Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Localization checking volunteers[edit]

If you are willing to help to check each of the proposed names, (1) to make sure that we aren't considering any bad choices (e.g. names that contain rude words in other languages), (2) to give feedback on each of the names that would work well (or badly) when localized into your language(s), then please add your signature below, and I will ping you twice during the next 2 weeks. Much thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible FAQs[edit]

Here are some notes about this process for anyone curious, or for future reference.

A lot of the structure and details were adapted from Logo selection procedure and Wikivoyage/Naming Process.

The voting system (see visual demo at User:Quiddity (WMF)/sandbox) has been adapted from the system used by the Community Wishlist and the 2017 Developer Wishlist. This seems to be the best system for enabling widespread participation, including from relative newcomers, across the 80+ first round proposals. We will request enabling the gadget for everyone at the appropriate time.

The {{shuffle}} template will be used to randomize the ordering of each of the sections, to resolve the problem of the topmost list-entry getting the most attention.

The timeline has been stretched as widely as feasible to allow unhurried participation.

If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please describe[edit]

It's impossible to determine a good name when we have no description of the intent or the expected content for this wiki and what it will be used for.

Just providing a proposed name if not enough:

  • "wiki of" describe the form form, just like all Wikimedia projects
  • "functions" means a lot of things in English. The 1st meaning is related to mathematical functions (which probably does not need a new wiki, as it is a small part of the mathematics topic in Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikidata...
  • The alternative "lamda2" proposed only as a code name also means nothing.

Is that a secret project ? As long as it is still not developed, documented, and with an active discussion we can point to, and some drafts/sketches, we can't determine what is will be used for and how it can be distinguished from Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiversity.

If this related to professional functions (i.e. describing roles, positions, jobs, training required, diplomas, certifications, schools/universities where these can be acquired, and legislation or regulation, also dependant of countries/markets) ?

Do you intend to use it for describing bios of physical persons, or Wikimedia users, or its personal ? Or to create a space for job opportunities and offers ? What are privacy issues and how is this goal compatible with Wikimedia goals and policies?

For now your request cannot find any useful and justified reply. I think you are still asking that too early, only for a test concept. verdy_p (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. There is an explanation of functions in the first section on the page, "What is a function?". There is a lot of other material linked from the main project page, if you'd like to read more details. If you would like a long and detailed page to read/skim, try Abstract Wikipedia/Plan. However, I see you've started adding name proposals a few minutes later, so I guess you've found those explanations already! Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The description is still very basic. And this wiki seems to imply that this wiki would use the user input (or searches), and many data from Wikidata, and could be associated with code (in Lua running on the server or javascript running in the client browser), and customer presentation forms. It could as well generate various media forms: tagged wikitext, HTML, graphics, compositions of images found in Commons, extracts of articles in Wikipedia (using the search engine) or talk pages, or other synthetic results (including statistics collectible and aggregatable across wikis). The "function" described seems just to be a small part of the goal, as well translation is just part of the final presentation (but it could be facilitated by integrating an automatic translator, labels from Wikidata, or Wikitionnary items... And it could also use open data source providers (e.g. what time is it in this place, what's the weather, when is the next departure for my plane, or find a route on a map, compute a travel time, suggest me things to see around with Wikivoyage..., or "1+1=" to embed a calculator in the search engine! I.e. extending the Wikimedia search bar to include lot of "smartness", similar to the smart search bar in Google which can also reply directly to some question with synthetized responses...
IA is for now a goal only actively searched by huge companies (Google, Amazon, Apple notably) and we may need an alternative with a free project, not obscured and blocked by too many patents and new kinds of "intellectual properties". verdy_p (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Some names might benefit from flipping the words. So, FunctionWiki, TemplateWiki, etc. for example. I think they read and convey intent better than WikiFunction or WikiTemplate. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thad's suggestions[edit]

My suggestions are:

WikiEval

  • PRO: "calculation" was mentioned 3 times by yourself in describing what a Function is.
  • I searched "calculation" and found it has synonyms of evaluate, compute.
  • PRO: WikiEval can be pronounced with the "ie" combined easily. Saying "wikieval" fairly quickly actually sounds like "wiki val" and can be just pronounced as such "wik eval" and will likely just stick in people's minds and mouths as well. In other words, the Wik(i)Eval where the (i) is optional in saying, since it has the same vowel sound as (E) in Eval. It just flows naturally. This is a big plus!
  • PRO: "evaluate" translates well into many more languages. (one of the things I was concerned about when making this suggestion, so I looked at that first)
  • CON: might sound a bit like "wik evil" for some? But "wiki val" seems more likely to be pronounced for most?

WikiEquals (WikiEquality)

  • think: the = equality sign on calculators (or in math with 2 horizontal lines or 3 lines, meaning equality and congruence[1])
  • CON: doesn't flow well in pronunciation, but perhaps enough
  • PRO: but does translate nearly as well and unicode!
  • PRO: but does lend itself to probably much better artwork and integration into clients and a frame of reference for most folks
  • PRO: one of the artwork designs can be EQUALITY (and where we already know a goal of Abstract Wikipedia is to bring equality to all languages and cultures). This is also a global theme recently in the news.
  • Hmmm, WikiEquality might be a fitting name later on for Abstract Wikipedia!
I don't think that equality of cultures actually is specifically a goal here. Nor is it something Wikimedia in general works towards. Also, the news themes are really not a guide for things to do.
One con to "WikiEval" is that "eval" sounds a lot like "evil", and would probably be confused for it when spoken aloud. --Yair rand (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I know someone who misread "Wikimedia Commons" as "Wikimedia Compost", so mispronunciation can happen everywhere. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCalc

  • CON: indirection?

WikiExec

  • PRO: To execute, process a function is somewhat aligned with "task", "process", "result"?
  • CON: maybe a bit too Microsoft Windows OS "exec" sounding?

WikiRun

  • PRO: Simple!
  • PRO: Run some function. Harks back to simple times of "run a program".
  • CON: just slightly off context?
  • CON: a touch too generic? some things also "run" in Wikimedia contexts, like any programming language, Lua, etc. And there are internal processes to Wikidata which "run" lots of things.

WikiFunk

  • PRO: like func, but play on words (function k)
  • CON: close to a four-letter word and press, media, and toy kid robots would kill us with this name? Maybe not, it could turn into our favor with actual coverage?

--Thadguidry (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thadguidry, I've added a inputbox form at the top of Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki_of_functions_naming_contest#Proposed_names which should simplify the addition of proposals. Would you like to add any of these yourself? Perhaps just the ones you're most in favour of? Or if you'd prefer, then I can help. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity (WMF) sure, please help. Whatever you personally think is worth adding up for a vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thadguidry (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020‎ (UTC)
@Thadguidry: I'd like to avoid bringing my own value-judgements into the decision! Please let me know which proposals you'd like added. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity: I've added WikiEval, WikiEquals, WikiFunk

New submissions[edit]

Hi greetings, can we add more submissions to the naming contest? Should we create pages for new submissions (for transcluding on Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest) or just place new names at Abstract Wikipedia/Name? Thank you.--Path slopu (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Hi. Generally yes, people should add their submissions directly. Although I'd like to gently ask that you consider only adding the proposals that you're most certain could be ideal names, in order to potentially reduce the very large number of submissions that voters will need to consider in the near future. (I think you've made ~40 proposals!). It's a delicate balance between quantity and quality, and there's no perfect number of ideas, but hopefully we can make the voting stage as smooth as possible with a little bit of self-pruning. But please do also submit any new great ideas!
There are also questions in the discussion sections for a few of your proposals, that you might want to respond to.
Thanks again, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Hi greetings, thank you for the help. Thank you so much for the advice. Regards.--Path slopu (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

General comment: avoid CamelCase, please[edit]

Since I’m seeing this in several suggestions, I just want to gently point out that Wikimedia project names so far generally avoid “CamelCase”, that is, having additional uppercase letters beyond the beginning of the word. Our projects are called Wikipedia, not WikiPedia; Wikidata, not WikiData; Wikivoyage, not WikiVoyage; and so on. (This does not prevent us from abbreviating the project with two capital letters, as in WP, WD, etc.) The one exception I’m aware of is MediaWiki. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll ping the authors of those proposals here, for their consideration.
@BugWarp, ChristianKl, Zblace, Gkellogg, Victorgrigas, PaulAsimov, Niklitov, DeepWiki, GrounderUK, Path slopu, ArthurPSmith, Verdy p, ABaso (WMF), NeilK, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: If you agree with this concern, please feel free to change your own proposal, to remove the CamelCase. [I.e. 3-steps: Rename the proposal's page; edit the proposal's page in 2 spots; and then edit the transclusion-link in the main listing]. Or let me know if you'd like help.
Everyone is also free to retract any of their own proposals at any time, too, of course. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity, if you can, please do the change to remove the CamelCase, you have my permission. I'm a bit confused on how big the thread has become and I don't wanna miss any spot.--BugWarp (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister: Generally support, but in the proposed name "Wikilambda", it is suggested it should be "WikiLambda" to prevent confusion of l and I. However I will not support this name. What I care more is for consistency, 1. The name should starts with "Wiki" and 2. It should be a single word without space or hyphens.--GZWDer (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@BugWarp, ChristianKl, Zblace, Gkellogg, Victorgrigas, PaulAsimov, Niklitov, DeepWiki, GrounderUK, Path slopu, ArthurPSmith, Verdy p, ABaso (WMF), NeilK, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Lucas Werkmeister: StronglY AgainsT it...if MediaWiki is exception, I do not see why there should not be more, also I would not take out the right of anyone to suggest whichever capitalization they feel strong over for the sake of conforming *(especially at this stage!). My 5c --Zblace (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): You mention the ability to "retract" a proposal, how does one do that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Just remove the transclusion from the listing at Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest#Proposed names (and ideally, add a comment stating you're retracting it). :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we use three round voting instead of two?[edit]

Currently we have 118 proposals and there will be more in the future. For better concentration of votes, I propose that we introduce three round voting. The first round users may vote support or oppose. After the first round, all proposals with support rate no more than 50% are removed. (Probably, we can also remove those without enough support). Then we start round 2 and 3 as currectly proposed.--GZWDer (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe, in the first round, we should have a separate, less-trafficked section for those options which haven't had any supporters other than the nominator. That would probably effectively make the first round a much smaller contest. --Yair rand (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Another option is we could ping ALL idea proposers a few days before voting starts, and encourage them to retract any of their ideas that they aren't fully certain about. I've noted this above already, too. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't expect *that* many suggestions.

I'm wondering what the advantage of having an additional zeroth round would be, and thus a smaller first round: more people will see all the options that made it to the first round and can compare them with each other. We would still need to decide what the cutoff is - either an arbitrary number of supports, thus risking that we don't know if 60 or 6 proposals will proceed to the first round, or we say "the X top proposals make it to the first round". Now, if we set X to six, then we have exactly the current setup.

Yair's suggestion has the advantage that we would still let everyone to first round, but for most voters it would effectively look like it is a smaller selection. That sounds attractive.

I would even go further and say "the twenty top proposals by number of supports make it to the first visibility tier in the first round".

And we start taking support votes in immediately.

I'm not a big fan of the 50% support as this would require oppose votes, and also it wouldn't result in a specific number of proposals to make it to the next round.

I'm just thinking out loud and maybe I'm missing some considerations. denny (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Any further voices here? We probably should fix the procedural question rather sooner than later. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

We would like to pick up on the suggestions above, and propose modifying the rules slightly. We think this setup might work best:

  1. Allow expressing supporting votes effective immediately - E.g. asking here and on the mailing list for people to add {{support}} votes manually, over the next week.
  2. On September 29, we add the voting button and thus make it easier to vote.
  3. At the same time, we introduce two tiers of visibility for the voting: the top ~20 proposals, roughly, by number of support at this point will be visible on the default (current) voting page. There will then also be a second page with all proposals to vote on linked from the main voting page, the second tier.
  4. During the vote, once every working day or so, we will check if there are any proposals that should be moved to the main voting page or dropped from it. We use some discretion here, but basically if anything has more support than the least supported proposals on the main voting page, it should be on the main voting page.
  5. Adding completely new proposals will be possible even after September 29, but only to the full list of proposals, i.e. the second tier.

Please let us know if you're for or against this, or if you have comments. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you allow users to vote oppose?--GZWDer (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to only go for support, and not to allow oppose (One technical reason is, I don't know how instant-runoff works with oppose votes). --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is instant-runoff going to be the system? (Also, allowing oppose votes means people can explain problems with an option, which is a plus.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we're using instant-runoff (noted on the page in the "Naming process details" and "Voting eligibility and rules" sections). Pros and Cons should be in the Discussion section for each proposal. This is similar to how Wikivoyage/Naming_Process worked. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Support --Thadguidry (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Support, but I'd also like to hear an answer to GZWDer's question. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Support Support Point 3 will create a somewhat arbitrary cutoff where 1 single vote may determine a lot (like if a total of less than 100 votes has been cast). If you get moved to the second page, chances that you will be moved up are severely decreased. Instead I suggest to put a threshold of support to stay on the first page. Sure, one vote will be the difference here too, but it will be predictable in a different kind of way. Ainali talkcontributions 07:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: I hear you and see your point, but I don't know how to come up a-priori with a number of votes that will lead us to have a reasonable number of choices on the main voting page. Would you have a suggestion?
Alternatively, what about changing it from "top 20 proposals" to "top ~20 proposals, roughly" - i.e. to have some leverage to only choose 17 if #18 has many fewer votes, or to choose 22, if #21 and #22 are super close to #20. And we would keep discussing things here as we go. This gives us the opportunity to play it a bit more by ear. How does this sound to folks? --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@DVrandecic (WMF): I think your alternative solution is very good because that would make it possible to make the cut where there is more clarity. I would support that proposal. Ainali talkcontributions 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ainali: Thanks, I changed it accordingly. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I have amended the details accordingly. Thanks all.
Please {{support}} the ones you like! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Format of submissions[edit]

To clarify, we're obscuring the usernames to avoid favoritism? Also, are we supposed to give a justification for our naming idea, or not?--Pharos (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Pharos: My plan is to unhide those names, and add a ==Voting== section, when that stage begins (thus giving each entry 1 vote to start with). My theory was: During this proposal/discussion stage, I didn't want each of the entries to initially display with just a single username, in case that confused other people into adding just their own username as a comment. Does that seem reasonable and make sense? We could change the standard structure.
And yes, please comment freely on your own and others' proposals! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks, I'll add mine and include a comment with the reasoning.--Pharos (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Has voting already started? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Please see the #Proposal section just above for context. Essentially yes, we're trying an early voting stage, to hopefully help future voters have less than ~140 proposals to look through. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Vote buttons enabled, list split[edit]

I've unhidden and tested the buttons for easy voting. After a quick bugfix, it appears to work. If you notice any problems, please let me know. Note: I did try to get the translation working, but it appears that part of the parent gadget is broken, so it was not possible to do here. Hopefully the simplicity of the buttons, and text match for the monolingual {{Support}} templates, makes this work as well as currently possible.

Also noting, per the discussion above and information in Naming process details, I've now split the list into 2 groups, and updated the text of the page to make it clear where to find the others and add any new proposals.

I'll do outreach for this vote over the next few days. Thanks to all who have helped so far, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Functions did not start with computing languages[edit]

The one thing I wouldn't want is for this project to hijack the word "function". This sense of the word comes from mathematics, where it was used a long time before electronic computers were developed. Yes, younger readers, there was such a time. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are entirely right, the word 'functions' has been used much longer than there are electronic computers. And, in fact, we are using that older terminology extensively: the functions in the wiki of functions are in many way closer to mathematical functions than they are to functions in many programming languages. So, I agree with you - the term 'function' is much older than electronic computers, but I think it wouldn't be too much of a hijacking if we used it - we are, in fact, honoring that older tradition. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I was not aware of this contest until today (no announcement on fawiki until yesterday). I made a potential proposal, but I need some traction as I was late and others are benefiting from an early start. Can I canvass for my proposal in a reasonable manner? I would like to mention that canvassing was allowed in Community Wishlist Survey. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Same here. My proposal, Wikifuncs, might be a serious candidate, but it lacks visibility now. Eissink (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

I want propose my proposal, but I was late. Can you help me? Bonzg (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2, Eissink, and Bonzg:, yes that seems reasonable, as long as you follow the guidance given in the last paragraph of Community Wishlist Survey 2020#voting (i.e. "a good-faith "get out the vote" campaign"). Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Frontpage[edit]

Should this vote be announced on the frontpage of meta on the Current Events section ({{Main Page/WM News}})? --Luk3 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  • There was already an entry there. I've copyedited it and added an end-date. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Uses outside Abstract Wikipedia[edit]

Most of the examples and plans talk about how the wiki of functions would be used by the Abstract Wikipedia. Please could we have some examples of how else the functions would (might) be used. This would also help in choosing a more generic name. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You can come to the wiki of functions itself to evaluate a function. But also other tools could integrate these functions, e.g. in spreadsheets. Or you could have an app that lets you evaluate a function. Or you can use the natural language generation to generate your own texts. Or you could check a codebase for near copies of functions in the wiki of functions and look for errors. Or you can call in your own code functions from the wiki directly. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Are there projects for these other uses that have mock-ups or more detailed examples? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
We plan to allow the usage also on the Wikimedia projects, and there will be an API to access the functions. We don't have mock-ups for third party integration, if that's what you are asking. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Small change for the second round of voting[edit]

Changed the rules to rank all proposals in the second round, not just the top three: diff --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Round 2 voting is now live[edit]

Round 2 naming contest

It's a soft-launch today, with wider announcements later in the week once more translations are available. Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity[edit]

I voted, but none of the proposals is great. I understand that it's a difficult concept and therefore it's also difficult to name it. It would be particularly bad to adopt a name that usurps things done by other Wikimedia projects: "Wikicode" is the worst in this regard, because it's not a coding project and most of the Wikimedia software development is MediaWiki. (The "brand recommendations" are all backwards, by the way: using a word like "codex" is better precisely because people don't associate it to a specific meaning, which means it's less bad than a name associated by most people to the wrong meaning. Whoever wrote that text also seems to have neglected to consult a dictionary to check the second meaning of the word.)

"Functions" makes me think of templates, so it's not particularly enlightening either, but as long as the official definition is "a library of functions" then at least it's descriptive, as long as it's made clear that the word "function" is used with a specific meaning. "Wikimedia Functions" is the only proposed name that satisfies this requirement because it makes clear the word is used as a proper name, not in its normal meaning.

I'm sorry for tuning in late, but is there some pointer to a phase of the discussion where I can find how we ended up not having any name that references what seems to be the main characteristic of this project, i.e. that it's about language? I have no idea how to explain this project to normal people, but to NLP friends I would probably say something like "it's a repository of Grammatical Framework recipes", so even something like "Wikimedia Grammar" would be less confusing than the other things (although some could think it's about grammar books). Nevermind, I misunderstood this. Nemo 22:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict, after you struck-out the last paragraph, but I'll keep my reply as it was in case it helps you or anyone else. :-) ]
@Nemo bis: Hi. The section Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest#What is a function? describes the broad scope of the wiki. I.e. it covers everything from {{convert}} (and our current ~140 variants) to grammatical framework recipes, and beyond. For me, the rough mockup image at Abstract Wikipedia/Early mockups#Main page was fairly insightful, and that may help you. It's hard to explain concisely to an audience with very diverse backgrounds! If/whenever you can think of good summarizing sentences that don't require any technical background, that we could potentially incorporate into the various documentation pages and future intro pages on the wiki itself, please do share. :) HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Concrete name for Abstract Wikipedia?—Scope of this contest[edit]

Is it even reasonable for this project to have a letter-by-letter/phoneme-by-phoneme identical name across all natural languages? Wouldn’t it be more fitting for a ‘truly multilingual’ ‘abstract’ project to have these very properties reflected in its names, which is to say, the concrete name in any concrete natural language should perhaps be left to the users of that language, as in what will be the language-specific Renderers. And so the scope of this (so far unbefittingly Anglo-/Euro-centric) contest should probably be limited to English, with Wikimedia communities in other natural languages holding their own contests. ―BlaueBlüte💬 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@BlaueBlüte: The main consideration for a concrete name, is that we need a primary location on the web that all humans and all code can point to. Beyond that, the name will almost certainly vary, just as it does for all the Wikimedia projects. E.g. "Wikidata" also known as "วิกิสนเทศ" (which, if I understand correctly, translates into English as "Wiki information", and is not a phonetic conversion).
In Round 1, we did ask for proposals and comments that considered the multilingual aspects, which has hopefully led to fairly good proposals here in Round 2.
And yes, Naming things is hard! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikifunctions - new name[edit]

Briefly, we are very happy to announce that the communities' selection of the name "Wikifunctions" will be the new name for the upcoming wiki. No major blockers have been identified by a legal review.

We want to thank everyone for helping with the naming process, and particularly the legal team for their diligent work.

Happy holidays and see you back in 2021, when we will also be kicking off the logo process. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Logo for Wikifunctions wiki[edit]

Wikifunctions needs a logo. Please help us to discuss the overall goals of the logo, to propose logo design ideas, and to give feedback on other designs. More info on the sub-page, plus details and ideas on the talkpage. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)