Talk:Wikivoyage/Naming Process

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

Only one domain name[edit]

This restriction is a nonstarter. The RFC explicitly stated that the option existed to name each language version independently. Thus, it received the support of Wikivoyage, who want their name to be used at least for German and Italian, and ex-Wikitravelers, who expressed significant problems with the Wikivoyage name. This essentially forces Wikivoyage to change their community name OR forces everyone to use Wikivoyage. If the WMF wanted to force this, they needed to make it plain during the RFC process. They did not; in fact it was stated that multiple independent naming was on the table. Wikivoyage is a great name, if you're French. It's terrible for everything else. If it's a little more difficult for the WMF to support multiple domains & names, they will simply have to deal. The RFC was up for MONTHS without a peep about this restriction. Sorry, but that ship has sailed.-- 07:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, anonymous user. Perhaps you'd like to log in?
I don't think anyone from WMF has ever stated that multiple domain names (other than some secondary/old names redirecting to the primary name) were on the table; if that's incorrect, could you point to the relevant statement? The idea of using both names was added to Travel Guide by James Heilman (who is an individual volunteer, not WMF) on 24 June. In the previous discussion I see on it here, many concerns about multiple names are raised.
With regard to WikiVoyage, DerFussi (chair of WikiVoyage e.v.) actually told me yesterday that he strongly agrees that we should try to use a single name for the project. My understanding is that he's open to letting this process play out and bringing the matter to the attention of the WikiVoyage board if the name favored by most people is a dfiferent one. Obviously that would be a big deal for them since they're legally incorporated as WV. I've asked him to comment here as well.
Let's actually talk this through. Imagine a world where the project does indeed exist under two fundamentally different names that aren't merely localizations of each other. Say, for example, and
Here are some problems with that approach:
1) External communication. Any project, in order to be successful, needs to make its mission understandable to the outside world via blog posts, press releases, conferences, etc. This implies creation of re-usable materials, translation of relevant content, categorization and archiving of assets, etc. In short, it's the management of the brand -- both by the community and supporting organizations like WMF and WikiVoyage e.V. (the German non-profit behind
With two distinct names, that entire process would become more complicated. International announcements would either always need to include multiple names, or risk disenfranchising one sub-group (with the public being confused about why something as simple as a name can't be unified). Similarly, re-use of materials and assets would be complicated, because you couldn't just re-use some existing logo without risking offending someone. (We are not WikiVoyage, we are WikiNomads! We are not WikiNomads, we are WikiVoyage!)
This applies even more when it comes to organizational work by WikiVoyage e.V., Wikimedia chapters, or other potential organizations that may want to support the project's future growth and development, whether it's by staging events, applying for grants, creating "How to edit" tutorials, or whatever. In all those instances, the existence and use of two very distinct names would make this work significantly harder and confuse potential partners and supporters.
2) Internal communication and cross-project coordination. Any functioning multilingual project engages in a fair bit of collaboration across language editions. WikiVoyage currently does so through wikis like WikiVoyage general and shared, and of course then there's various places in each language where matters relevant to more than one project will be raised. From a technical standpoint, we track issues through Bugzilla.
In all these instances, coordination would be complicated by having multiple names, starting with seemingly simple things like the interwiki prefix (which letters are neutral?), but also for things like searching Meta for relevant discussions, finding bugs in Bugzilla, organizing IRC meetings (what's the multilingual channel name? #wikivoyagnomads?), surfacing the project name in the UI, inter-wiki linking from Wikipedia, etc.
And let's not forget the new editor experience. Ideally this project should bring in new people, and launch in lots more languages as well. The naming confusion would be one of those WTFs that every new user has to learn at some point or other, and deal with, for no actual benefit. The legacy reasons that cause this difference will disappear but the cost will not.
3) Technical issues. All our projects exist under one domain name. To create an exception to this rule complicates various aspects of our infrastructure and our operating processes (for everything from caching to mobile redirects to software deployments to configuration changes). It certainly will affect search engine discoverability of content unless we publish multiple copies (which will massively complicate caching). Redirects are one thing -- but for a project to truly exist under multiple domain names is a huge PITA.
For all these and other reasons, multiple domain names are a no-go except for redirects. It would be one of those half-arsed compromises that everyone regrets years later if we even managed to pull it off in a half-way acceptable manner. But my suggestion is to let the poll run its course before making this the hill upon which all our hopes and dreams must die. It's very possible that either the WikiVoyage name enjoys the broadest support even by non-WV folks, or that the WV folks are willing to get behind a different name that gets the most support.--Eloquence (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Since Heilman wrote the RFC and largely managed it, one would think that for the WMF to now hide behind him as having no power is pretty disingenuous.
2. Again, the RFC was up for months, with the lure of multiple names dangled in front of all three communities, as a means to get them to support this project in the first place. Now that preparations have begun at WV in earnest, the WMF drops the other shoe. What the f$@k are you thinking?
3. I (and I suspect others) am sensitive to the extra difficulty in administering multiple domain names. But since that was promised, and very much not objected to at the time by the WMF, I now don't give the proverbial rat's ass what you think is *too* hard or not. Just get it done. If you're lucky enough or persuasive enough to get the communities to sign off on one name, great. But we make zero promises. The WMF had a clear hand in breaking up one community (Wikitravel) and is now threatening another (Wikivoyage) with a forced name change. This is some shady shit being pulled here at the 11th hour.
4. Log in? No thanks. I'd rather be able to speak my very angry mind without fear of retribution.-- 09:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Curses, the WMF goon squad was ready to go the moment you logged in. *shakes fist* --Eloquence (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion that different language versions might have different names was based entirely on the precedent at the Spanish Wikibooks, which is branded as "Wikilibros". The thought was that even if the domain name doesn't match, that the German and Italian travel sites could still use "Wikivoyage" in their branding. LtPowers (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Understood. The proposed restriction in the poll is on having more than one primary domain name; if the community really wants a couple of language editions to have completely different site names, I'll only make the strong case why that's not a good idea policy-wise; it's technically simple. Please note that in all instances of name localizations in Wikimedia (at least the ones I'm aware of), these variants are either translations or transliterations of the English name. They also don't enjoy the same protection as the English name (e.g. trademark protection). The other non-technical reasons above apply as well, although less strongly as at least everyone would be exposed to the same name through the URL.

I will note further that in the specific case of voyage, it's neither a German nor an Italian word, so you'd be in a situation where precisely the languages where voyage is a native word (English and French) would end up using a different name, which would likely exacerbate long term name confusion. I'm not commenting on the merits of any name - just on the issues with making a choice of distinct names that aren't translations/transliterations.--Eloquence (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, understood. I'm just pointing out the basis for the addition to the RFC that James made, which should perhaps have been discussed first if certain persons were going to be sticklers about it. I don't think any of us (speaking for the community of Wikitravelers) expected anything on that page to be part of an inviolable contract. (I should also make clear that WMF had absolutely zero hand in "breaking up" the Wikitravel community; on the contrary, we remained quite united and would have left IB's domain whether WMF was involved or not.) LtPowers (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

How is the WMF forcing anyone to do anything? The WMF has been asked to take over the hosting of these communities. It has agreed to do that, but with a few simple conditions (including using the same domain name policy as for the other projects - one domain for all languages with language code sub-domains). The communities don't have to migrate to the WMF if they don't want to, but I hardly think such a simple condition should be a deal breaker... --Tango (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The WMF has not completely ruled out the possibility of using more than one name, they have just recommended very strongly against it. And after hearing their concerns I no longer consider it to be a good idea. I think all involved are willing to put the future name up for community consensus and abide by the conclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How many votes?[edit]

It is not clear from this page whether one user can vote for more than one domain name.--Strainu (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It states You may vote for as many names as you like.--Eloquence (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
How will the votes be counted? Will there be a single count sudden death at the end? Will there be an elimination process, allowing a transfer of support to the next best choice if the preferred name is clearly out of the running? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The votes will be taken based on the simple total: we're not doing a single transferable vote or anything for this purpose. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Will one be able to change ones vote(s) during the voting period? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
As was the case in the initial straw poll, there are ambiguities in the voting eligibility specifications. It would be preferable if these were cleared up before voting starts.
  • "Qualified wiki" should be defined. We do not need trolling from people who are not intending to join the WMF travel guide, and are not currently registered with a wikimedia project, but register and spend twenty minutes making a few irrelevant edits to get their vote eligible. On the other hand, long term registered editors of WT who are intending to join should not be disenfranchised merely because they are not registered anywhere else yet. Some editors of WT may even not yet be aware of the proposed new travel guide.
That language came from Legal. I'll run it by them. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The poll does seem rather biased against the registered members of Wikivoyage, both the original de: and it: groups, and the newly migrated en:, ru:, fr; nl:, etc groups, as they will be enormously outnumbered by the potential pool of Wikipedia users, if they choose to vote.
I'm not sure how (or if) we could adjust for that. I'm open to ideas, though. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I also can't think of a way to get past that problem. I just hope that the final name choice will be acceptable to the people who expect to be producing the content and looking after the site. It might be interesting to keep track of who is voting under which eligibility criteria. It looks like anyone from the travel wikis will have to identify where they are from anyway, so perhaps everyone should be requested to declare their affiliations. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a compulsory declaration of affiliation is a good idea. Last time, I just voted as a Wikipedia user out of laziness, but this time we should request that any past active travel-wiki users declare themselves. JamesA (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If the intention is that one person gets one vote per proposed name, please spell it out as such, The wording at present suggests the possibility of one vote as a Wikimedia account holder, and one as an account holder on a "qualified wiki" of the affected travel community, and possibly one vote as a developer, one as a staff member or contractor amd one as a board/advisory board member. It would be very easy to clarify this. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll do so. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Open for discussion?[edit]

Not open for voting understood, but are the names open for discussion?

It might give early submitters a bit of a leg up, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Others?--Eloquence (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It would seem that Philippe, at least, is opposed to on-page discussion, as those sections are transcluded from a protected page. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Other name propositions[edit]

What about Wikiatlas? Amqui (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a nice name for a wiki of maps. If someone hasn't already bought the domain on speculation. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) is in use as a redirect to . LtPowers (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Domains which are currently 'parked'[edit]

I wanted to suggest as a domain name but it seems someone already owns that but isn't using it...

I also like the name and see that someone is already using it for a similar project that might be interested in merging into a bigger project..

how best to deal with these situations? Jdlrobson (talk)

Wikitourist can't be merged with Wikitravel or Wikivoyage because of licence incompatibility, unless you get permission from all individual Wikitourist or Wikitravel/Wikivoyage contributors. Wikitourist uses the licence CC-BY-NC-SA, which disallows you from using the material commercially. Wikitravel and Wikivoyage use the licence CC-BY-SA which requires you to allow people to use the material commercially. CC-BY-SA material can't be combined with CC-BY-NC-SA material. If you want to propose a domain name, you should really make sure to register the name before proposing it. Otherwise, someone else might steal the name during the discussion, rendering it unusable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, there has been some discussion of wikiplanet, which at first glance seems like a great name, but it's awfully similar to Lonely Planet. --Peter Talk 03:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Other issue is Wikiplanet is going for $25,000 last time I checked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Order of names in vote[edit]

The domain names just seem to be in a random order. Is this intentional? I think alphabetical order would be less confusing. This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also less controversial ;) JamesA (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
They're Alpha now :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of domain names not owned[edit]

Would it be possible to establish a process to suggest domain names we don't own? Me and probably some other users don't have the money or know-how to be able to register a name or two. While this may require the WMF to pay for a few dozen names—including some that aren't that good—you could set up requirements to limit the number of names submitted to reduce the costs associated with registering and researching legal/naming issues ( won't have people submitting 100 different names in an email). For example, if a person wishing to submit a name does not own the domain name, you could require that they include in their submission: is "" taken (how about .com, .net, .uk, .de, etc...); if it's taken, is the site in use or for sale; if it is not used or for sale, then perhaps the WMF could contact the owners before voting begins to see if they would donate the site(if no, then maybe make a mention that such-and-such names were suggested, but the owners were not interested in donating); are there any naming issues (is "travelwikiname" closely related to any sites when using a search engine); reasoning as to why a suggested name would be a good name for the new travel wiki (with a minimum word count, like 50 or 100 words); and maybe limit suggestions by one user to a reasonable number (5-10?).

If allowing this is not possible, at the very least, it would be very helpful to have instructions on how to register a domain name. Of course, you can type "how to register a domain name" into a search engine, but there are many results that vary a bit. Because the cost varies between some sites, could there be legal reasons like text in the "terms of agreement" and such that gives some of these sites some sort of rights or restrictions to a domain name registered through them? Providing instructions to register a domain name would help prevent any headaches caused by mistakes an inexperienced person might make trying to do so.AHeneen (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Shoot me an email ;) --Peter Talk 03:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Registering of Domains[edit]

If you have an idea for a domain name, but lack the funds or means to register the domain, I am happy to register it for you and handle the transfer to the WMF at a later date should it win. Contact me on morton.thomas(_AT_) or on my English Wikipedia user talk :) --ErrantX (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Domain names if free are fairly easy to register. Usually about $10. If the domain names are already owned typically the owners want a fair bit for them and attempting to buy them can be time consuming. Thus IMO it is better we concentrate our efforts on unowned names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

When does the voting start?[edit]

The lead paragraph states 4 October, 2012 at 07:00:00 UTC.

In sub-section "Duration" the start is given as "Do not vote until 02 October, 2012 at 07:00:00". This was a later amendment, so presumably it would supercede the original time, but as of 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC) there is still a notice that "Voting has not begun. Please do not vote", and the source page is still locked for editing. Please clarify. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That was my fault. I actually went to sleep last night (horrors!) and didn't get it unlocked until this morning. My bad. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


For organizing all of the name suggestions so far and running this poll. It's great to see steady progress on setting up the new site. SJ talk  13:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Only 5 days?[edit]

I was really gutted to find out that the request was only open for 5 days :( I had a suggestion I really like as well..... Wikiodyssey. Seddon (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you own this domain? It could probably still be added to the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A new logo for the travel guide[edit]

I would be great to have a new logo for the launch of this project. Have thus created a place for proposals here [[1]] If anyone has an idea for a logo please submit it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The content below was moved from Talk:Travel Guide/Naming Process/ProposedNames

How to suggest names?[edit]

The article says "Do not add domain names to this list. They should only be added by Erik, Kelly, or Philippe" at the bottom of the source.

Great, but how to contact these fine persons? Their email address should be included, and the notice made more visible, for instance "To submit new name ideas, please send an email to" in the article.

We really need more name ideas, but this problem is preventing ideas from coming.

Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Been bold and added one of them (sorry Philippe!). Effeietsanders (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the naming process is in phases, and the first phase was to add names to the list - the process is described here. Nominations for names are closed now. :( Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
May I say, that phase was not advertised enough. --Waldir (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) mayhaps?
Probably because it is a lot easier to suggest a name rather than secure a domain name. One only need to open a thesaurus and produce a list like this: wikigo, wikiworld, wikiexplore, wikiglobe, wikijourney, wikimove, wikitourists, wikitravels, wikitrip(s), wikitrek, wikitenary (from itinerary), wikiwander, wikiembark. Bennylin 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
note: wikigo is the name of an MW project, wikiworld is an old en.wp webcomic, is not available

Distinction between project name and domain name missing[edit]

I think User:LtPowers has made an important point in his comment regarding the proposal (language-code) "This isn't a name; it's a domain address. Choosing this option leaves unresolved the issue of what the name of the project will be". Indeed: If this proposal wins, is the project name Is it "Wikimedia Travel" (analogous to Commons)? Is it just "Travel"? "Travelwikimedia"? ;-) Furthermore, LtPowers' observation is not only applicable to this option but also to all the others including the currently most popular (language-code) - would the project name be with the .org being an integral part of the project name (similar to the former which had .org as official part of the name), or is only the domain, but the name of the project Wikivoyage? So, it's not quite clear what the voting here is about, as the page is called "Proposed Names", but the voting seems to bei about domain addresses. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

True. FWIW, the suggestion has almost always been associated with the name Wikimedia Travel in the past, like Wikimedia Commons. --Peter Talk 22:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)