooley (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Luk3 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I can’t rule out that I like this name at least in part because it’s the initially suggested one, but still, I really like this name. It follows the established “Wikiword” pattern, the word is relevant but not too banal, the lambda should lend itself to a variety of logo options, it sounds nice. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Artrixs (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. --Yair rand (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The status quo.
  • It's mostly fine. It's somewhat cryptic for people who aren't familiar with lambda calculus and its relationship to the concept of function, but it's a problem because even in the most optimistic scenario I don't expect a lot of people to contribute directly to the functions' code, just like not all Wikipedians directly contribute to the code of templates, modules, gadgets, and extensions. This name is also easy to translate because many languages have a standard way to write the names of Greek letters. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated. See Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Name#lambda_is_too_'Western'.--GZWDer (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Shouldn't be the name informative to all those aware of d:Q242028? --CamelCaseNick (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    I don't understand this. It's a mathematical symbol, used just as much by Chinese speakers as English speakers. What makes it hard to translate? --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with GZWDer. There are only transcriptions/transliterations of λ in Chinese. Unlike the romanized “lambda” used in “lambda calculus”, such transcriptions/transliterations are not widely used (and in particular not commonly used in Chinese translation of “lambda calculus”, for which the Greek letter is normally used directly), so cannot easily recognized even by those who are familiar with lambda calculus. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the Greek letter could be used in Chinese. --Yair rand (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I like it. I have a strong preference for a name that incorporates (to at least some extent) the Abstract Wikipedia-side of the project. ("Lambdas changed my life" -- Barbara Partee) --Chris.Cooley (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually think Wikilambda is great: it means Wikifunction but in a less Anglo and more universal symbol. Admittedly less familiar to non-math/CS types, but there is no denying that unlike any other sister project, this will be largely maintained and cultivated by people with some math/CS familiarity. And math terms are as close as we can practically get to a universal term. I am so convinced of these points, that not only is status quo superior to every alternative proposed so far, but I have a hard time imagining a term that could possibly beat it in more than a single aspect. Ijon (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I could see this abreviated as λ/lambda internally or stylized as Wikiλambda, e.g. in a word mark, see proposal for λ. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This one is a bit too techie for my taste, but it's growing on me.--Pharos (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Smartwiki

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)
  • Will the wiki actually have a REPL? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)

Wikigram or Wikiprogram

Voting

Discussion

  • The word "program" directly relates to the purpose of the project, which will mainly host program code for functions. It's also worth considering the inverted form ProgramWiki and the plural form Wikiprograms. (The latter might make more sense, for the same reason that Wikibooks was chosen over Wikibook.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Wikigram" has some merit, having connotations of both programming and language.--Pharos (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

NeoWiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikiglobia or Globipedia

Voting

Discussion


Hohonupedia

Voting

Discussion

  • hohonu being the Hawaiian word for 'deep' as opposed to wiki (quick)). Or simply Deep Wikipedia
  • Very cute! No one will understand it, but then no one knew what "wiki" is thirty years ago either. The sense is find, and easy to translate to the languages I now. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia, I oppose this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikirithm

Voting

Discussion


WikiBlocks

Voting

Discussion


WikiIO / WikIO

Voting

Discussion

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

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)
  • 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)

Wiki(x)

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)
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)
  • Same problem as with "WikiSetta" above: "Rosetta" and "Babel" are already overused for naming a lot of products related to languages, language learning, machine translation, etc. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I proposed the same idea earlier, and I still sort of like it. I doubt it could be considered evangelistic, as this was considered rather an evil city in the scriptures, and it's a well-known metaphor in modern humanistic culture.--Pharos (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it is leant too much toward the Abstract Wikipedia aspect of Wikilambda. 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyperpedia

Voting

Discussion


Wikiroutine

Voting

Discussion


Wikistructure

Voting

Discussion


Wikigeneral

Voting

Discussion


Datapedia

Voting

Discussion


Wiki-optimum

Voting

Discussion


Project Eco

Voting

Discussion

  • to honor Umberto Eco’s work, in particular the book “The search for a perfect language”, which details the history of projects which have failed at the goals of this project
  • This name does not indicate it is a wiki.--GZWDer (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I like the idea, but it could also be confused with "Eco" as in ecology, and it might lean too heavily on Abstract Wikipedia/natural language instead of functions in general. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So-so. Doesn't make the functionality obvious, and can be confused for ecology. But the tribute is cute≤ and it's easily translatable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is probably a good idea for the second phase, not for the Lambda phase. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikicode

Voting

  • Proposed by Amire80
  • Support Support. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Luk3 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC) The most straightforward is usually the best choice. Code goes into Wikicode.
  • Support Support Artrixs (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • The name does convey the purpose of the project (a hub for function code and the like). Worth mentioning that the word "wikicode" is already used to refer to "wiki markup", but that issue may not be a dealbreaker. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
agree on both points. I do not see translation issues. In fact, this would be highly translatable (although "law" or "rules" comes up in a few). Hmm, didn't know this but there's a linguistic sense here as well, see [2] --Thadguidry (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Very direct, worthy of consideration.--Pharos (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is likely to cause confusion with Mediawiki. Also with a global module wiki, if we ever have one of those. --Yair rand (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiprogram

Voting

Discussion

  • Not bad for the idea of this project, but the problem is that it can easily be confused for Programs that are managed by the Foundation and Affiliates, which are a completely different things. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree that there is an association with various Wikimedia community programs. --Papuass (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikifunction

Voting

Discussion

  • Direct and to the point. "Function" is a technical word that not everyone will understand, but the project itself is not intended for direct layperson consumption anyway, so not a big deal. Maybe "FunctionWiki" would sound better. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    I do have a slight preference for "Wikifunctions", see that proposal below. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not easily translatable into German as Wikifunktionen would mean functions of/for the wiki and not a wiki of functions and Funktionenwiki — German for Wiki of functions — diviates from the common Wiki- prefix. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikistream

Voting

Discussion


Wikifx

Voting

Discussion

  • Literally a mathematical function with an argument, it can be styled Wikif(x) --Sabas88 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "fx" is often short-hand for special effects... maybe not the right connotation? ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Polymorph

Discussion

Compile-Wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikifunctions

Voting

Discussion

  • Same comment as for "Wikifunction". I do have a slight preference for "Wikifunctions" over "Wikifunction" though, since the latter only refers to a single function. Kinda like how Wikibooks is the name of the project, and wikibook would be a single book on Wikibooks. "FunctionWiki" and "FunctionsWiki" could work as names for the project too. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree that this works better in the plural. Pretty straightforward and clear, but not very catchy. Husky (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)

Wikimedia sharp

Voting

Discussion


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)
agree, really vague --Thadguidry (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikompute

Voting

Discussion


Wikimuldia

Voting

Discussion


HyperWiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikirepo

Voting

Discussion

  • I like the brevity, but I'm not sure how many external viewers will be familiar with the slang term "repo". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This proposal might lack the clarification that it is only about functions and could mislead people into confusing it with other places where they encounter repositories, such as software package repositores (e.g. apt repos) or worse source code repositores (e.g. git repos). Though it helps definitely to understand how the wiki is meant to be consumed, i.e. not directly. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a good direction to consider.--Pharos (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Tempo Wiki

Voting

Discussion

  • Sounds like a wiki about music or something. Unclear connection to the ideas of functions, templates, translations, etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikicompute

Voting

Discussion


Wikimethods

Voting

Discussion

  • Functions formally describe a method to operate with data. Plus, "method" refers to functions controlling the behaviour of objects in programming. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This leaves the door open to non-computational methods, e.g. experimental protocols, which is probably useful, especially since the computationally-oriented site architecture can be expected to help with the formalization, standardization and replicability of the non-computational methods. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiPreTranslate

Voting

Discussion

  • Too leaned on Abstract content.--GZWDer (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above: This name is too specific and does not fulfill 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki gate

Voting

Discussion


Structwiki

Voting

Discussion


UniWiki

Voting

Discussion

Wikiport

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.

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)

Wikiexec/-s

Voting

Discussion


Build wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikiglot

Voting

Discussion

  • a "Wiki of functions" is not by itself related to languages.--GZWDer (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above: This does not fulfill 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiAda

Voting

Discussion

  • Since it is a wiki of essentially bits of programming, I thought it might make sense to name it after Ada Lovelace. Apologies for the CamelCase, it's not necessary, but I thought it might make the meaning a bit clearer.--Pharos (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiglobe

Voting

Discussion


Wiki Etymology

Voting

Discussion

  • Etymology is about words, but [t]he 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The name suggests a wiki that discusses the etymology of words (something Wiktionary already does), but that is a far cry from the project's goals. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

λ

Voting

  • Proposed by Milimetric (WMF)
  • Support Support. Even though it isn't very consistent with the rest of the Wikimedia brand, I like it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I hesitate a bit but do propose this seriously. It’s definitely very cryptic, and hard to type for most people and all that. But it’s also more accurate than any other proposal in my opinion, with the added bonus of being more succinct. The domain name would be λ.wiki. I think everyone who would participate in this project would get it immediately and see the connection to lambda calculus more than with “wikilambda”. But maybe I’m crazy, feel free to tell me I’m crazy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milimetric (WMF) (talk)
    I don't think it would be a great official name, but I could see the λ.wiki and lambda.wiki domains in conjunction with the Wikilambda official name stylized as Wikiλambda and λ or lambda in internal use, such as a “currently in λ” news section. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No - This name is hard to type, especially in mobile phone. In addition in many places (such as database name) only Latin characters can be used. --GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree this is hard to type, but the written-out "lambda" could be used instead. However, I would prefer a name suggesting the project is a wiki. Concerning the domain: The wiki will be created at either "foo.org" or "foo.wikimedia.org". This is currently undecided and will be based on technical and legal decisions. I'm not sure Greek and Latin letters can be combined in a domain name either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    They can be. Punycode is pretty flexible. --Yair rand (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • λ.wiki sounds like a sexy modern 2020 startup domain name, I guess. At least it gives me those vibes. That could be a good thing. Regarding technical issues, the internal database name could be lambdawiki, and there could be a redirect from lambda.wiki, so I'm not sure how big of a deal this is. All major browsers support punycode. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikicodex or Wikimedia-Codex

Voting

  • Proposed by Path slopu
  • Support Support. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support "Wikimedia Codex" per the parallel to "Wikimedia Commons" (I'm less sure about "Wikicodex"). Mahir256 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support but maybe more for the "Abstract Wikipedia" piece than the function piece. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Too leaned on language generation.--GZWDer (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually kinda like it because "codex" includes "code", which relates to the project's goals (functions), but I'm not sure if that double meaning works in all languages. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiTrans or TransWiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikimentum

Voting

Discussion


BigDaPedia

Voting

Discussion

  • Big Da? Big Data, I assume. I don't think the proposed wiki is really about big data though, unless I'm missing something. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You are not missing it. ;-) Agree, not the right context. --Thadguidry (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

f(Wiki)

Voting

Discussion


Module Wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikiglobal

Voting

Discussion


Wikimedia compendium

Voting

Discussion

  • No - This is not a wiki for summary of concepts.--GZWDer (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Universalpedia

Voting

Discussion

  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Pedia" does not make sense as the project is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also, the name seems too general to me, as it does not indicate what the project is about. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed from UniversalPedia to Universalpedia given the suggestion to avoid Camelcase on the talkpage. ChristianKl❫ 14:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikiversal would sound better. Enjoyer of World (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Axial wiki

Voting

Discussion


Bashwiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikimedia Ultimate

Voting

Discussion


Layman's Wiki

Voting

Discussion

  • This seems like a misnomer, since the main content of the wiki will be technical, not something intended to be used directly by laypeople. Unless I'm missing something. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Functionwiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikimedia Functions

Voting

  • Proposed by PiRSquared17
  • Support Support If an un-mashed name were to be preferred. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Artrixs (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Along the lines of Wikimedia Commons. Deryck C. 12:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion


Wikiscripts

Voting

Discussion

  • I think this is okay, since it relates to the goals of the project, but I'd prefer it without a space in the middle. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: Hi, removed the space. Thank you.--Path slopu (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikivars

Voting

Discussion


Wikishare

Voting

Discussion


MultiWiki

Voting

Discussion


Wiki-progs

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)
  • 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)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)

Alphapedia

Voting

Discussion

  • This name does not indicate what it is about, especially for users who do not know Wolfram Alpha.--GZWDer (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The connection between "alpha" and functions, even after the mention of Wolfram Alpha here, is unclear to me, and the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-sharp

Voting

Discussion


Wikiμ

Voting

Discussion

  • μ naturally follows λ.
  • Even more cryptic than the preliminary name, this name is even less likely to be connected to functions, as this play on the name of lambda calculus is a complete insider. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The only connection between "μ" and "function" in my mind is the concept of μ-recursive functions. This model of computation is functionally equivalent to the lambda calculus and Turing machines, but much less well-known. "Lambda" is something lots of programmers would be familiar with. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Algo-wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikend

Voting

Discussion


Wikifacts

Voting

Discussion

  • This would be a better name for Abstract Wikipedia than for Wikilambda, which is not intended to host factual content about the world but rather function code. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikitemplates

Voting

Discussion

  • Direct and to the point, relates to the project's goals. Template is a MediaWiki jargon term, but that's probably fine since this isn't end-user-facing anyway. Also worth considering TemplateWiki/TemplatesWiki. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This wiki won't be about templates, but about functions. On top of it the same issue with translation into German occurs, that does with Wikifunctions. (see above) --CamelCaseNick (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia TITAN

Voting

Discussion

  • Is this supposed to stand for something? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • This reminds me of either a comic with robots and superheroes or the Large Hydron Collider, i don't think it's a good fit. Husky (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiChunks

Voting

Discussion

  • I like it because it's catchy and fun, but i think it might not translate very well into other languages. Husky (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Para-wiki

Voting

Discussion


Wikipoly

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.

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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)

Wikiinfo

Voting

Discussion


Honupedia

Voting

Discussion

  • 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)
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The only thing I found about "honu" is that it is a taxon of turtles, and I'm not sure turtles are intrinsically related to functions. Moreover, the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikifun

Voting

Discussion

  • from Wiki and function
not entirely opposed to this. I don't see any translation issues. It's simple for bonus points I guess? Attracts positive tone (who doesn't want to have fun?) --Thadguidry (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the abbreviation "fun" for "function" doesn't work in all languages. For example, the word for a mathematical function in Mandarin is hánshù (函數). So you could either just use the regular word for "function" in Chinese (something like Weiji Hanshu?), or try to transliterate "fun". PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, as others are saying, it's very cute in English, but hard to translate. It will have problems in Russian (it will be spelled the same as "fan") and in Hebrew (where "p" and "f" are the same letter). It will probably have issues in other languages, too. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Zen-Wiki or Wikizen or ZenithWiki

Voting

Discussion

  • ZenWiki and Wikizen sound Buddhism-related. All three names have unclear connection to the purpose of the project. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Lingista

Voting

Discussion

  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiThought

Voting

Discussion

  • A library of functions to tie concepts. Naming comes from H2G2's w:Deep Thought --Sabas88 (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiversal

Voting

Discussion


WiKi-K'e

Voting

Discussion

  • Navajo for friendship
  • Unclear how friendship relates to the idea of functions, templates, or translation. Unclear pronunciation. Also, "wikike.org" is a no-go because it contains an ethnic slur in English (but maybe "wiki-ke.org" could avoid that). PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I my opinion the name does not necessarily have to be related to the technical aspect of the system. As for the pronounciation it could be why-Kee-keh. As a non-native English speaker it is difficult to associate wikike with any form of slurs, even after searching the Internet. This much be a marginal or subcultural slur or spelt in a different way (Waikiki, a Honolulu neighborhood, is the closest match I could find). I would say the apostrophe should not be there as it does not work in a URL. The dash could also be removed. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Difficult to say and pronounce. This is just my opinion, but, there are too many K consonants. harej (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki++

Voting

Discussion


Wikiutilities / Wikitilities / Wikimedia Utilities

Voting

Discussion

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

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)
  • This name does not indicate it is a wiki.--GZWDer (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Wikimedia Executables

Voting

Discussion

  1. Ah, didn't notice this section on the talk page. ~~~~
  • I think this would be a pretty decent name, although technically I guess the wiki will not host binary executable files. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Curry

Voting

Discussion

  • Does mention the project will be a "wiki". Also, "curry" will not generally be associated with functions by external visitors, even if this seems to be based on the programming language with the same name – that, by the way, no-one said will be used in the project, let alone be one of the main languages. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's not a reference to that one language, it's a reference to Haskell Curry in general, a mathematician who studied lambda calculus/combinatory logic (which relates to functions), and who gave his name to currying, which is another function-related concept. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'd forgotten the name of the mathematician the programming language Haskell is named after. This shows the background of the name will probably not be clear to everyone, which would be new for WMF projects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Eval

Voting

Discussion


Wiki of Everything

Voting

Discussion


Wikidatopedia

Voting

Discussion

  • Same comments as for Datapedia. Also sounds like Wikidata. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I get that the functions will be used for Abstract Wikipedia, which will be part of Wikidata, but I agree the name is confusing (additionally, "pedia" suggests the project will be an encyclopedia, which is not the case). Furthermore, it violates 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikitolk

Voting

Discussion


Mod-wiki

Voting

Discussion