Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. comment expressed with this community of contributors by a significant majority stating that they did not find it acceptable for the Foundation to call itself Wikipedia

At 24 minutes and 40 seconds in, during this Wikimedia Foundation branding proposal presentation of April 11, 2019 used as the basis for the community consultation, Zack McCune, User:ZMcCune (WMF), says, "In this proposal, what changes? Well, Wikimedia names will become Wikipedia names, which would mean we would retitle the movement, our affiliates, the Foundation. To what? That has not yet been specified. So the question here is, should we explore that? ... We should not assume that it is Wikipedia Foundation." [emphasis added.] In contrast, the project summary says, "What is the proposed brand strategy? ... Exploring new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups to use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia." Similarly, Zack's February 2019 "Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030" states, "the proposed brand strategy ... would create an opportunity for renaming the movement, affiliates, and the Foundation with 'Wikipedia' names."


The Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project plan states as a foregone conclusion that the endpoint of its process will include calling the Foundation and affiliates by the name Wikipedia, admitting, among other obvious issues, that "Wikipedia France," will likely be confused with the French Wikipedia. The community consultation it cites in support apparently did not clearly include this information when it was put to its respondents, and therefore it is not representative of authentic community sentiment on the question. To the extent that the question may have been implied, community agreement with the proposals did not achieve majority support.

On June 16, during this RFC, the Wikimedia Foundation proposed calling itself "Wikipedia Foundation", "Wikipedia Organization", or "Wikipedia Network Trust".


Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?


  1. Support the question as (poorly) worded. Of course it is acceptable. They can do what they want. It is not a good idea, however. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95:I don't want to be disrespectful but this response is deserving of a disrespectful answer. No, they can't do whatever they want Jonesy, even if you think that's what freedom means. It doesn't. If it is "not a good idea", vote appropriately or you sabotage what people are trying to do here. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 09:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support The Wikimedia movement has long had a problem with what to call itself, and going with 'Wikimedia' rather that 'Wikipedia' has caused significant brand confusion, given how well known 'Wikipedia' now is. As an alternative, we could always rename 'Wikipedia' to the 'Wikimedia Encyclopaedia'... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support As I have written below the foundation should be allowed to choose just as I believe other movement entities should be allowed to choose. I would have gone with "Wikipedia Canada" when we incorporating that chapter years ago if it was than allowed. Well we are a little late I still think giving movement entities the option is useful. By the way I am not 100% sure on what has been decided with respect to branding. I am not convinced regarding the concerns of this deemphasizing the sister projects. English Wikivoyage for example uses in their tagline "The official, non-commercial sister site of Wikipedia for sightseeing" to capture people's knowledge about Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support This is going to lose, but only commons and Wikipedia projects have been successful. The others have not been. We should capitalize on a good brand, not a brand people haven’t heard of. This would be common sense at any other organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Yes of course, I see no obvious issues that Wikipedia France will be confused with French Wikipedia.The Living love (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The two are already confused and the chapter receives lawyer letters demanding to remove content X of article Y on a regular basis. Renaming "Wikimédia France" to "Wikipédia France" will definitely make it harder to explain that they are two separate entities and that the chapter does not have an editorial role (or legal responsibility.) -Ash Crow (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People already do confuse, and I've seen a guy came to WMKR event to complain about the "Wikipedia admin"'s action. — regards, Revi 13:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ash Crow and Revi thanks for your responses, but I still don't see anyone confusing between France and French.The Living love (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Living love: You have been explained by Ash Crow, who is involved in Wikimédia France and therefore has first-hand knowledge, that in fact, there is already confusion. "The chapter receives lawyer letters demanding to remove content X of article Y on a regular basis" sounds pretty clear to me. Renaming the chapter to Wikipédia France would be therefore be unhelpful as it would foster instead of fight this confusion. Other chapters have similar experiences. So, although you are free to have your personal opinion, that you "don't see anyone confusing", the facts beg to differ. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Living love: Think in other languages, please. -Theklan (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Almost any time I say "Wikimedia" to people outside the movement, I get confusion in response, until I say "Wikipedia". It would be good to align our internal naming with those expectations. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Yes if "Wikipedia" is associated with the suffix "Move". "Wikipedia Move" sounds like "movement" and will concern everything which is related to real people, real money, real technology, etc... The basic name will then refer to the Foundation ("Wikipedia Move"). The other entities will add a second suffix after "Move" : the Chapters ("Wikipedia Move xxxx (country)" exple : Wikipedia Move France), the User groups ("Wikipedia Move Users xxxx"), technology (Wikipedia Move Tech"), etc... The name "Wikipedia" alone (without the suffix "Move") will concern all the virtual online activity (online encyclopaedia, anonymous online contributors) (means : no changes for actual Wikipedia). "Move" can be shortened in the logos and short name as "M". Exple: "Wikipedia M". In the acronyms, "WPM" instead of former "WM". Exple : "WPMFr" instead of former "WMFr". The "M" refering to "Move" would also remind to the former "Wikimedia". It is also very simple to change the "WM" in "WPM". Idea is from my own and given personnally. --Waltercolor (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia Move"? Bad move. — Bob Saint Clar (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't work in the other 308 languages. Sorry. -Theklan (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theklan: It has been former called "Wikimedia" in the other 308 languages, right ? So invent anything with "M" in each language, and you get it : "WPM". Don't tell me that the letter "M" doesn't exist in any language. You just have to create a short name in "M" after "Wikipedia" in any language to tell that this "M-something" means you are in presence of the "real life" Wikipedia space, that one with people, offices, money, technology... and not the virtual online one. And yes, it works in 308 languages, cause there is no language without "M" and cool short "M" words. It doesn't need to be "Move". Be flexible. The concept has to work. ;-) --Waltercolor (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not about Wiki[mp]edia, it was about the concept "Move". Completely anglocentric. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theklan: Oh, you overreacted about "Move" and so my concept of a "Wikipedia M" versus "Wikipedia" just falled in a cosmic hole ! :-) It's the first time I "kill" someone with an anglicism (I usually speak french). I really wonder which other solution will be universal. Generally people choose latin name for brands, because it sounds somehow "neutral". So I propose "Wikipedia Modus". Notice that there is a big difference between Wiki[mp]edia and "Wikipedia M". You can prononce the latter one. --Waltercolor (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So... since there are only a few options, help me choose: "Wikipedia Coyote/Wolf", "Wikipedia Apes", "Wikipedia Pastry"... or "Wikipedia Butter"? Seb az86556 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Weak support The Wikimedia brand is heavily confusing for pretty much everyone. When you are meeting a partner and saying you are coming from Wikimedia, you have to explain that in reality you are coming from Wikipedia. When people are contacting a Wikimedia affiliate, in reality they expect to get an answer from Wikipedia. When I tried to make a donation to a Wikimedia chapter, the bank tried to send my donation to a Wikipedia chapter, thinking that I made a mistake. Thus yes, our Wikimedia brand is very confusing and not recognisable. What should be done however is a clear naming and legal framework that would satisfy both San Francisco, sister projects (which will really become known primarily as Wikipedia sister projects) and movement affiliates. Given that this is not clarified yet, my support is weak, although the idea in itself is not so bad — NickK (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality is not that you are coming from Wikipedia if you represent the WMF. The WMF doesn't have editorial control over any Wikipedia and if you claim you are speaking for Wikipedia you are likely going to mislead the other person into thinking that you speak for an organization that has control over the policies of Wikipedia. ChristianKl16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChristianKl: The truth is that WMF definitely has control over all policies of Wikipedia. They hardly ever use it, delegating almost everything to us, the editing community, but it perfectly has a right to impose policies (like they did with Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment) — NickK (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think most people who are staff at the WMF share your opinion that they have editorial/policy control over these projects (or at least they're smart enough to not mention it publicly). That's because the WMF didn't build these projects (nor does it have the funding or manpower to maintain them), in fact their org started years after Wikipedia went live. Not only is the link you shared an example of how they have to work with the projects to come to new solutions, it's an example of how they would have not been able to keep them enforced without lasting community support. The paid editing solution was widely supported by the established Wikipedia communities, so we enforce that policy... however, that policy has no community backing at Wikimedia Commons, and so they do not enforce it. So, sure the WMF can make strategy all they want (sometimes even create great ideas)... but, if they fail to get the community behind them, those strategies are worthless (much like the WMF would be without any of the content our volunteers have created over nearly two decades). Coffee // have a cup // 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Control is about having the power to do things. WMF currently doesn't have the political power to push through policies against the community even through it tries from time to time. Choosing a wording that gives that appearance is problematic because it feels like a power grap from the WMF. ChristianKl08:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support --Hadi (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support I'm sick and tired to explain a difference that is mostly inexistent. Wikipedia has been organically cannibalizing the other projects since at least 2010. It's not the foundation that pushed for that, but the communities, starting with en.wp. The rebranding simply acknowledges and existing reality. Strainu (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's surely why the WMF took almost a decade to focus the Annual Whishlist in the other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia cannibalized the other projects because no leadership in the WMF has decided yet to finally invest in infrastructure & interface to make them a real free knowledge competitor. Who's gonna edit projects that are not adapted for their purpose and that look like 2005? Not even Wikibooks has a functional tool to pile pages nor Wikisource has revision systems that do not include loads of wikitext. It's senseless investing in branding or marketing when the projects and values that sustain them are being completedly dismantled in purpose. An entire team of staff developers completely isolated from the real needs of volunteers. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 19:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support First off, its important to note, since I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting what this RfC is about, as pointedly stated in the caption for the video at the start of this page and in the question itself, this isn't a RfC on whether the Foundation should rename itself to "Wikipedia". As far as I can tell, no one is calling for this.
    With that out of the way, I think Waltercolor's proposal is quite reasonable. For the good of the movement, i.e. the sibling projects at large, I think it is acceptable for the Foundation to use "Wikipedia" as some sort of reference for itself. This is because most of the other projects are invisible to the average person. The Foundation using a little wiggle room about its name in order to get people's attention and inform them about other projects, to me, is justified means to achieve the end of greater visibility and participation. Lastly, going back to what Waltercolor said, the term ideally shouldn't be used by itself, but in conjunction with something else. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support per TonyBallioni and Strainu and to narrow the gap between WP − WM and to lessen the confusion in outsiders about the difference. Local chapters should decide for themselves, whether changing their name is a benefit. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Je suis pour, c'est une clarification bienvenue avec tous ces noms proches (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Mediawiki, Wikimania), et je n'ose même plus prononcer le mot Wikimedia à mes proches pour expliquer l'organisation, car ils sont perdus sinon. J'utilise déjà au contraire Wikipedia pour parler de tout (y compris les projets sur lesquels je participe plus, comme Wikisource), c'est plus simple, et au moins, tout le monde comprend. --Consulnico (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google translation: "I'm for it, it's a welcome clarification with all these close names (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Mediawiki, Wikimania), and I don't even dare to pronounce the word Wikimedia to my loved ones to explain the organization, because they are lost otherwise.
      On the contrary, I already use Wikipedia to talk about everything (including projects in which I participate more, like Wikisource), it's simpler, and at least everyone understands." ~~ by Consulnico above
  14. Strong support Strong support. The online encyclopedia is central and essential to more or less all other projects and it is all user's most prominent and well known interface. Eissink (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  15. Support. Wikimedia is a confusing name for the general public. They will barely note this change. For us, users it will not change the way we work on the projects. Ellywa (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Branding clearly matters, especially in online projects, and it's not unreasonable for the WMF to pay consultants for advice on what would work better. In cases where simplifying to just using "wikipedia" then it seems reasonable to do so, with further specificity clarified afterwards. Google maps isn't a search engine to find maps, but people know that 'Google is something to do with searching', similarly people know that 'Wikipedia is something to do with free information'. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support I think it's a very good idea. Zmiany Solarne (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support Strong support Very good idea. Organizes the current chaos. Currently, people who do not know the foundation do not know what Wikimedia is. The name "Wikipedia" is justified here. She is known and liked. You immediately know what's going on. Unification of names in the organization can be very good. Everyone associates the name Wikipedia. Nobody associates the name Wikimedia. We must be recognizable to represent the project responsibly. In my opinion, you need to standardize the names. One idea - one name. MOs810 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support – this is controversial? This is opposed by many? I'm genuinely surprised. Wikimedia is, and has always been, primarily about Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons could easily be renamed to Wikipedia Commons. There is no need to complain about a reasonable attempt to reduce existing, repeatedly experienced confusion. ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Support – a bit sad. The idea is good. But I can understand, that people think, our problems are elsewere. For example I've tried to write this here since a longer time, but it was not possible because the projects were not accessable. Abd when I see the other future plans, I also understand, why people don't wanna change things, even it's a good idea. The trust in the WMF, Wikimedia or Wiipedia Foundation, is widely vanished. So here are those results. A roof organization that only show mstrust to his volunteers earns mistrust. What happens here is housemade. And we know, at the end the WMF will do whatever they wanna do. Because they think since a longer time, that the communities who made all this are not the right ones. We're just in the way to a submissive and grateful new community. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC) I can not support this longer after this happend. Such an undemocratic, autocratic behaviour is not supportable by me. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Weak support; I don't see a problem (but also no big benefit): what is important is how the Foundation acts, not how it is called --Qcomp (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support - I think it's probably a good idea to focus on the most successful brand when naming things. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support Strong support „ordinary readers“ (= no regular contributor to any Wiki(p/m)edia project) often get confused about these different names. As Wikipedia ist one of the best-known brands around the world, changing the foundations name to Wikipedia would increase it's publicity. --Johannnes89 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support Strong support I spend a lot of time and energy training teachers and other users on how to contribute to (and use effectively) Wikipedia and Wikimedeia Commons. Most people know or have heard of Wikipedia but almost nobody has heard of Wikimedia. Every year, during the fundraising period, people who know that I do a lot of work with Wikipedia ask me if Wikimedia has anything to do with the encyclopedia that I love... I then have to explain the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia at which point they are no longer interested in donating. They may have learnt something that most people do not care about but that is all. GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support I generally support a rebrand in this direction. While I personally do not have anything against Changing "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia Foundation", I do think that a better name would be a neutral one, but still able to give similar impression to the public. For example, "Wiki Foundation"?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support I'd say Wikipedia accounts for about 19 twentieths of the traffic on all Wikimedia-owned ThingsTemplate:TM. Cortex128 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support I'm not sure, given the amount of 'political' dialogue going around here, how will this BRAND change reflect in any way on the current power dynamics between the WMF and the communities. Internally (i.e. within the Movement), the difference between the Foundation and the community will be ever so vivid, as I'm pretty sure it has never stemmed or will stem from a superficial difference of names. Externally, people rarely understand the difference between the Foundation and the community: for those who do, I also don't see why the name change would confuse them. As far as I'm concerned, in the terms of my local community, it's incredibly easier to advocate for our affiliates' work with the re-branding taking effect --Abbad (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  27. Support Support, but only with "Foundation" in it. If WMF has an actual branch operation in France, then "Wikipedia Foundation France" is the obvious way around any confusion with "French Wikipedia" (Wikipédia française in actual French).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: The Wikimedia chapters are independent organizations, not branches of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia France is an organization which supports the Wikimedia projects, much like the WMF. --Yair rand (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this RfC was intentionally misleading (much more so that what it is complaining about), in implying that the French Wikipedia would be confused, should WMF's "Wikipedia" name-change plans go forward, with an entity called "Wikipedia France". The pile of opposition below is thus an obvious false consensus produced by blatantly bullshitting about the nature and consequences of the debate, right from its opening words. I am not amused.

    I remain in support of the WMF's name-change plans for basically all the reasons given above: the current situation is what is confusing, and consolidating the "branding" to a single world-recognized, high-good-will, and strong-positive-association identifier, WikiPedia, is a sensible move. This naming stuff has jack to do with power dynamics between the foundation itself and the Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, etc.) editorial communities. If anything, renaming WMF to Wikipedia Foundation or something like that would impede WMF's self-delusional bifurcation. If we're all WikiPedia henceforth, it will be hard for WMF – with its almost-everyone-came-from-software-companies board and staff, nearly none of them with a background in nonprofit administration – to continue misapprehending the editorial community as basically a userbase playing a game/forum the "company" is publishing. WMF has to wake up to the fact that it is a major nonprofit/NGO with the largest public-interest constituency in this history of humanity; it is not a software/services publisher with a customer base. I've been saying this for almost a decade now (based on direct experience with similar organization, like EFF, that were stuck in the same confused limbo in the organizational lifecycle). The longer WMF takes to figure out what it really is, the harder it's going to be for Wikipedia to be future-proofed (I don't mean against collapse 5 years from now, but 15 or 25 or 35, after a long slide into "no one wants to work on Wikipedia unless they have some third-party agenda they're being paid to push").
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC); slightly revised 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: To clarify, the WMF branding proposal does include renaming chapters (subject to their approval) to names like "Wikipedia France". --Yair rand (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a red herring. If they're independent organizations, they can call themselves whatever makes sense to them. If WMF imposes a consistent naming system on them, there is no rationale for us to future-predict that WMF will settle on names that are obviously confusing. This RfC is basically an argument to emotion and straw man and slippery slope fallacy combination: it lays out a scenario of confusion designed to raise RfC respondents' ire and alarm, but does not represent any proposal that WMF has actually made, it just assumes that WMF would choose the stupidest option possible at some future date. It's much more sensible to assume that WMF, if they became the Wikipedia Foundation, would instead use a chapter naming system like "Wikipedia – France Chapter", "Wikipedia Chapter France", or any option other than the obviously confusing "Wikipedia France". Part of the "assume good faith" principle is "don't assume severe brain damage".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Weak support AFAIK, the rationale for a brand change involves more how we are perceived outside the movement rather than within the movement --it is mostly about external awareness and outreach. Data that have been put forward by the WMF do support the rationale, as Wikipedia awareness is a given, and a communications strategy could work upon it to improve support, recruitment, etc. My sense is the community could quite easily adapt to this name change --which involves a cost, that I understand might be significantly lower than the benefits associated to this change. My sole concern, and this is why my support is relative and not in full, is discontentment within the community, particularly in a context in which the WMF could have done a better job conveying what the perception of the community about this brand change was and setting up a general, purposeful discussion with Wikimedians. I fear the way this has played out right now will lead to unnecessary disruption and conflict. Anyway, with a proper process and in a slower pace than what was probably envisioned at first, I think this original methodological pitfall does not override the merit of the proposal by the WMF. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joalpe: What evidence is there that the current name has had any negative impact for support, recruitment, etc? I find the assertion highly dubious. I've occasionally had conversations with bits of the UK government on policy-relating things of concern to Wikimedia. I have never had any trouble. The Wikimedia name is actually useful in this regard, because it signals that WMF handles more than just Wikipedia. Jheald (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Case in point: one of the discussion point in the recent EU copyright directive requirements for automatic image filtering at upload time. Pro-directive MEPs would sometimes come back to us and say "Okay, but there will be a carve-out for images being used in an online encyclopedia. Doesn't that sort things out for you?" The Wikimedia label is and was a useful reminder that we are concerned about more than just Wikipedia -- such as images on Commons that may not be being used in any Wikipedia, but are there as an image bank in their own right; and Wikidata, which is now fulfilling up to 10 million queries a day. Often the first message we need to get over is: we do more than just building an encyclopedia, and we stand for aims and ambitions that are more than just building an encyclopeda. Having a name that is not Wikipedia is helpful for this. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Wikimedia is a complex movement and with a big change like this, many affiliates (and smaller communities that are yet to get organized as affiliates) might not be able to carry out the messaging in the same scale. So, it might be wiser to ensure that the transition is made smooth and the larger community is informed on a regular basis and the reflection of the changes are tracked to some level. It should not look as if the Foundation leads the whole branding process but does not reach out to the community enough once the branding changes are made. As a volunteer community (and in fact because of many small-to-large communities that might not talk to each other on a regular basis), the adoption of a change in this scale would take time. Foundation needs to work closely with the community for this post-branding process. --Psubhashish (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support This would end a lot of confusion, since no-one outside the movement has understood the difference between wikimedia and wikipedia anyway. Donors are giving their money mainly because they appreciate and wish to support the encyclopedia. This should be acknowledged and reflected by the foundation's name as well as by its actions. Wikipedia/Wikimedia France and French Wikipedia will continue to be confused, regardless of the name.--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support a general principle: we need to have a branding discussion, and the community should engage in finding a goo direction. "Wikimedia Foundation" is quite fuzzy and confusing for the outside world. Still, ways to keep different projects' identities are needed. Pundit (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear, because some people may not know. Pundit and Doc James (third comment in this section) are current members of WMF Board of Trustees. tufor (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support Badly made rfc. My proposal is "Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation", to use the well known "Wikipedia" on the one hand, but also make clear it's not only about Wikipedia --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 23:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support Since Wikipedia accounts for a majority of the traffic however something should be added after it to account for the other projects. Bobherry (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support i can live with both options. --Ghilt (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support EADS is now called Airbus for a reason --Studmult (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Studmult: you cherry-picked one example but please consider there is very few beer companies or car companies that adopted the name of one product or brand ; The Document Foundation is not named LibreOffice, Vorwerk is not Thermomix, Kimberly-Clark Corporation is not Kleenex, Apple is not iPhone, TX Group AG is not 20 minutes (a journal, and the company just changed in January 2020 from Tamedia). Finally, Airbus fused two subcompagnies and fired 5.800 person in the process, such a faerytale! -- Noé (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support This will help keep confusion away. -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support - let;s have a consistent branding. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support - consistent branding is key, and drives identity. Wikipedia is the flagship. We just have to deal with the opposition. I expect a lot of good things happen by letting them go (for a while, a wiki break). I will help in fundraising. I will in general help with outreach. It will help in communicating with the media. And yes, there is a need for a bridge between the online and offline worlds. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support Valanagut (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia is the brand people know![reply]
  39. Support Support As outside the movement people haven't understood the difference between wikimedia and wikipedia, this should end confusion. Vikram maingi (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support Brand names are how we talk to outsiders. Our internal politics are entertaining for us Wikkans and maybe of interest to librarians and museum keepers and free-culture fans and other insiders to the info biz, but publicly we should present one name. No need to confuse outsiders with insider details about which bits are the eponymous encyclopedias and which ones are a supporting database, picture collection, California corporation, local/national affiliate or whatever. Yes, granting an advertising budget of many millions per brand could support a separate public image for each one, but that isn't likely. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support It's the brand that people know. (In Google's place, I would not have renamed their company group to "Alphabet" either, for the same reasons.) --Wutzofant (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support It was a bad mistake in branding in the first place. Fix it now. Tony (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support Since more than a decade people use "Wikipedia" instead "Wikimedia" and maybe it's time to put our energy in more important issues and go with the "Wikipedia Move". (By the way, I agree with the change, not with the process. It should be be inclusive since the beginning and not hidden as it was. I think this is the reason why lots of members of the community vote "oppose" this change. And also because the olders are generally less opened to change their habits than newbies and want to stay in control. (Especially French people as usual ;)).O2 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support, but all money should be given to wikipedia community in every country. WMF is not allowed to take any money out of it. if wikipedia is the given name it should be the leader of every dollar or euro! --2003:F6:371D:4B00:DC44:5EA8:2733:CA53 17:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support, of course they should. No one knows what Wikimedia means. Wikipedia is the flagship project of the Foundation and its orginal purpose. The argument that this is confusing is silly, actually it is clarifying. I can see that this might upset other projects which aren't a Wikipedia, but the truth is that the vast majority of them were set up as adjuncts to Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 16:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support Strong support. and the web address should be renamed to ""--Ciao • Bestoernesto 19:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose Oppose. The drawbacks from the likely confusion are too substantial relative to the contemplated advantages. EllenCT (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose As stated by EllenCT, this would result in quite a bit of confusion, ranging from simple brand confusion to an even larger torrent of complains in the English Wikipedia helpdesk and teahouse whenever donations come around. It even has the possibility to confuse long-term users, who would end up potentially mixing up the names. --Moonythedwarf (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No.MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose I believe it would create a lot of confusion, and is a terrible idea. — Jeblad 20:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No The research report makes clear that people associate "wikipedia" with the encyclopedia. You can't fix the finding that "Wikimedia is less understood" by using a name that is well understood to be something else. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose This is a terrible idea, members of the community are surely not the same as Wikimedia employees. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 21:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose This is a fundamental waste of money and leadership time, at a time when we desperately need more resources in engineering and development (cf this twitter thread). The name of the foundation fundamentally doesn't matter; "Wikimedia" is good enough. Changing it to "the Wikipedia foundation" doesn't help the sister projects (Wiki Commons, Source, Data, Voyage); misrepresents the scope of what the movement is trying to do; and also misrepresents the relationship between actual WP and the Foundation; it would simply create confusion, as Jeblad and Schazjmd have well expressed immediately above. The proposal has been met an overwhelming lack of enthusiasm from the community, and majority opposition from all groups of contributors who have bothered to respond (as opposed to WMF's pet payroll vote). It should be killed with fire. Jheald (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose It was clear from the very beginning that this is not a good idea--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Eww. GMGtalk 21:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Misrepresents what the actual goals of the Foundation are and overemphasises Wikipedia to the detriment of the other Wiki<foo> sister projects. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose Wie drüber, sie Stiftung soll für alle Projekte da sein, nicht nur für die Wikipedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wenn schon, dann richtig, aber eigentlich sollten diese arroganten Monolinguisten das schon selber machen. Übersetzung: Like above, the foundation should be there for all projects, not just the Wikipedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose per all of the above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No! Wikipediaversity/voyage? Wikipedia Usergroup XXX? These sounds odd and lack of clarity of direction WMF is going into. I will hope these proposals will end and the foundation focuses on more practical things to help the editing community / outreach community out, diluting the importance of certain projects aren't one of them.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose. As I stated previously: 1) Having "brands" like "Wikipedia Travel" explicitly dilutes the notion of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and help confuse the clueless hoards who already struggle to understand this concept further; 2) Renaming Wikivoyage etc. to Wikipedia X reinforces the idea that these projects are secondary/afterthoughts/also-rans/distractions when they should be first class citizens; and 3) exacerbating the problem where the clueless hoards believe the foundation has a greater control over Wikipedia content than they already do, that Wikipedia is the only thing they do and, of course forking out more donations (which is the underlying reason for the rebranding, not to fix the actual problem). I can now add to that 4) "Wikipedia France" != "French Wikipedia". The WMF is spaffing money up the wall yet again. MER-C (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose: A rebrand of the Foundation seems somewhat confusing. While Wikipedia is afaik the most recognisable project, a lot of stuff is run on other sites like commons or wikidata, which aren't encyclopediae, but have their own goals. The current Wikimedia brand seemed like a good umbrella term for all the different projects. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose Evidently a bad idea, per all written above. --Schniggendiller (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. What does the organization behind Firefox call itself? Hint: not Firefox. Feminist (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose - @GreenMeansGo: is absolutely correct below. Getting people to understand the difference (whether in OTRS or real life) between WMF and Wikipedia is tough as it is. This would make it impossible. I'm also at a loss on why does the WMF need better (but less distinctive) branding? it's primary function is to support the Wikimedia projects, and it doesn't need to sell itself to do that. Personally I thought the rebranding exercise made it very clear indeed we didn't want anything like this, but I'm game to make it very clear. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. big Oppose Oppose: it leads to confusion, and "media" and "pedia" have a big differents to its meaning. If there is a problem with the Wikimedia term, strengthen the Insight. It does not matter if Wikipedia is better. I strongly agree that Wikimedia because is covered by all forms, all media. All medium of transferring free knowledge. --Philippines ShiminUfesoj Philippines 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  20. Strong oppose. The sister projects like Wiktionary or Wikibooks would be in minor advantage. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. For very good reasons, 92% of the community rejected the proposal. The fact that the staff then lied to the board about the results does not bode well. The WMF has no mandate to co-opt the Wikipedia brand, nor to present itself under Wikipedia's identity, nor to sideline all sister projects. --Yair rand (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my position still stands after the reveal of the specific proposals "Wikipedia Foundation", "Wikipedia Organization", and "Wikipedia Network Trust". --Yair rand (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose: I would just cause lots of confusion. Mainly what Nosebagbear and Feminist said. Bad idea. (However, the WMF can do what it wants.) Also renaming any brand causes a lot of confusion and too many things will need to be replaced. BEANS X2 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose: --Udo T. (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong oppose: Very bad idea. Branding the foundation in a way that (at first sight) implies Wikimedia foundation = Wikipedia? Confusing if not (not imply intentionally) misleading. And might be misinterpreted as the other projects being of lesser importance. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong oppose: Quoth the bear: "Personally I thought the rebranding exercise made it very clear indeed we didn't want anything like this, but I'm game to make it very clear." Levivich (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong oppose. Wikimedia is more than just Wikipedia. The sister projects have a distinct identity separate from Wikipedia, and doing a completely unnecessary rebranding like this only increases confusion and diminishes the importance of the other projects. The unique identity of the sister projects needs to be reinforced, not suppressed. DraconicDark (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose per above. -FASTILY 04:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose. This was proposed on the Wikimedia mailing list and at Wikimedia brand survey in 2007, and was rejected in both discussions. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the community at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. It should still be rejected, and I'll repost my response from the Community Review:
    It's fine if the Foundation wants to increase knowledge of the Wikimedia brand, or wants to consider some novel brand. However for the following reasons, and reasons listed by others, the foundation shouldn't usurp 'Wikipedia'.
    • Our projects are made of people, and casting the other projects as subservient to Wikipedia would be damaging.
    • The Foundation, and the other projects, are not encyclopedias. KentuckyFriedChicken concrete or PayPal doughnuts or Netflix toiletpaper would be atrocious branding. That kind of branding conflict causes cognitive dissonance.
    • The proposal creates disruptive confusion between the Foundation and the existing Wikipedia. It becomes more difficult to discuss these very distinct entities.
    • None of us has a crystal ball for the future, but in time some other new or existing project could very well displace Wikipedia as the most notable project.
    • Again none of us has a crystal ball for the future, but I can see potential cases where the Foundation would want or need to spin-off Wikipedia. Alsee (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Oppose per many reasons already stated above. (I reserve the right to add additional reasons if I think of them in time, but the reasons above are already sufficient and compelling)
  30. Oppose Oppose There's already enough conflation of volunteers and staff amongst the public. We don't need to worsen it. The Foundation needs to be known as such and as differentiated as possible from the volunteers and the things which anyone is welcome to contribute to. It's also insulting to all of our sister projects to make this suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose - I'm genuinely failing to see what problem this is trying to fix. The reason the Foundation is not very known to the public, is because almost no one needs to know that the Foundation exists to go about their daily life. Wikipedia is very well known because it is one very particular thing: a free encyclopedia (that virtually everyone with an internet connection uses). The parent org Alphabet isn't known, yet its main product everyone uses is: Google. Google Cash, Google Maps, etc., are all probably easier to mention to people who don't use them, but that isn't an argument for forcing our sister projects to have to be under the "Wikipedia Foundation" (and I'll note YouTube hasn't been renamed Google Video). There are reasons in each community why they didn't want to describe themselves as part of the encyclopedia... using a top down approach to fix that is also not a good idea.

    Further, as a Wikipedian, I think it important to note the Foundation should not be giving off any impression that it speaks for the Wikipedia community. That is all I can possibly see coming from this... including people like the WMF CEO becoming the "Wikipedia CEO". Sorry, we don't have a central authority above our community and we never will (owning the servers isn't something the Foundation should be holding over any of our heads either, especially considering that's only because people donate millions every year because they like the volunteers' work).

    Doc James' and other's arguments here about how people have sometimes hoped for the simplicity of a more centralized organization when they're referring to something other than Wikipedia, only further amplifies to me how such a title change can be misused. Branding is important, sure... but as it stands right now our branding works for what it is intended to, and it properly differentiates between WMF staff and the people who volunteered years of their life making these projects be so successful (without a dime in return). Coffee // have a cup // 10:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose Just no. If you want to rebrand the foundation to something, call it WMF without it meaning anything. It allows us to not have to explain what the heck Wikimedia is to everyone and it avoids confusing the general public further. The money spent on this rebranding would've been better spent elsewhere. -Yupik (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong oppose. The WMF is the Foundation that hosts Wikipedia -an encyclopedia- and other Wikimedia projects, and that supports them. The WMF must not be confused with the encyclopedia. In France, journalists already often confuse the chapter Wikimedia France (although its employees explain the difference; props to them) and Wikipedia in French; we don't need an even more confusing name.
    In addition to be very confusing (as said by others), this change would be dangereous, imho, as words are not meaningless. The Wikimedia movement is decentralized (every language and project community has a big autonomy, with self-governing community), and calling everything "Wikipedia" would lead to let the world think that the Wikimedia movement (became "Wikipedia") is a unique vertical and homogeneous structure. Which is not. I don't mean to be rude (I do like WMF employees and their work), but Wikipedias (the encyclopaedias) are not a way for WMF to make its "marketing". As said by Coffee above: "I think it important to note the Foundation should not be giving off any impression that it speaks for the Wikipedia community. That is all I can possibly see coming from this... including people like the WMF CEO becoming the "Wikipedia CEO"." Kind regards, — Jules Talk 12:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  34. Strong oppose. For many years now we try to explain to the public that there is much more to wikimedia than the wikipedia encyclopedia. Changing the name would destroy all this work and send all other projects (commons, wikidata, wikisource and so on) to the shadows. Besides, I think this rebranding would be a levelling down, which I despise. We aim to improve the knowledge and cultur of people all over the world and levelling down is the opposite of this improvement. --Relf PP (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose Sister projects are not under Wikipedia, they share some values but not all and they don't have the same communities. Mixing the superstructure with one project is odd and disengaging Noé (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Oppose, as it will increase confusion between the Wikipedia projects and some chapters. How could the public understand that the Chair of Wikipedia France is not the Chair of French Wikipedia and, thus, has no editorial power? --~— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pic-Sou (talk)
  37. Wikimedia can and should be more then only Wikipedia. Habitator terrae (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Oppose It must be clear that WMF is not Wikipedia! --Wikiolo (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Hell no. (If you want longer version, refer to what MER-C said.) — regards, Revi 13:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Oppose This will create confusion between the Foundation, the Chapters and the communities. Wikipedia is the product of autonomous communities, not the product of the Foundation and not the product of the Chapters. I suspect that this is an attempt to expropriate the community work for the Foundation, or at least to make use of the good name of Wikipedia for the Foundation's public relations. In future, we shall often hear that "Wikipedia" puts forward some statements, although it was only the Board of the Foundation that has decided upon such a statement, but not the working communities. This is not legitimate and should not be done.Mautpreller (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Oppose. 2 separate stuff/entities should never have similar names imo. It's like a father/mother with a name of "foo bar" naming the child "bar foo". Minorax (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Oppose. Syrcro (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Oppose per Habitator terrae. Greetings, --Snookerado (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. totally Oppose Oppose I'm from Quebec, we are mostly french speaking too, and it's not only confusing, it's wrongly associate Wikipedia with "France". It's already a France domination (social domination) on WP:FR. So, this is too much. --Idéalités (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Oppose Arguments are already told above. --Poslovitch (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong oppose Wikimedia movement began with Wikipedia, 19 years ago, but Wikimedia Foundation appeared in June 2003, and during sixteen years, all wikiprojects were clearly hosted by Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia and other projects were seen, in an implicit manner, to be equal as projects hosted by WMF, none of them superior than others, though Wikipedia is cerrtainly the most popular of them. If a change was made now, as Wikipedia Foundation, it would mean that Wikipedia projects were on a higher stage than other projects (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikimedia Commons, Wiokispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikidata, Wikivoyage). It is really a very bad idea. Many thanks for having created this RfC. Wikimedia community has to give her opinion... and to stop this goal if it is still possible. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit. I would not like to understand that the circle (or the ball) inside Wikimedia logo is nothing more than a foggy goal, like this part (Where the world's headed, nobody knows.) of the very old song Ball of Confusion (That's What the World Is Today) sung (1970) by the Motown vocal group The Temptations and written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong. Song's title and sense are quite different from the Wikimedia name changing proposal, but why wouldn't I use good words against a bad project? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is only one of more than 10 projects the WMF hosts. Therefore I think it is a bad idea to change to the name to Wikipedia. A lot of confusion, more then nowadays, will be the result. If the WMF should be renamed then choose a complete different name. As mentioned before Firefox / Mozilla or Google / Alphabet. Raymond (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong oppose. No, ad calendas graecas. —Sgd. Hasley 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Oppose Since many years people have been asking, what the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia is. This led to fruitful discussions about free knowledge and the structures, which make projects like Wikipedia possible. The people, interested in knowledge, do not need simple names and simple solutions. They should not be mislead about the characteristic features of the Wikimedia movement due to reasons of branding. --Regiomontanus (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong oppose It's nonsense. If people don't know what Wikimedia is, don't summarize with Wikipedia. It's disrespectful for all the other projects. If two things are different, just name them differently. Otherwise, it's confusing. Lepticed7 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong oppose Arguments are already told above. >> It must be clear that WMF is not Wikipedia! --Jocian (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong oppose The Foundation has become too disconnected from the WP community and as such it would be a grave misrepresentation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong oppose Just no. --~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong oppose And please do not evaluate this poll in the same strange way you did there: Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/results#RFC ("0.6% of informed oppose (57 users oppose of ~9,000 reached) "). Chaddy (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  55. strong Oppose Oppose it is something else, simply -jkb- 15:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Oppose What about Wikitravel, Wikinews, Wikisource and many other Wikimedia projects? Regards, Agathenon (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong oppose : WMF is not only Wikipedia as many already told above. Galdrad (Communiquer) 15:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong oppose The Wikimedia Foundation supports many projects. Some of them (Wikitravel, Wikispecies, etc.) have a little visibility. If the Foundation rename itself “Wikipedia”, they will have none any more. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurent Jerry, Agathenon, and Morten Haan:, I completely agree with your sentiments but just to clarify, Wikitravel is not part of the WMF but owned by a private company. Wikitravel has advertising, is for-profit and is increasingly full of spam and outdated content. The WMF travel guide is called Wikivoyage and is a Wikimedian wiki like Wikinews, Wikispecies, Wikibooks, etc. Wikivoyage does not contain advertising, has a larger editor base with more up-to-date content and has a common purpose to provide free knowledge and content to all. DaGizza (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Oppose it creates confusion, it creates problems in many countries, where being identified as Wikipedia staff has legal implications, it makes our scope way narrower (in 10 years Wikidata may be our main project), the data given to the board is confusing and we don't even need it. -Theklan (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong oppose: The WMF manages not only Wikipedia but also its sister project including Commons, Wikibooks, Wikitravel, Wikisource, and Wikinews. --Morten Haan (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong oppose per above. Ayack (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Oppose I heard that Toyota wants to rename itself: "Corolla". I can't trace the source, it must be a hoax. --Madelgarius (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong oppose A terrible idea that is being pushed through. Really concerned about decisions WMF have made over the past two years Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Oppose WMF doesn't speak for the individual Wikipedia's and shouldn't give the appearance to outside parties that it does. ChristianKl16:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  65. No. Confusing. GabrieL (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Oppose wiki-media is the perfect name to designate all the 10+ wikis hosted by the Foundation. Rename for Wikipedia will disbalance even more the actual visibility of the projects. Simon Villeneuve 16:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  67. Strong oppose The WMF is not Wikipedia and this just furthers the problems we've had, especially over the last year, of the WMF seeing themselves as the masters of Wikipedia rather than the servants who make sure the bills are paid. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Oppose My oppose is rather weak. I do wish that the movement can make better use of the valuable Wikipedia brand. But I have to agree that the proposed use for the Foundation could create more confusion of its own kind. Ziko (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Oppose, as this would be misleading. --Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose Oppose The rebranding would likely result in unnecessary confusion and might make a (hopefully erroneous) impression that the foundation no longer cares about other Wikimedia projects. Sintakso (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong oppose WMF ≠ Wikipedia. --Hannes 24 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Oppose Per others. — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong oppose --Gampe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Oppose, misleading: it obliterates sister projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikisource ...). --Epìdosis 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Oppose per Jheald. It's a shame this RfC can't be snowclosed already. Mahir256 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong oppose. Especially per Coffee, Noé, Mautpreller, Raymond and Regiomontanus. All the best, Bernhard Wallisch 17:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong oppose WMF ain't WP and it never will be. Greetings. Nasiruddin (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong oppose. My opinion, my thining about ... Some other users have already described with words: Coffee, Jules, and especially Mautpreller (No. 31, 33, 41 at the moment).--Tozina (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Oppose. This would be intentionally misleading. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, production of which the Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to facilitate along with other projects, such as Wikimedia Commons. The Foundation is neither purely concerned with Wikipedia nor in control of it, and donors and others dealing with the Foundation need to know the the difference. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Oppose WMF foundation support's many projects like Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks, ... Changing it to "the Wikipedia foundation" would generate confusion and undermine other projects. HB (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Mild oppose, which might better be described as a strong neutral: Why are we wasting our time on this? Given that it is clearly controversial, and will make a comparable number of people unhappy to the people it makes happy, haven't the community and the Foundation better things to spend their time on (not to mention the money that a rebranding will inevitably cost? - Jmabel (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong oppose Wikipedia does not need more visibility but the sister projects do. The projects and their respective communities also need to be clearly distinguished from the foundation and its chapters. The Wikimedia brand is thus way more relevant and efficient in what it does, than the proposed marketing tweak. We must focus on how to improve its brand awareness rather than simply killing it off. ››Fugitron - 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong oppose useless actionism --ɱ 18:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Oppose Dangerous for the brand Wikipedia--Fuucx (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Oppose In agreement with most of the opinions expressed above ~ Antoniex (discuter) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Oppose Per the many great arguments above, and particularly per Jmabel's "strong neutral". At best this is a solution in search of a problem, and we have plenty of real problems. -- Visviva (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong oppose If people don’t know the foundation, that means there needs to be more communication about it. Renaming it to Wikipedia is not a solution and is just confusing. Plus, it would hide the other projects even more than now. Darmo117 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Oppose first the wikipedians and other contributors of other projects have not agreed on a transversal and horizontal level, second I don't understand the rationale behind it, third it undermines other projects like wikisource, wikidata, wiktionnary & al, fourth it is confusing : chapters, foundation and wiki projects are connected but different and this difference makes us an outstanding and rhyzomatic movement, creating debates and dynamics that have lead to the success of our projects. It is part of oour very special identity. Also as said above, chapters have no editorial function and the rebranding will make it hard to explain that in a legal context, where chaèters receive complaints about what is written on Wikipedia. Nattes à chat (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong oppose If anything, the distinction between foundation and encyclopedia should be made *clearer*, not blurrier. --Tkarcher (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Oppose Seems like most Wikipedians don't like the idea of a Wikipedia Foundation, so please do not switch names and leave everything as is.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Oppose confusing and less inclusive and supportive for other Wikimedia projects. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose Oppose I suspect the hidden agenda to be : 1) to kill (medium term) "small" projects such as wikitionary, wikibooks. 2) to take benefit of Wikipedia notoriety. --Gustave67 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can assume the good faith of the WMF, even if we disagree with the current proposal. Regards, — Jules Talk 13:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  93. Oppose Oppose Wikimedia is not only Wikipedia. There are lots of other major projects like the amazing Wikidata, the Wiktionary, etc. Very bad idea. --Deansfa (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose: We and you need to differentiate between the volunteer movement (Wikipedia and the other projects) and the organization behind it (Wikimedia). We the volunteers earn the goodwill, you live on, that pays your salaries. They are not the same, you are not volunteers. Please don't even think about mixing those roles. --h-stt !? 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Oppose. 1) WMF is not only Wikipedia, there are also other sister projects, which are not well known, renamig will hide them even more. 2) I am sysop on Wikipedia, but I have no power in local (or global) Wikimedia. And people in Wikimedia have not bigger power in Wikipedia (and other projects). JAn Dudík (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Oppose Crochet.david (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Oppose per at least all said above --Wikinade (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong oppose There is indeed a problem, but this will not fix it, only make it worse. The Brand strategy proposal for 2030 (slides 26 and further) commits many errors by approaching the problem from a purely marketing point of view while forgetting the associative, non-commercial spirit that is at the root of Wikipedia and its sister projects. To compare the Wikipedia name with Google, Facebook or Youtube can't lead anywhere as those are very different structures with different statuses and completely different aims - and no, they can't use the same methods to reach their goals. You can't just decide you will use the word "Wikipedia" everywhere, just because it is the best-known Wikimedia project.
    • First, it will reinforce the already annoying confusion between Wikipedia (with its vast, horizontal communities) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with its employees that have not been chosen by the entire community and their decisions that have not been approved by the entire community). I am very ill at ease with, not to say offended by, this way of thought : "Hey, see, the name of the collective encyclopaedia all these people wrotes is a brand, and it has massive public awareness, let's use it more to put us in the spotlights !" It sounds like Wikimedia is trying to claim for themselves the popularity that we as a community on Wikipedia have achieved, a popularity which does not belong to the Foundation as an administrative structure but belongs to all volunteer, unpaid Wikipedians who edited the encyclopedy and made it what it is now. Please leave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are two distinct entities. Find a new name for Wikimedia, yes, but don't use the confusion between "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia" to pose as us.
    • Second, it will worsen the invisibility of all other projects instead of fixing it : they will definitely be thought to be only vague expansions of the main Wikipedia website, whereas they should be thought as distinct projects. I really can't see how anyone could ever think that such a name change could solve this problem ! Maybe Wikimedia needs a new name, but, if anything, it should be MORE distinct from the word "Wikipedia", to clarify things.
    • The strategy proposal says Wikimedia should not use money to put more light on the smaller projects. Well, I, for one, think you should. And that would be about time !
    • Third, the way this strategy proposal concludes that the other projects are lesser known, less attractive, et cetera is preposterous and wrong on many levels. These projects have received much less effort, much less thought and much less money from the Wikimedia Foundation, so they obviously never had the means to grow larger communities and achieve more popularity. The Foundation is not only denying its own failure to put more effort and more light on these smaller projects but also professing that their failure is their own fault to reach a conclusion that would make them even more obscure as they would even more be overshadowed by Wikipedia. It is, to say the least, an awkward way of helping these projects, and looks very much like a prooff of contempt or neglect of these projects. This is everything I will never accept from the way bad marketing thinks : to give more popularity to an already well-know name ("brand") instead of putting more effort to reach balance between the projects. --Eunostos (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong oppose - It is already a big problem now that the importance of Wikipedia's "smaller" sister projects is very often underestimated. Equalizing the Foundation's name with that of Wikipedia would likely worsen this situation far more and at the same time be a sign of disrespect towards the other projects. De Wikischim (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Strong oppose. This would eventually undermine the salutary segregation of duties between a global encyclopedia written by online communities, and the organizations supporting it in various countries — along with a series of sister projects. If that's necessary, make the distinction Wikimedia/Wikipedia clearer, not dimmer. But never twist Wikipedia's "brand" for promotional purposes. If I'm not mistaken, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would then become sort of "Board of Wikipedia", right? Seriously! And what's next? First confuse Wikimedia with Wikipedia, then change Wikimedia's governance to surrepticiously alter Wikipedia's principles and values? Totally inappropriate. — Bob Saint Clar (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Weak oppose they can change their letterhead all they want. but the people on the ground will have to wiki'splain the facts of open scholarship. and 10 years too late, now that wikipedia is being eclipsed by wikidata. merely adds expense to affiliates with no resources to support. grand strategic thinking by expensive consultants with little consideration for community. Slowking4 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose Oppose I really don't like when the Wikimedia movement is treated through a kind of business model that put it in a trademark (or brand) competition. And when I see current aspiration for a "Global Gouvernance Body" in the trategy vison of 2030, I wonder ... Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose Oppose The community and its output is one thing, the corporation is another. Carrite (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Oppose The Wikimedia movement includes more than just the Wikipedia projects and this is best expressed by keeping the brand “Wikimedia” for the overall movement and the foundation. “Wikimedia” and “Wikimedia Foundation” exist since more than a decade – any change would be confusing and misleading. The Wikimedia movement includes hundreds of projects and their associated communities. The WMF should not attempt to misrepresent itself as being identical, head of, or part of a particular family of projects (like the Wikipedia projects) by rebranding itself. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  105. --GZWDer (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Oppose It would suggest that the foundation owns or control the encyclopaedia, or that it supports no other project that the encyclopaedia. Both incorrect.--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Wikipedia isn't a great name for the heaps of plundered gnolage from newsrooms and backrooms that have populated parts of the databases. mediawikiwikimedia gofast-airport-shuttle might be better. It's even pundit-striped! Wikimedia is shorter and more honest, so I vote keep. SashiRolls (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong oppose This is not a good idea. The Foundation and Wikipedia are fundamentally different, and I think that it would be a disservice to other projects editors and (most importantly) the readers when we try to muddle the Wikipedia name with the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement with very little to gain from it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong oppose Wikipedia is Wikimedia's most known flagship and the Foundation's main generator of donations but still: They are two completely different things. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. Wikimedia is a quasi-political movement. Also: Wikipedia's sister projects like Wikimedia Commons, WikiVoyage, Wiktionary, etc. each are independent projects. It would be a slap in the face of those users to subsume them under Wikipedia. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong oppose Makes no sense. Apple does not rename itself "iPhone" for a reason. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Strong oppose Different things should have different names. --Mirer (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong oppose No, please. NinjaStrikers «» 05:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Strong oppose I can identify with Wikipedia project. I cannot identify with Wikimedia Foundation. I am glad that they use different names. Rebranding would not make me feel part of Wikimedia but would alienate me from Wikipedia. —Niki.L (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Oppose Rots61 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Oppose. Why on Earth you are trying to mess with WMF's name? Let them decide for themselves. Even if this were to get a lot of support, the WMF would likely decline this proposal. We definitely don't need to change Wikimedia's name after over 15 years. This would create a lot of confusion. Masum Reza📞 08:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masumrezarock100: please read Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project. This renaming project is from the WMF. — Jules Talk 09:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jules78120: you are correct. Apologies for not reading this whole long discussion. I am still opposing this proposal though. Masum Reza📞 14:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  116. just no. Edoderoo (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Strong oppose Never change a winning team  Klaas `Z4␟` V08:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Strong oppose Stop wasting donations, spend them for things we really need. Also stop lying to donators during the annual fundraisers, consider skipping a year instead of hoarding. —viciarg414 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose Oppose The money spent on rebranding, endless discussions about affiliates renaming, questionable value added.Jklamo (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Strong oppose per Eunistos, et al. WMF have got all the money, all the personnel, all the resources (apart from the volunteers who do all the content creation, of course) and now they want the bloody name! This is muddying already muddy waters. I'd be delighted to see 'Wikipedia' in a strap-line, but not as a name change. Something like this would be reasonably acceptable: "Wikimedia Foundation - powering the Wikipedia communities". Change the Foundation name, by all means, but not to put 'Wikipedia' in the main title. What really needs resolving is the confusion between WMF and Wikimedia Commons. There, a change to "WikiCommons" would be welcome (or maybe even a recognition that it has become a rather sad repository for, and defender of, thousands upon thousands of pointless and predominantly unusable genitalia images. Maybe change it to "WikiPornHub" or even "WikiDickPicsPlus"?) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong oppose Wikimedia is not wikipedia, same name cause confusion--Remy34 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose Oppose I understand the rationale but that would be shortsighted. Popo le Chien (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Strong oppose Why name the whole thing after one part of it? Expensive nonsense! --Quarz (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong oppose This would cause a lot of confusion, and it sends the message that WMF is finally giving up on the other Wikimedia projects. This is also in opposition to Wikimedias call for more diversity! Fokusing on the encyclopedia means less diversity, the concept of encyclopedias is a very western one, fixating on only this will harm the possibility to find possibilities to share the knowlege of other cultures. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  125. just to count one of the 9,000 who only viewed... -- Divchino (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strong oppose Really no need for this. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose Oppose It will only create more confusion between the community and the foundation roles. Boréal (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose Oppose it is all written...for me the best argument: The WMF is responsibile for all projects and not "only" for the Wikipedia --Elmie (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose Oppose Even Wikimedia is a trick name, to gain donations for an organization, that is not identical with the project, the people want to support. This tricky confusion should not be expanded. Instead the WMF should firm under an unique name, operate with transparency and always emphasize the difference between organisation and project. Then let's find out, how much it is valued in the public for what their employees do with all the money and not what non-organized unpaid volunteers do in Wikipedia in their freetime. --Magiers (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Strong oppose Wikipedia is a project with a specific scope, not an umbrella term. It is critical for Wikipedia’s credibility to keep the encyclopedia project and the foundation apart. --Polarlys (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Strong oppose There is no need to do this. Muhraz (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong oppose --JasN (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose Oppose Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose Oppose - Per others. Wikimedia is not Wikipedia and vice versa. Yes, Wikipedia has been relatively more successful, but this doesn't mean we can refer to Wikimedia as Wikipedia and, among many other things, create a lot of confusion. Ahmadtalk 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose Oppose Better put some efforts into a good marketing campaign to explain the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose Oppose - I believe that WMF has lost sight of the key principles of Wikipedia. Funding is increasingly diverted to meeting exorbitant staff costs and projects that are neither needed nor requested by projects, instead of supporting the work of volunteers. Statements are already made that do not have the support of volunteer communities, and actions taken despite overwhelming opposition from the projects concerned. It is important that there is a proper distinction between WMF and Wikipedia, and that WMF's ability to speak for Wikipedia is limited. WJBscribe (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose Oppose Considering the recent "innovations" (Strategy and code of conduct), i‘d like to recommend Wokepedia Foundation instead. Greetings, --Enter (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Strong oppose As a volunteer in the OTRS Supportteam I often deal with tickets containing complaints about Wikipedia content. I find it is essential to communicate, that WMF and their staff on the payroll is only hosting the servers, but is not responsible for the Content of Wikipedia. Wikimedia claiming the Wikipedia brand will blurr this line between Foundation and our Encyclopedia projects of volunteers. --Neozoon (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Strong oppose Ymnes (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Strong oppose Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia --Alraunenstern۞ 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Strong oppose --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong oppose different names for different entities. --Don-kun (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose Oppose Such a rebrand would make it seem like the WMF could speak on behalf of the editing community, when it can't. TomDotGov (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose Oppose This muddles things and leads to problems with existing chapters. No matter what they would do in the wake of such a rename, it would be problematic. Country chapters are already fighting the wrong perception that they have any influence on Wikipedia's content or control the local community. Media as well as authorities often assume that, for example, Wikimedia Deutschland, is in some way responsible for the content of German-language Wikipedia. The brand Wikimedia helps in clarifying the distinction. So, changing chapter's names to Wikipedia Deutschland etc. could be rather unpopular with the chapters, I guess. But if they keep their Wikimedia name whilst there is a Wikipedia Foundation, confusion will also arise. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is the editing community. WMF isn't. --Zinnmann (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose Oppose One of the strengths of the Wikimedia movement is its diversity of projects and it shouldn't be reduced to only one. And to quote Katherine Maher: "Our movement is the sum of its parts.". Also, per a lot of arguments made on this page, here or there. — Envlh (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose Oppose Cedalyon (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose Oppose Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Strong oppose Per Nosebagbear, Magiers, WJBscribe, Mautpreller and Coffee --Lynxbiru (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strong oppose The sisterprojects do already have many problems with Wikipedia dominating them as a brand. Rebranding Wikimedia would make the sisterprojects even more invisible. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose Oppose --Gripweed (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose Oppose When we decided to distinguish between the project and the organization we had very good reasosn – I don’t see that those have changed much. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaB. (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose Oppose --Yen Zotto (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose Oppose Nein, das ist keine kluge Strategie, die Diversivikation ist ein Plus, kein Minus. Liebe Grüße --Itti (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose Oppose I have already been asked that and I have already answered and I'm weirded out that the question is still on the table. BTW: If the Foundation were to change its name to Wikipedia I demand they act like a Wikipedia thing instead of a Wikimedia thing. → «« Man77 »» [de] 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Strong oppose As long as WMF is hosting/supporting various free knowledge projects other than wikipedia itself I see no reason why it should use Wikipedia as its. Furthermore would such a move probably also confuse the distinction between the WMF and the Wikipedia Community, so let's not add further complications to an already somewhat difficult (and for externals already often confusing) relationship.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose Oppose Strong oppose I do not see any conses on this and this should be a comunity decission, not a WMF one, which currently it is not. --Fano (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: Thinking about it, "conses" is actually a too strong requirement. But it does require a stonger suport as what is stated at KPI. --Fano (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 2: I just finished watching the presentation linked at the right and based on this I need to change my comment to a strong oppose. So your consulted recognized that you failed over the last 15 years to explain to the world what the brand Wikimedia is and your solution to this problem is not to start working on this but to highjack a different brand that, as your consultants actually managed to find out themselves has a strong connection to Encyclopedia only?! By confusing everybody within and without the community who does now the difference? I don't question the problem, but the solution sucks. --10:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Ps.: I really hope this was a free software that produced the subtitle. If it were not so sad I could laugh.
  159. Strong oppose As long as it is not clear what strategy discussion does with communities there should be a firewall - documented by different names --Brainswiffer (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose Oppose I'm for the golden middle ground - rather than Wikimedia or Wikipedia: Wikinedia --Methodios (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Strong oppose WikiMedia: Officials who get paid and do what is best to keep them in office (the usual way). M like Money, Managers, Monolith; WikiPedia: Volunteers who write articles. P like People, Performance, Pain. Keep it as it is - and economize the money for the consulting company. But my experience tells me: M will do it anyway. Play It Again, SPAM (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Strong oppose per Zinnmann. --Icodense (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Strong oppose As a Wiktionary editor I have to say: Wikipedia ≠ Wikimedia. Nostrix (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose Oppose I think this might lead to confusion about what the role is of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Wikimedia system. Also, so as long as the system includes projects called Commons, Wikidata, Wiktionary etc. we cannot rename it after one particular type of project. If the non-Wikipedia projects are to be deprioritized, don't do so in such a back-handed way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Strong oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neither the WMF nor the chapters write it. Most of the readers don't care about the software, but about content and calling the WMF or chapters is just the wrong address. Pretending to be "wikipedia" is hubris. --Ailura (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. Or it's the other way around and the WMF wants to replace the volunteer community and write wikipedia by herself[reply]
  166. Oppose Oppose WP is an encyclopdia, WM is more. The whole should not have the name of a part. ----Gabel1960 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Oppose Oppose Yes, Wikipedia/Wikimedia/MediaWiki is confusing but so is changing a brand that is 15 years old by a single letter. I also don't like the idea of privileging one of our sister projects above the others, even if it's easily the most famous and in many respects the most successful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Strong oppose Given the great number of arguments already expressed against the proposal, it is not easy to find a new one. However, I strongly oppose, because I find very convincing most of those arguments against and none of the weak opinions supporting it. --Pafsanias (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Oppose Oppose. The Foundation could spend their time and money on better things than re-branding. --Alexander (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Oppose Oppose Keeping some separation between the different entities is prudent because governments are increasingly putting pressure on internet media companies to take responsibility for their content and consequences. For example, see this recent White Paper which "proposes establishing in law a new duty of care towards users, which will be overseen by an independent regulator. Companies will be held to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms, ranging from illegal activity and content to behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal." Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Oppose supporters, you are really wrong It's also likely that Wikipedia to be splitted from WMF, don't make hardly connections between both. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  172. All was perfect ! media is the frame ; pedia is the target ! TigH (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Oppose Oppose It was a stupid idea, it is a stupid idea, & it always will be a stupid idea. (I know, not very persuasive, but at this point there's nothing intelligent left to say in opposition to this proposal.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Strong oppose--Riepichiep (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Oppose Oppose LOL. No. DutchTina (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Oppose Oppose All the good arguments have already been made. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Strong oppose Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Oppose Oppose It is logical and helpful to have different names for the encyclopedia and the overall organisation. Strobilomyces (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strong oppose Briefly:
    1. Wikimedia is not recognised because it was never branded properly. It is natural for people to not know it if we (or the Foundation) never made an effort to make proper marketing.
    2. It is not logical. As stated in the 2030 strategic direction, Wikimedia is a platform (ecosystem) for free knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the ways how we want to achieve that. Take Mozilla as the organization fighting for open internet and Firefox as one of its products by which they want to achieve it. It can work. And it does. Like it is now.
    3. It creates confusion. In the plan, everything is going to be called Wikipedia - foundation, movement, affiliates and one project. It will be very hard to distinguish what we mean after the rebranding since everything is going to be called by the same name.
    4. It will take years to implement in the movement. Movement knows the system as it is. Word "Wikimedia" is used across tens of thousands of pages on Meta and in every project. If not implemented properly (which is going to be very hard given the number of spaces where Wikimedia is used), it will create a huge mess. Disuniformity is the worst you can have in marketing.
    5. Because of other projects and people working on them and about people who fight for free knowledge. Why should a person who works solely on Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons be called Wikipedian (or be associated with Wikipedia) when the person does not have anything to do with it? Some people only focus on activism to make more knowledge free around the world. They clearly do not have anything to do with an encyclopedia.
    6. There is no clear sign that movement itself wants this change. So far it seems that rebranding from Wikimedia to Wikipedia will happen anyway. The community will only have the chance to discuss how exactly this should happen. Not if this should happen. Feedback on the rebranding happened this spring but there was no banner on all the projects that would inform everyone about the back-in-then proposed change. Many people do not even know that this is happening. Plus, many people showed serious concerns on metrics that were used to measure the feedback and the appetite for the change.
      --Luky001 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Tsjin. Der is hjirboppe al in soad oer sein en it komt hast allegearre op itselde del. Ik sil de koarte ferzje dochs ek noch mar efkes opskriuwe yn in taal wer't jimme wat muoite foar dwaan moatte, sadat it úteinlik faaks noch wat better trochkringt: der binne hiel wat WMF-projekten en mar in part derfan binne wikipedyen, sjoch hjir. Bring se ûnder ien namme en alles rekket yn 'e tiis. Fierder per MarcoAurelio. Wutsje (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Strong oppose - this will just undermine the smaller projects further. Open to a name change but not to anything resembling Wikipedia. If anything, the new name should be easier to distinguish from Wikipedia, not as it is now with just one letter/sound being different. DaGizza (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Oppose Oppose - Wikimedia is more. Encycloon 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  183. Strong oppose I agree with the points made by DaGizza and others, the Foundation should promote itself as an umbrella organization supporting different projects, and not make itself a synonym of its best known project. ArticCynda (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Strong oppose. Wikipedia is the highest-visibility Wikimedia project, but it's not the only Wikimedia project, and other projects have different focuses, guidelines and styles. Anything that further confuses people, such that they conflate every Wikimedia project with Wikipedia, is unhelpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Oppose Oppose --RobNbaby (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Oppose Oppose --Wil540 art (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Oppose Oppose Let's say I have a child who, as a teenager, becomes a child actor and gets very famous. He brings in a lot of money (all of which goes to me) and everybody loves him. I feel like he could be getting even more gigs to make us more money, though. The thing is, any time I approach a producer it takes a minute to establish that I'm his parent, so I'm going to change my name to be the same as his.
    Putting aside all of the very good points about confusion, the meaning of "Wikipedia", who is represented by that name, etc. I'm just not sure why the Foundation needs to be a household name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Oppose Oppose Don't waste resources on marketing. Branding is not important. Improve software and infrastructure. Zanaq (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Oppose Oppose -- Matroc (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Strong oppose Wikimedia is our movement, Wikipedia our project. Our movement will not be erased, and our project will not be possessed. Whatever marginal value anyone may believe this branding exercise has, it is not worth putting the corporate above the community. I'd actually be happy to talk more about identity as a community, and I think we can make some positive brand evolution working together, but this top-down process is totally the opposite of that.--Pharos (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Nonsense. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Strong oppose Not only because of the actual change, with all the dangers that have been already mentioned elsewhere, but because how this process has been pushed (far from being acceptable and respectful for many of the involved stakeholders). --Toniher (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Oppose Oppose. This might have made sense 10 years ago. It doesnt make sense today. The wikimedia name is now part of our identity. I'm not super concerned what the foundation calls itself, but i find the idea of rebranding the "movement" to be offensive to the non wikipedia projects and quite frankly offensive to all the people who have dedicated themselves to the projects as Wikimedians. Even worse is the idea of renaming the projects which sometimes is thrown around with this idea and sometimes not. Last of all, i feel this proposal has been pushed forward in an underhanded way, which makes me even more unsympathetic to it. Bawolff (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Oppose Oppose. --Diorit (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Strong oppose --Armin (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  196. I don't understand why this is needed in the first place. Why does the foundation have such a need to be named after the more valuable brand, like Coca-Cola, or Volkswagen? It looks like an organization that tries to exist by itself and for itself; though it is there to support the projects. That's true the foundation owns the brands and, by laws, can do whatever it wants with it; however it cannot do anything substancial without community support. Turb (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) -- edit: Slide #28 speaks about "mindshare", a competition the foundation is allegedly having with Google and Facebook. The whole problem is here, I believe. Turb (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  197. --A.Savin (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Oppose Oppose Three reasons. First: Even if non-editors are more used to Wikipedia than Wikimedia, it is not compulsory to use the most popular name (my local example: Telefónica/Movistar). Second: Some people would be in very seriuos troubles, because when Wikipedia said something "unpleasant" towards some coutries' leaders, those leaders could send for the "President" of Wikipedia and... well, there are places where trying to explain things to the police is not a friendly experience. Third: While there are arguments for and against changing names, what I can't see is a need to rush into it. B25es (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Strong oppose This whole process is taking the little amount of trust some of us still had in the Foundation and throwing out the window just in time for a bus to run over it. The biggest problem here is not the name change but the process itself. --Unapersona (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Strong oppose. The proposed change is
    • Limited, as it focuses on popularity rather than importance. In fact, it is contradictory to the Foundation’s standing vision, though that could also be changed to “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of the knowledge that is salable or that a sizable portion of community members like to work on and/or brag about.”
    • Limiting. As many editors have noted above, the change would throw a shadow on projects that are not Wikipedia, to their further detriment.
    • Irresponsible as well as undemocratic. That the foundation can do whatever it wants does not mean it should do whatever it wants. It has a responsibility to the community, if nothing else because it would not exist if it were not for the community. One small change for the foundation--and that change even managed by a branding company--means hours and hours of debate, work, and trouble for the community, as has been detailed extensively by editors above.
    • Mortifying. The wanna-be comparisons with Google and Facebook from the branding strategy reveal that the foundation wishes we were other than what we are, or--more generously--the comparisons are inconsistent with who the community the foundation claims to represent is. We are not a for-profit tech company that needs “fewer entry points” to be recognized to be forever marketable. We are messy and diverse as it befits a grassroots movement, and I, for one, would like the foundation’s attempt at branding to reflect that.
    • Arrogant. WMF, you are not Wikipedia, and you will never be, even if you dress yourself in stolen robes. Doctorxgc (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Oppose Oppose Wikimedia is a group, Wikipedia a website. Now its for some not clear, what what is, but when all have the same name, noone knows, who is meant. It could be legally difficult to distinguish between the trademark, the foundation, the website and the community of contributors; and charges could affect the wrong people. --Quedel (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Strong oppose. As stated above, this renaming would cause great and problematic confusion between Wikipedia and (what we call now) Wikimedia. There is quite a confusion already, and this change would further it very much, for worse. --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Oppose Oppose People have already provided good responses. And if you want to go corporate, just look at corporate examples, e.g. Google. Google is not the whole project, Alphabet is. In any case, please be responsive to the community rather than the bubble of WMF administration. - Kosboot (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Oppose Oppose Emjackson42 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Strong oppose No sense to change the name since we still keep in fight to make people understand Wikimedia as a multidimensional project that goes beyond Wikipedia.--Jove (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Strong oppose very bad idea --Atamari (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Oppose Oppose per above. J947 00:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Oppose Oppose Why? Although new users have a hard time understanding what WMF is, it will only cause more confusion and not be inclusive to all the projects that WMF oversees. It's like saying that w:en:Alphabet Inc. (WMF in this example) should be called w:en:Google (Wikipedia in this example), ignoring larger subsidiaries like w:en:YouTube (Commons in this example) and smaller subsidiaries like w:en:Makani (a project like Wikiquote). It is unfair to both YouTube and the smaller companies, as they are independent subsidiaries. Applying this to this situation, you see that although Wikiquote has similarities to Wikipedia and shares core values, they are different and act differently. On the end of PR, changing the name now will only cause more confusion to those who already know WMF as WMF, but also imply that Wikipedia is somehow "superior" by the very nature of the top organisation being called it too. It will cause issues for those dealing with issues off Wikipedia sites, as those who are on, let's say Wikiquote, might need to talk to the WMF about something, only to find that they seem to be talking to Wikipedia? I suspect this will only confuse the uninformed person, who may then think they have contacted the wrong people. Although WMF does not have an instant connection to particular project(s) for the uninformed person, it is better to have all the projects have uninformed persons contacting a differently named organisation for WMF issues, instead of contacting a organisation named after a different project. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Absolutely not There is nothing at all wrong with having a separate foundation - clearly identified by its own unique-but-related name - supporting a related project, group, or organization e.g., sports teams have "boosters," many U.S. colleges and universities have legally separate "foundations." Changing the name of the foundation appears too much like co-opting the work and goodwill of the volunteers of the many Wikipedia projects. The professional staff and organization who support those volunteers and their projects should remain distinctly identifiable (and proud of the important and unique work that they do, too!). ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Strong oppose. Sister projects need more visibility, not less. — Hiplibrarianship (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Strong oppose Wikimedia is not wikipedia, same name cause confusion. PawełMM (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Dooda. Éí doo chohooʼį́į́góó daʼílį́į dooleeł shaʼshin. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Oppose Oppose, having a hard time seeing how this change benefits anyone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Oppose Oppose --Gorkaazk (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Strong oppose. Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies aren't Wikipedia. --FonAfon (talk | contribs) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Strong oppose Wikimedia ≠ Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is the oldest, we should treat all projects equally. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Brilliant time, money and resources wasting enterprise. You're making us all proud of your work. Keep going, WMF! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Oppose Oppose What for? Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Oppose Oppose:Kilkerra (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is the strongest WMF brand, but not WMF itself. Rdrozd (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Oppose Oppose They are seperate entities and a lot of other projects need attention, like Wikiversity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghinga7 (talk)
  222. Strong oppose Most confusing for everybody to give the roof or overall service the same name as one of many components.
    And Wikipedia-Wikisource is not really clarifying, while OldWikipedia needs to be called Wikipedia-Wikipedia?
    There is already a common denominator, the part WIKI, even in Wiktionary, and present as well in Wikisource, Wikimedia, Mediawiki. They have already a common WIKI branding. Calling everything to be a Wikipedia will not improve anything.
    If the Foundation wants to get good branding, they should gain their own merits, but abstain from stealing the good name from millions of volunteers putting billions of hours into their (local) Wikipedia.
    Currently, there are 19 Ayes and 221 Nays. One of the promises of those great famous 2030 series is better involvement and communication with the communities. We will learn whether WMF will ignore this clear picture and tell us in the end, well, it was just a requests for comments, but we found the supporters more convincing, and numbers do not count. So we did what we always wanted to do, the requests for comments has been just a matter of form, but we never intended to care about the result. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Oppose Oppose Although I somewhat agree that the name Wikimedia Foundation is not the best, I oppose the move to Wikipedia Foundation. For me it is mostly about not recognizing the other projects (which are often known as just that) and the burden it places on the affiliates who will most likely need to be renamed. For those working on a purely voluteer basis like ours this would mean a lot of extra effort. Apart from consulations with our members, we would need the by-laws updated, approved at an AGM, and finally approved by the Interior Ministry; changes to the register of NGOs; changes in the bank; on cards and business cards etc. The financial cost to the organization might not be great or might be supported by WMF but unless volunteer time is compensated, I believe that efforts should rather be spent on other issues.--Jetam2 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Strong oppose The wmf is an organization intended to provide a limited degree of centralized support for projects, but thinks (as central organizations tend to do) that it therefore controls or ought to control the projects. It is now trying to institutionalize this false idea of its proper function by taking over the name of the most widely known and --at this point--most successful of the projects it is supposed to be supporting. This is not, as some of the comments indicates, a matter of mere semantics, or of confusion of mission. It's a question of power--of further institutionalizing its already excessive power, power which it uses in opposition to the great majority of the volunteers. It shows the corruption of the fundamental idea behind wikipedia, that volunteers informally organized can make univesally usefu lresources better than professionals. . DGG (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Oppose Oppose Makes me feel like contributing to Wikivoyage or Wikidata is like contributing to a second-class project. --Nw520 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Oppose Oppose Confusing, limiting, and misleading. In the Foundation's own words: It owns the internet domain names of most movement projects and hosts sites like Wikipedia. You cannot be both. Atsme📞📧 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Sure, if the Foundation changes itself into a democratic institution in which every member of the Wikipedia Foundation board of directors is elected by the Wikipedia community via an Arbcom-style election. That includes Jimbo, though I'm sure the community would be fine with giving him a lifetime honorary, non-voting seat. Otherwise, Oppose Oppose. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Strong oppose. Like said before: Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies are not Wikipedia. And: I read this page yesterday without any voting - I needed some time to think about it.--Kiwas (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Strong oppose per above. tufor (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Strong oppose The foundation should have a name that is inclusive of all the projects, not the most successful project. It creates confusion, and it takes corporate ownership of our collective efforts, in spirit if not in fact. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Paelius (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Oppose Oppose I think all the main points have already been covered. Bottom line, if we do this it will further the notion that the other projects are just ancillaries of Wikipedia. In addition we need to be reinforcing that as an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a very specialized kind of wiki with a distinct purpose. 𝒬𝔔 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Oppose Oppose - The support comments above appear to overlook the many other projects operated by WMF, as have been said above, namely Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wikiquote, MediaWiki and Wikispecies. These cannot easily be renamed to "Wikipedia" just for the sake of public consistency. None of these are encyclopedia-like projects like the Wikipedias are. epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Strong oppose Also, dissolve the Wikimedia Foundation. --Townie (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be renamed to the Wikipedia Foundation. Also, I find it concerning that 9,000+ views of this page is percieved as inherent support and that there's "only" so many oppose votes. That's not how consensus works, views do not equate approval. Views can mean any number of things, and it's unlikely that all of them are unique visitors to this page, anyways. I almost didn't vote because it seemed pointless, my oppose would have been a pile-on. I would have been outraged if my view was percieved as being supportive of this RfC. There's more than 200 oppose votes and only 20 support votes at this time. That's 10 times more people who disagree with this than agree. I'm disappointed that the Wikimedia Foundation does not appear to be accurately representing the community viewpoint on this matter, and I'm frustrated that this rebranding was even suggested in the first place. This has the potential to alienate a lot of contributors, especially from sister projects. It's also something that increases the divide between the Wikimedia Foundation and a community that feels like it's being ignored by it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Oppose Oppose The confusion between Wikipedia and Wikimedia organizations already got people arrested. let's not increase the problem. Tpt (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Strong oppose. What about commons? This change creates needless confusion and is a colossal waste of the warchest funds that have been donated by generous readers. There are already too many people employed at Wikimedia and the number should be cut back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Oppose Oppose If the Foundation is unable to make the other projects as widely known as Wikipedia, I don't think that merging everything under the Wikipedia name could improve the situation and make people aware of the other projects. In fact, I think this could make everything worse... And I'm not even speaking here about the perpetual confusion between the local chapters and the linguistic versions. As a member of Wikimedia France, I sometimes feel a bit like Sisyphus, although the situation slowly improves, year after year. Litlok (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Strong oppose - this would give the impression that the WMF runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, and considering 'Framgate' and previous issues, that would be a negative change from the status quo. Plus, the aforementioned issue of drawing attention away from already lesser viewed projects makes this clearly an idea that would do harm instead of do good. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Strong oppose the reasons are so many and sostrong... Among them: Promoting confusion between the Wikimedia movement, and the Wikipedia project; adopting the name of an aging and quite problematic Wikimedia project to serve as umbrella for all others, therefore extending that bad name and bad reputation to them; duping ppl into believe they are donating for Wikipedia, when in fact they are donating to Wikimedia; placing strong, independent projects on the rise, such as Wikidata and Wikimedia Commmons under the brand "Wikipedia", something that will not be appreciated by their communities for sure; etc. etc. this was a very bad idea from the start, and it's a shame taht apparently a lot of money has already been wasted to promote it around, when there are so many urgent needs in the Wikimedia movement.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Oppose Oppose The communities have built Wikipedia. This is the part, which people link to the name Wikipedia. The part of the Foundation is to support the communities. This should not be mixed. --Belladonna* (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Oppose Oppose Lots of good reasons not to do this have been given above. I see no real advantage to the plan & much confusion created. Pashley (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Oppose Oppose Everything has already been said.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Oppose Oppose this would lead to far more new confusion than there – KPFC💬 13:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Strong oppose Les éditeurs et les communités résidant dans des pays avec des niveaux de liberté réduits (ou des lois arbitraires), comme les pays arabes, pourraient être pris comme "responsables éditoriaux" des contenus polémiques ou controversés. --Tifratin (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Oppose Oppose few positive outcome for too much noise and problems ahead. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Strong oppose Definitely not for me ,For all of the above reasons --Rachidourkia (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Strong oppose Wikimedia is so much more than Wikipedia. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Oppose Oppose - Given we have sister projects such as WikiVoyage, Wikidata, Commons, Wikinews etc IMHO it would be a very bad idea to rename to Wikipedia, Whilst "Wikipedia" is predominately known that doesn't mean it should be the new name, Wikimedia is not Wikipedia and vice versa. –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Oppose Oppose Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Oppose Oppose Bad idea and a poor use of resources. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Comment Comment As long as IPs feel forced to create pages such as WP:Talk pages project to balance WP:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20—the video is nice, but old—this is an utter dubious plan. – 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Oppose Oppose there are much more important things to do. einsbor talk 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Oppose Oppose --ESM (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Oppose Oppose - not a fan of Meta RfCs, but there seems to be nowhere else to say anything on the subject. I don't see much upside, there are many practical problems, and from what I can tell there is only little lukewarm support within the broader movement as well as lots of vocal opposition. The WMF should listen to this and stop. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Strong oppose I strongly think that is the most explicit evidence of why the Wikimedia Foundation should be dissolved and the sovereignty given back to the volunteering, real movement. I attach the three worst grievances seen so far related with the branding process:
    The insane amount of money spent in Wolf Ollins' consultancy was used to compare our free-knowledge projects with the "reference" of big-techs.
    This is how easily the WMF staff is able to ignore and manipulate the feedback from stateless affiliates to adapt it to their will.
    The "Brand architecture" uniterally built by the WMF in Nov. 2018 already considers the deletion and fusion of several Wikimedia projects. The recommendations and the whole Strategy 2030 are lies to keep us busy while they just proceed for money.
    I hope this massive opposition is just the start to open the eyes of many, restart the movement from scratch, and reject all the sterile structure that has been built to just host staff positions of power and money. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 14:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Strong oppose - There are too many downsides. The WMF isn't just Wikipedia, we should make sure that this is known. InvalidOS (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Strong oppose --Oesterreicher12 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Oppose Oppose - First I had the opinion that its ok, if Wikimedia use the brand Wikipedia. But the Movement has nothing to do with Wikipedia. So, sorry i have to say no to this Movement now calling Wikipedia. Dont call it Wikipedia, where no Wikipedia is in. --BotBln (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Oppose Oppose The usurping of "Wikipedia" is dishonest. Wikipedia is generally meant to be encyclopedias in different languages produced by separate generally self-governing editorial communities. Other projects have different aims. It is difficult to read these documents, as anything but an attempt to co-opt the Wikipedia's image to mislead others, editorially and in substance. Thus, it will damage the community and the communities of the community. Worse, it will lead to distrust, as in, how can we trust a process is seen to just seek 'confirmation bias' of what the tiny-group of brand-workers who have to justify their existence have already fixed on, regardless of the community members. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Strong oppose - The WMF is not Wikipedia, has never been Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not the WMF, and has never been the WMF. This is like asking if we should rename "red" as "green" because some people can't tell red from green appart. Wikimedia/WMF is a perfectly fine brand, and that random people on the streets don't understand the difference between Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki, generic wikis, WikiMedia Commons, Wikibooks, and so on is completely irrelevant to anything, and just about the worse reason to usurp the identity of its most succesful project, and will further cause confusion because when we say Wikipedia, we most definetely don't mean the WMF. If there are branding issues, then address them by making 'Wikimedia' a stronger brand. This and this are easy things to do. Also this. If it is ultimately decided that 'Wikimedia' is a bad/undesirable name, then rebrand as something clearly not Wikipedia, like the WikiMovement Foundation (to keep WMF as an acronym), or the Free Knowledge Foundation or whatever. Headbomb (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Oppose Oppose I highly appreciate the concept of Wikimedia as a whole consisting of several media delivering free knowledge, namely the Wikimedia projects, and there is definitely no need for navel-gazing solely on Wikipedia. Assigning the most popular project priority directly contradicts the ultimate goal of the Wikimedia movement to serve the entire world with free knowledge (for instance, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata are very good examples of projects that already have more items than Wikipedia and their content is widely used outside the Wikimedia projects).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Oppose Oppose I love what Kiril Simeonovski wrote. He nails the coffin of the idea of rebranding. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Of course not, the movement is a lot broader than free encyclopaedias. If "Wikimedia" is too close to "Wikipedia", there are probably a lot of alternatives ("Free Wiki Foundation"?). Kusma (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  265. What Kusma said, i.e. definitely no. --Segelschulschiff Pyramus (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Strong oppose--Kaethe17 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Strong oppose Ei kiitos. --Epiq (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Strong oppose Simply No! --Enock4seth (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Strong oppose Wikipedia is one of projects, this doesn't make sense. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Oppose Oppose It's already confusing for most people as it is (Wikimedia/Wikipedia). Sadko (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Oppose Oppose The WMF would be wearing borrowed plumes. From a marketing perspective, it might be attractive to use the name of the most successful project. But it is a very disingenuous move that furthers the confusion when it comes the WMF and what the Foundation is all about. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Oppose Oppose. —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 09:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Oppose Oppose Please don't. Or change to something like "Wikimovement". In fact, we always say that we're not "only Wikipedia", doing this would be highly unproductive. --GrandCelinien (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Strong oppose ! Datsofelija (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Oppose Oppose- AvatarFR (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Oppose Oppose In agreement with the many thoughtful and sensible arguments above Mwarf (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Oppose Oppose --Sacamol (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Strong oppose - two different groups. one changed the world. Denis Barthel (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  279. It would make a confusion between the community and the fundation that supports it.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Strong oppose Wasted money for a very confusing and disruptive rebranding. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Strong oppose. --Warp3 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  282. Strong oppose. Romuald 2 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Strong oppose Confusing and harmful for the notoriety of Wikiquote, Wiktionary and other Wikimedia projects in general. --Cosmophilus (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Strong oppose another step in wrong direction (very related to Strategy process)--Barcelona (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Please no. We could use the money for much better things. This is not worth it. Trijnsteltalk 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Oppose Oppose It will sound like it's only supporting Wikipedia. Bobbyshabangu (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Strong oppose. DGG puts it so well there's practically nothing left to be said except that the distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia should be made even more clear, and the powers of the WMF and the way it handles the funds should be significantly reduced and devolved to the volunteer projects that provide the work that raises the funds in the first place. The WMF has become a salaried socio-political movement on the money created by an encyclopedia which it does not sufficiently support; there's something wrong there. Kudpung (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Oppose Oppose per the other 288 people above me, most of whom have adequately explained the numerous reasons why this is a bad idea. ONUnicorn (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Oppose Oppose No need to change name. Suggestion : rebrand "Wikimedia Foundation" as "Wiki Free Foundation", this would reduce confusion between Wikipedia and the Foundation. Google did it with its Alphabet company, why not the WMF ? Challwa (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Oppose Oppose --Killarnee (TRP) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia (like all other affiliated projects) are the editors, not the staff people. -- Maclemo (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Oppose OpposeOdjob16 Talk 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Strong oppose. Agreeing with many, many arguments presented before, and just adding (because I didn't see it) that in some particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that also brings a layer of protection. Please don't do this, it just seems like a really bad idea. 3BRBS (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Definitely, not. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Oppose Oppose No way man, it will lead to confusion. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Oppose Oppose see also: Comments on the Rebranding Strategy Grijz (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC) (Frans Grijzenhout, chair WMNL and moderator of the chairpersons meeting of November 10, 2019)[reply]
  297. Strong oppose. Many readers and even Wikimedia community members still do not know much about the sister projects. And a rename would it made much harder to get noticed. The sister projects are not deserved to end up as a small footnote - respectively a smaller footnote than they are right now already. -- DerFussi 14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Why not renaming Wikimedia/WMF, but Strong oppose to the use of Wikipedia brand for it, just because WM isn't WP. --Framawiki (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Oppose Oppose The rebranding doesn't help the movement. However, if Wikipedia was a hub to the resources, that would be something better :
    • Wikipedia
      • Encyclopedia
      • Dictionary
      • Medias
      • Data
    And so on, this would be a proposal to discuss. The rebranding will just confuse people. Berlekemp (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Oppose Oppose I was against the idea, and I did not change my mind in the meantime (but I had no preconceived opinion). I don't see a lot of problem with the "Wikimedia" brand in the current communication strategy. It took time but there is not as much confusion as in the past. When I analyze the situation now compared to 2015, I can say in some countries it has greatly improved, and I think it can in the other ones. maybe it could help somewhere but it's just a phase. Giving real ressources helps more. I aslo see more confusion created from this change in the future because people have already problems now to grasp the difference between a legal entity and a free movement, it's such a delicate balance. Plus, I am a cross-project user and I don't think Wikipedia should be the core name in general, they have difference nature. Plus, Wikidata became as important as Wikipedia quickly and Commons and (in certain countries) Wikisource show some recognition. My position of respect of projects is a functional not "ideological" one, I think that in the future we might see the projects evolve further, for example we might have a more enlarged Commons with also texts with structured data, or integrate Wikispecies in Wikidata. Their current lack of recognition is actually mostly due IMHO to an excessive fragmentation in language projects and platforms than to the names that we use. I don't dislike the use of "WikiCommons" (instead of "Wikimedia Commons"), but I wish that renaming could be the first step to the creation of more structured and bigger platforms. I say so because I don't think projects are sacred in their individuality, I switch from one to another also because for me they are a continuum and I think they can evolve, but this aspect should be the underlying long-term strategy of a rebranding. This "Wikipedia as global brand" idea instead sounds just cheap to me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Oppose No. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Oppose Oppose. Wikipedia is the community. Foundation exist to support the community. It is not the community. The foundation could be renamed to be Wikipedia Foundation, but this would require that then all the sister project would be named accordingly, too: Wikipedia Data, Wikipedia Commons, Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia University etc. This was proposed maybe 10 years ago but it didn't go forward. --Teemu (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Oppose Oppose Absolutely not. --Nitraus (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Oppose Oppose The rebranding won't remove confusion, it will add to it. Saguameau (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  306. Strong oppose, discussed this before several times, once with a WMF staff who came to India to discuss officially in a not so serious way about rebranding strategy. My opposition still stands. If you cant do good to sister projects needing desparate supports, at least dont try hard to nail on their coffins. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  307. No, most definitely, no.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Oppose Oppose Tomasz Raburski (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Oppose Oppose Anthere (talk)
  310. Oppose Oppose. Would create more/different confusion, and diminish the diminish the value of sister projects - Evad37 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  311. Oppose Oppose WMF is cancer and this is another sad effort to cash in on whatever goodwill they can find. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  312. Oppose Oppose because of strong legal risk for the Chapter when the name as the organisation is equal to the Wikipedia as described in Comments on the Rebranding Strategy. There is mismatch of meaning leading to further misunderstanding. The Wikipedia is only one single aspect of the Community. The Community is much larger than the encyclopedia. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC), Chairman, and representing Wikimedia Belgium in this matter.[reply]
  313. Strong oppose: very bad idea Gdarin | talk 12:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  314. Oppose Oppose Gżdacz (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Oppose Oppose per Raymond, Mautpreller et al. --Bubo 21:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  316. Oppose Oppose per above. --Zenith4237 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  317. Oppose Oppose I'm sorry for my english, but I think: "The wikimedia-foundation is not only responsible for wikipedia but for all wikimedia-wikis." or so in better english sounds better than: "The wikipedia-foundation is not only responsible for wikipedia but for all wikipedia-wikis." or so. --MannMaus (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Oppose Oppose --Teukros (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  319. Oppose Oppose People, people, it is terrifying. The servers regularly experience downtimes, in some countries Wikimedia editors are being prosecuted or Wikimedia are blocked altogether. And the staff sees no better idea to spend money on than hiring a very expensive branding company to get advice on how to change one letter in the name? The money, let me remind, already collected mainly by the means of deceiving the donators that they actually help to develop Wikipedia? Moreover, if I understood it properly, the staff calculates the support for this idea by counting all the discussion viewers who did not word their opposal as agreeing, which is the worst case of voting fraud. It makes an impression of displaying strong authoritarian sentiments, whereas I always imagined Wikipedia as a refugium of meritocracy. I suppose that all the people responsible for this swamp should lose their jobs in WMF immediately. --Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Oppose Oppose Wostr (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Oppose Oppose IOIOI (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  322. Oppose Oppose normally I think of rebranding exercises as marketing people wanting to put their stamp on things, and in the process wasting a lot of other people’s money. But with the rise of Wikidata this proposal is a bit like Volkswagen looking at the early success of the Golf and deciding it was time to rebrand the company “Beetle”. Worse it could give the WMF and others false confidence that it knows, care for and understands Wikipedia as well as it thinks it does rather than as badly as it actually does. Respect to anyone in the WMF who thought that this would help build bridges between the WMF and the community, the aspiration is worthy even if the execution is counterproductive. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  323. Oppose Oppose Please, try to see that separate names is MORE clear and fair. Waste of money, except for the people trying to make a living out of the wiki's. What's next, integrate everything? Personally, I'm not keen to be forced under the Wikipedia umbrella again. --PiefPafPier (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Strong oppose La fondation Wikimédia est censée être au service de ses projets, et non l'inverse. Je ne vois pas comment un tel changement de nom pourrait être bénéfique aux projets. — The Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to serve its projects, not the other way around. I can't see how such a change of name would serve the projects. Grasyop 09:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  325. Strong oppose --Piotr967 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  326. Strong oppose Apparently just looking at this page without commenting may be counted as »support« – something that moves my »oppose« to »strongly oppose« because that is downright Orwellian. There is no way to tell what someone who just reads but doesn't comment, actually thinks about the proposal. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sprachraum (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  327. Oppose Oppose It's important and valuable that the two remain clearly distinct. This whole "branding" exercise is a waste of time and effort. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Strong oppose Three argued points : diversity and hints vs confusing simplicity ; take your time to learn and master the richness of this diversity ; deal with the necessity of brands, do not cope with its philosophy. • Everything is not as simple as advertisers would like us to believe, and that's why there are different names. Given some time (!), some readings with explanations, everybody can understand the various hints behind the diverse names. Wikimedia embraces something larger than just the wikipedias, etc, you all here know this story. But for the public not engaged in producing some minute effort for understanding this (why a priori should he?), this will takes to it a bit more time, that's okay ; but are we in a hurry ? Definitely no. Moreover, changing "WMF" into some "WPF" will not clarify anything to these persons. But more surely, it will definitely darken it to the majority of the lightly engaged practitioners ; and this is very damaging. • Keep the variety, this is the law of life ; we'll have to learn a bit more for a bit longer, but this is the current direction of evolution for the present humanity, isn't it. • One last thing, in particular about what is the aim of life of a brand consultancy agency : brand system has not been invented for enlightening knowledge and sharing ideas ; on the opposite side of collaboration, it was crafted for marking territories, what /belongs/ to me and not to you, etc, here with names and logos. It's a legal response to defend industrial property. Though we need it, because the modern world only refers to rules of belonging, we need not to play the game about its "values", such as simplify the namings in order to more easily « mark more impressionable brains », which, all this, is totally antagonistic to our own ethic values system. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  329. Oppose Oppose--Arbnos (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose.--Arbnos (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  330. Oppose Oppose --TeleD (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  331. Oppose Oppose --Krd 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  332. Oppose Oppose Don't tarnish Wikipedia with the WMF's reputation. Dismiss all the salaried employees and agents who proposed this, and use the money saved to support Wikipedia and the other volunteer-based projects that built the brands. EddieHugh (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  333. Oppose Oppose Improving the foundation's "brand" is not an important goal, doing this will not achieve that goal, and it will have negative consequences. PJvanMill (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  334. Strong oppose It would only add to the existing confusion. Wikipedia is obviously better known than Wikimedia, but that problem is not solved by the latter usurping the name of the former. -- UKoch (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  335. Oppose Oppose It's no necessary, it's a waste of time and money, it's confusing because wikimedia is not only wikipedia. I don't see any substantial advantage in the rename. --Jordi G (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  336. Strong oppose “Apple” would be a better brand name: it's even more famous. Jonathan.renoult (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  337. Oppose Oppose. The Wikimedia Foundation should refer to itself as either "the Wikimedia Foundation", "(the) WMF", "the Foundation", or "the foundation". Anything else would not be accurate either factually or legally. I don't know why WMF doesn't have lawyers to tell them these things. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  338. Oppose Oppose. Schazjmd above nails it: "You can't fix the finding that "Wikimedia is less understood" by using a name that is well understood to be something else." Dank (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  339. Oppose Oppose See Schazjmd. Curiously Google did exactly the opposite by introducing Alphabet as its company brand to distinguish from the service named google. Why should Wikimedia use the name of a single service and as a consequence confuse everyone? Why does Wikimedia need to be well known anyway? It's not a profit-orientated company that sells something. Again I have the feeling the WMF is living in a bubble and the only external voices they're listingen to sometimes are those of some questionable business consultants. Please stop making up problems that don't exist and listen to the community. --StYxXx (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  340. Oppose Oppose. Although I am mainly contributing to en-Wikipedia, I think that WP isn't all of WMF and we should never rename the foundation just because of the over-popularity of one of the projects. Indeed, small projects could be merged (like Wikisource and Wikibooks), but I don't want to see something like Wikinews merging into Wikipedia and making the whole thing a big lump. If we have to rename Wikimedia, then why not just call the foundation WikiFoundation and keep the projects as is? Super unnecessary and this is a total waste of money. WikiAviator (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  341. Oppose There is this trend of calling Wikipedia and Wikimedia a "brand" like it was a commercial entity. That may be appropriate in the board room, but is it appropriate for the output? It says to me that Wikimedia is just a version, one of many. But it isn't. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 10:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  342. oppose nope Bunnyfrosch (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  343. Oppose Contra The people working for e.g. at WMF or Wikimedia in Deutschland do not represent the Wikipedia authors and should not claim this by stealing the project's name. There should be another structure involving authors into decisions and work directly. -- Simplicius (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  344. Oppose Oppose. In contrast to Strainu, who is in the same small community as I am (Romanian-speaking Wikipedians) and expressed his support above, I did not experience any situation in which a newcomer (e.g. during an edit-a-thon) would feel like questioning how exactly is Wikipedia different from Wikimedia. I just don't describe this kind of pecularities to newcomers, and they will figure them out by themselves should they display interest in volunteering for Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. Gikü (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  345. Strong oppose —M@sssly 19:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  346. Oppose Oppose See my comments below in my support for "A constructive proposal: The Wiki Foundation". Bahnfrend (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  347. Strong oppose Just no. -Yupik (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  348. Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is a project, Wikimedia is a wider organisation which does more than just Wikipedia. Wikipedia is *supported* and *hosted* by Wikimedia, but is run by a global community. By the organisation also claiming to be Wikipedia, it will likely lead to unforeseen issues with regard to whether the foundation is a publisher, has control of content, etc. In addition, the cost to affiliated organisations with their own budgets and a raft of institutional partners at national level, to change names they've been operating with for upwards of a decade in many cases, and to reassure partners on the continuance of non-WP projects, is a cost that would need to be explained to donors and communities. Orderinchaos (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  349. Strong oppose Wikipedia is too popular. Other projects are forgotten. This is not only wikipedia, don't forget about wiktionary, wikibooks, wikiversity, wikispecies, ... --DavidL (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  350. Oppose Oppose per above Username6892 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  351. Strong oppose – Everything has already been said. Absolutely not. Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  352. Strong oppose The inevitable confusion that will arise from this change is unfathomable. 5225C (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  353. Strong oppose we are wikipedia cheers SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  354. Oppose Oppose Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 17:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  355. Strong oppose Wikimedia != Wikipedia -- Perrak (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  356. Strong oppose, firstly, Wikimedia does not speak for or represent any Wikipedia project. That project's community does. In addition, it is highly disrespectful to those who participate in other Wikimedia projects, and in many cases have worked very hard to make those projects successful as well. If anything, the distinction between "Wikipedia" and "the Wikimedia Foundation" should be made more clear, not less so. Seraphimblade (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  357. Oppose Oppose Wrong way to go. I don't see any reason why WMF should beneficially adopt the name of its best-known project, for the simple reason that their roles are different, and to do so would cause no end of confusion around the world. We didn't see the holding company of Google rename itself after the company whose core is the search engine. --Ohconfucius (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  358. no,  :-( Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written by volunteers who identify themselves with their project. Wikimedia is the foundation, giving support to the Wikipedia (and other projects) in many ways. It has been a good idea to choose different names, I like it. --Rax (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  359. Strong oppose Very bad idea. Sebleouf (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  360. Oppose Oppose. This is a foolish idea. Whilst it might make the foundation more visible, it would create confusion with the encylopaedia and devalue the sister projects. The foundation should work to support the community, not impose poorly-thought-out branding exercises on them, or demand that community input comes only in exclusionary focus groups. The foundation is over-reaching its mandate yet again. Modest Genius (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  361. Strong oppose Very bad idea. Julo (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  362. Strong oppose Especially with the WMF's unwillingness to consider community feedback. Are they trying to start another Fram or Superprotect-like protest? Because if the comments of the community is so willfully ignored, it is certain to happen. Darylgolden (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  363. Strong oppose I find it rather insulting that the WMF is trying to speak for, indeed, speak over the voices of the various Wikipedia communities. This is tomfoolery and rather condescending from the folks who have failed to listen to the volunteers that sustain it, time and again. Javert2113 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  364. Oppose Oppose. The rebranding would only cause more confusion. This would also diminish the relevance of sister projects, such as Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. RadiX 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  365. Oppose Oppose We're a lot more than Wikipedia. Let's embrace what we actually are. Commons etc. are for more than just Wikipedias. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  366. Oppose Oppose, never ! --Ciao • Bestoernesto 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  367. Oppose Oppose The Wikimedia Foundation is not just Wikipedia. Willbb234 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  368. Oppose Oppose Per MER-C, Alsee, Yair rand, WereSpielChequers, etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  369. Oppose Oppose Renaming only makes it complicated when people stumbled upon the term "WMF" in the future. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding onto my previous point. The rebranding is unlikely to be appealing to new users, but it would alienate existing users (particularly non-Wikipedia contributors). It also adds confusion as pointed out by the chapters (is Wikipedia France the French Wikipedia or the chapter?) Just last year, a similar proposal on renaming sister projects by attaching "Wikipedia" to the prefix was soundly rejected by the community. I don't understand why WMF continues to put forth similar proposals without listening to the community's feedback from the last proposal. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  370. Oppose Oppose there are better alternatives--CennoxX (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  371. Strong oppose and please get rid of these marketing clowns. An organization dedicated to educating people shouldn't mislead them with silly branding games. --Universalamateur (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  372. No because our goal is suppose to be something else than being a popular brand.--BRP ever 12:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  373. Oppose Oppose while when explaining this to other people it would be easier, it is a lot like calling Nintendo "the Mario Company"; it's confusing a large thing that is part of something with the whole thing. The other Wikimedia projects are not encyclopedias, so to put a word based on encyclopedia in the name of the company running them is weird and illogical. Also, what would we call Commons? DemonDays64 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  374. Strong oppose Libcub (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  375. Strong oppose This is mortifying for other projects and could create a lot of problems (for example confusions between Wikipedia project and Wikipedia "foundation"). I don't also like the way this rebranding campaign is run. --Ferdi2005[Mail] 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  376. Strong oppose A "Wikipedia Foundation" will be seen as the organization that actually manages the content of Wikipedia, rather than manage the infrasructure of the various projects. As for the national chapters, the change would even be worse. We already struggle to have people understand that Wikimedia Italia has no control whatsoever on Italian Wikipedia; were we called Wikipedia Italia it would impossible to explain the difference. --.mau. ✉ 15:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  377. Strong oppose As per Seraphimblade --Civvì (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  378. Strong oppose Never. --SDKmac (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  379. Strong oppose Our philosophy is to spread knowledge not confusion. Wikimedia is not Wikipedia, so don't call it that.--Tminus7 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  380. Strong oppose Wikipedia is not same as Wikimedia.--Vulphere 04:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  381. Oppose Oppose I feel that the independence of the "Wikipedia" project and the community of unpaid volunteer editors must be protected from financial interests and influences. The work of the foundation is important. Their work should continue yet the foundation has distinct goals related to fund-raising which interfer with goals of the free knowledge projects supported by the foundation. For reasons of objectivity and journalistic integrity, the WMF financial goals and their paid employees must be clearly demarked and kept at arm's length from "Wikipedia". The power and influence of "Wikipedia", "Commons", "Wikisource" and all other sister projects comes from their independence and self-governance. I am afraid that the branding project has not respected this important distinction. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  382. Strong oppose Certainly not. --Minderbinder (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  383. Oppose Oppose no reason.--Hamish 10:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  384. Strong oppose Abuse of the brand Wikipedia--Karsten11 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  385. Oppose Oppose as per #179 Luky001 --Euku (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  386. Oppose Oppose as this would result in quite a bit of confusion --Lou.gruber (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  387. Oppose Oppose It is called Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia Foundation --Thegooduser (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  388. Oppose Oppose Everything stated multiple times. --KnightMove (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  389. Oppose Oppose What about Commons? Wikisource? Wiktionary? Wikibooks? Wikinews? And how did this even became a problem? --Pandakekok9 (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  390. Strong oppose Worst idea ever. XenonX3 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  391. Oppose Oppose not convincing. Heavytrader-Gunnar (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  392. Strong oppose Confusing nonsense. - Mvuijlst (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  393. Oppose Oppose I wish that when the Wikimedia Foundation would organize these sorts of discussions they could start with with Wikimedia community input and support. It is trivial for Wikimedia community members to look at a proposal and know whether it came from Wikimedia community insiders or non-wiki community outsiders. This proposal obviously came from the outside, and I regret that so consistently the non-wiki community members at the Wikimedia Foundation fail to demonstrate an ability to recognize the difference. I wish that the Wikimedia Foundation would collaborate with and support the Wikimedia community instead of using power, money, and resources independently and outside of collaboration with the Wikimedia community. The Wikimedia community does not have such conflicts among itself, but often experiences weird pressures from WMF-funded outsiders to do weird things which are foreign to Wikimedia community values, norms, and culture. The Wikimedia Foundation's pattern of asking for exceptions and favors to making way for Wikimedia community participation is not sustainable. So much Wikimedia donor money gets wasted in these experiments for intentional and designed lack of user input. I wish that the Wikimedia Foundation would invest more in explaining its annual budget, and annual report, and have Wikimedia community review and sign off for expenditures in blocks of something like US$2 million or ~2% of the total annual budget. This conflict is less about brand or the idea of changing it and more about paid staff at the Wikimedia Foundation avoiding collaboration in the normal culture and context of Wikimedia community values. If the Wikimedia Foundation neglects to talk about community empowerment in the follow up to this then that will be a signal of the continuance of Wikimedia Foundation's designs to continue making major financial decisions in error. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  394. Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with the Fram ban, Flow, and Media Viewer instead of making obvious but boring improvements to what we have. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose because the new name suggests that the WMF is the boss of Wikipedia / controls its administration and content. It's also bad for the sister projects. As a nonprofit, the WMF should not be using their time and $$$ to improve the projects instead of forcing this rebrand upon us. I do like the new "set knowledge free" slogan though. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Wikipedia is a community. Wikimedia is the big nonprofit that claims to represent the community but fails time and again to actually do so. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  395. Oppose Oppose --MarcelBuehner (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  396. Oppose Oppose Far more disadvantages than advantages IMO. Kelson (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  397. Strong oppose nothing left to say here, the disadvatages more than weight out the advantages. --Wikinutzer3 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  398. Strong oppose unfriendly takeover of communities, --He3nry (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  399. Strong oppose No, definitely not --Rmcharb (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  400. Oppose Oppose Even though Alphabet owns Google, hardly anybody knows about it, and that's just fine. Renaming Alphabet to Google would confuse people who are familiar with the two. Same goes for here: even if hardly anybody knows about Wikimedia and are confused by it, renaming it to Wikipedia would cause even more confusion. I wouldn't say we're fixing a non-issue here, but I insist that the issue this proposal is trying to fix isn't a very significant issue. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  401. Oppose OpposeThe worst form of Public Relations is, when you pretend to be something you are not. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:c6:72e:8d07:9d56:d66e:bfa2:3540 (talk) 1. Mai 2020, 18:28:51 (UTC)
  402. Oppose Oppose Not a big fan, it may confuse readers. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  403. Strong oppose. Too confusing.--Jusjih (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  404. Oppose Oppose as Jmabel. Doesn't make much sense to me, doesn't feel right and seems a waste of time, effort, money .. when there are still a few real world problems out there to tackle. KaiKemmann (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  405. Strong oppose. It might have made sense 15 years ago. Now it's too late and it will simply confuse everyone even more. There are more pressing issues than renaming the Foundation... --Don-vip (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  406. Oppose Oppose There are some people who say that such a change would be confusing. With some effort this could be overcome. However I see no evidence of this change being beneficial to the sister projects. I would rather they were exposed to the readers more and not less. I have seen some concerns previously which indicated that the sister projects have a different set of policies rules and guidelines than Wikipedia, and are already putting disproportionate amount of effort into explaining these differences to newcomers; I recall that such a brand change was seen as an event that would increase this kind of confusion and not reduce it. I have not seen these concerns addressed in the current proposal in any way. --Gryllida 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  407. Oppose Oppose It feels like a badly managed company wants to get rid of its substandard reputation by changing the name and hoping that nobody will notice that everything is still the same. --voyager (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  408. Oppose Oppose --Tmv (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  409. Oppose Oppose per the arguments above. Furthermore: would donors really be pleased that $2,200,000 has been spent on this project? Would they read publications like this or about the workshops and be surprsied what their money has been spent on? Are we really being transparent with our donors? Acather96 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  410. Strong oppose Let it as it should be in the first place. SMB99thx (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  411. Oppose Oppose Die Aufgabenteilung ist klar und so wie sie ist auch gut. Wikimedia ist nicht Wikipedia und das muss auch klar sprachlich sichtbar sein. --Itti (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  412. Strong oppose --Tom Ja (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  413. Oppose Oppose --Hardenacke (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  414. Strong oppose Numerous reasons have been given and I agree with Voyager's analysis that a badly run enterprise (the WMF) is trying to capitalise even more on the success of the best brand in its portfolio even though its real input is riddled with a complete lack of understanding. --Millbart (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  415. Strongest possible oppose. 02:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  416. Oppose Oppose per the above. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  417. Oppose Oppose 2 different thing. Vivi-1 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  418. Strong oppose I'm too lazy to read all of the 400+ opposes above, and I expect my point to be addressed there. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a renaming, but combined, I dislike all 3 proposals. Wikimedia should never be called Wikipedia. Wikimedia has non-Wikipedia wikis, and the organisation is ultimately not the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  419. Strong oppose Just realised I never actually opposed here. This would have minimal benefit at best, would confuse and mislead the public into thinking non-Wikipedia WMF sites follow Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and neutrality, and would almost certainly lead to a greatly increased flow of complaints and inappropriate queries at the help desks of the larger Wikipedias from readers who (quite reasonably) would assume that Wikipedia is the correct place to raise concerns or ask questions about "Wikipedia". Iridescent (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  420. Strong oppose per Iridescent et al --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  421. Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. --Maimaid (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  422. Oppose Never ever. It's bad enough that some people are subject to the confusion between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, what a terrible idea to endorse it even further by giving the two concepts the same name and confuse not only externally but also internally. --Vogone (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  423. Strong oppose --Stefan64 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Nuff said.[reply]
  424. Strong oppose per the many reasons listed above. Sijysuis (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  425. Strong oppose as many other wikimedians here above --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  426. Strong oppose as above. - Squasher (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  427. Oppose Oppose a rebranding approach that devalues / obscures the non-pedia sister projects, to make more money off the Wikipedia brand which then is not spent on Wikipedia. If there was a parallel commitment to actually inject some serious cash into that oh so marketable encyclopedia (e.g., tripling the software developer team, so that we can get away from the annual popularity contest to implement necessary improvements) this might be a trade-off worth considering. But as it is, this appears aimed at amassing more play money for the foundation to do nothing much sensible with. Asking Wikidata / quote /voyage / Wiktionary to take a hit for that purpose is unreasonable. --Elmidae (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  428. Oppose Oppose --Novak Watchmen (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  429. Strong oppose Does not solve any problem and creates new ones. That's changing for the sake of change. — Arkanosis 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  430. Strong oppose per Coffee above, specifically "the Foundation should not be giving off any impression that it speaks for the Wikipedia community." This is morally important (in the sense that the WMF has no editorial role, and that those with an editorial role deserve an identity and a platform), and it also has practical importance to all parties (including WMF). The history of the Wikimedia Foundation includes numerous incidents in which it drew a clear distinction between its own perspective, and that expressed through Wikipedia community processes. Nobody would be well served if the jargon made it possible, for instance, for a news report to write a statement like "The majority of the Wikipedia community (as determined by XYZ methodology) opposed the Knowledge Engine, an initiative of Wikipedia." The WMF has its own identity, and it's important to its own integrity and the integrity of the Wikipedia project that the WMF's identity be easily distinguished from the project itself, and the community that builds and maintains its content. Furthermore, I would contend that properly speaking, the WMF is a member of "the Wikipedia community," and has duties toward "the Wikipedia community" -- but it would be awfully hard to explain that if its name was "Wikipedia" or "The Wikipedia Foundation." There are many other worthwhile arguments opposing this name change, but IMO this is the most important. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]