Jump to content

Wikimedia Chapters Association/Quest for the Cool Name

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

In its July voting, the WCA has decided to open up membership for thematic organisations and give user groups a voice. Now we're facing a situation where the name (Wikimedia _Chapters_ Association) is inconsistent with who we actually define as our member base. So we need to change name.

Our first stab was "Association of Organisations". It was not accepted, but hey, I'm not overly sad. I guess, we can do better. But we need your ideas! What's a good name? Put your suggestions here or support a proposed name:

WCA will decide on a new name by August 8th, 2013 in Hong Kong.

Some thoughts - do the names all have to have "Wikimedia" in the title? Should they be descriptive names only, or can unique names (i.e. made up or adapted, repurposed words, etc.) be used as well? Do the names all have to be in English, or would a mix of language or a word in a root language be more representative of the international nature of the organization? Nathan T 13:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal opinions follow.) There are no fixed requirements: probably a "Wikimedia" in the title would be appropriate, but if you think of a great name without it, it's good too. An English name is simpler, but it is not necessary. A name should give a hint of what is the subject, but it is not (usually) a description. I think that an ideal name should suggest that:
  • we are Wikimedia;
  • we are an international organization;
  • we are an associations of associations.
- Laurentius (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these principles; also I would add my own perspective, that overdoing the description element with "chapters" or "affiliates" directly in the organization's title, would be too bureaucratic-sounding and boring.--Pharos (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
imo there should be a dedicated basic decision here if it is "wiki" only or "wikimedia": is it beneficial to make an organisation fully dependent on the wikimedia foundation by using a name legally owned by wmf, and beeing "close" in the name? or, it does anyway not mattter, as a rename in case of trouble is easy, and/or there is never trouble. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. IMHO the presence of Wikimedia in the name is not a real problem: if in the future it will became problematic, we will be facing also bigger problems :-). I'm for Wikimedia in the name because we are not generically "wiki", but we are "wikimedia", but as said before, it's not necessary. - Laurentius (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]