This process follows the initial straw poll on travel site naming, which demonstrated that while there was strong support for the Wikivoyage name there have also been strong arguments expressing the desire for a more open-ended process and no overall consensus to go forward without it. Therefore, the Wikimedia Foundation has designed a process that attempts to balance our responsibility to the projects regarding legal due diligence with the community's strongly expressed desire for input into the naming process. Please carefully read the process below.
A new logo proposal process is open now. Logo ideas may be submitted there.
Each name that meets the naming criteria, passes the initial legal review, and is submitted through the correct process (as defined on this page) will be provided to the community. Community members should indicate their support for names in the provided sections, with discussion in the appropriate area. You may vote for as many names as you like.
At the close of the voting period, the list of names (with number of support votes) will be provided to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel.
The legal counsel will review the top rated name for any legal issues, the ability to be registered as a global trademark, and make a determination as to suitability. If it is determined in the sole discretion of the General Counsel that the name is free from legal concerns, the owner of the domain name will need to complete a written agreement with Wikimedia Foundation and take the necessary steps to transfer the domain registration, and that will be the name of the site.
If, in the discretion of legal counsel, the top choice name is not appropriate, because of legal concerns (trademark, copyright, etc), the name will be withdrawn from consideration and the second choice name reviewed using the same criteria. If the second choice name is unacceptable, legal counsel will continue down the list to the first available and clear domain.
If an outcome cannot be reached in a timely manner, we'd likely launch under (language code).travel.wikimedia.org (for instance, it.travel.wikimedia.org) initially and then rename the project to its final name. However, we'd prefer to defer the launch, as launching and then renaming the project would incur additional technical cost.
Beginning at 07:00:00 UTC on 27 September 2012, a five day period for the submission of names will begin. At the conclusion of that, on 2 October 2012 at 07:00:00 this poll opened for 14 days, to terminate on 16 October 2012 at 06:59:59.
Each person may vote from only one account. However, you may vote for as many names as you like. You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote from a single account, regardless of how many accounts you own, although you may vote for as many names as you'd like). To qualify, this one account must:
not be blocked on more than one project; and
not be blocked on the project you are voting from; and
not be a bot; and
have made at least 25 edits (edits on several Wikimedia wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account)
You may vote from any one registered account you own on a qualified wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). Please provide a backlink to a contribution history with no fewer than 25 edits on an affected travel community site. To qualify, this account must:
Please ensure that any domain names you suggest are already owned by you. If the domain is not registered then you should acquire it first. If it is owned by someone else then the present owner must confirm as below.
At minimum, you must own the.org variant of the name, and should own the.com variant of the name as well. Ideally, the name should not be in use in a significant way under those domains or other main ccTLDs (.de/es/fr/it/ja/uk/...).
Please e-mail kkaywikimedia.org (Deputy GC) and erikwikimedia.org (Deputy Director) the following information:
The domain name you currently own "foo.org", and,
A statement that "I, 'real name'," (you must include your real name,) "am the registered owner of the domain 'foo', I have the right and authority to transfer the domain, and if my domain is chosen I agree to freely transfer ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", and,
A copy of the registration details as provided by the domain registrar (i.e. Markmonitor, Go Daddy, Namecheap, etc.).
Once you have provide the required information and it has been verified, the name will be added to this page as a potential candidate.
Names submitted must be relevant to the stated purpose of the site: that is, as a wiki-based travel guide.
Any proposed names must not violate the intellectual property rights of any third party, including but not limited to trademark and copyright. If it is determined in Wikimedia Foundation's sole discretion that any proposed name may violate any third party intellectual property rights, Wikimedia Foundation will not include it on the list of options. If, after a name is included in the list or chosen, it is determined that the name does violate or may violate any third party intellectual property rights, Wikimedia Foundation will remove the name from consideration.
If your name is chosen, you will be required to take the necessary steps to transfer ownership to the Wikimedia Foundation including contacting the registrar company and signing a transfer agreement.
Voting has ended. No further votes may be submitted. Names have been submitted to the General Counsel for decision.
Second choice - I think this and Wikivoyage are the best choices (not because either really sound "perfect" to me, but because I don't see the perfect name on this page). Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not my first choice, but acceptable. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel}Reply[reply]
Although a bit lengthy, this name could be a good compromise solution. Atsirlin (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (admin on WV ru: and en:)Reply[reply]
Something with "Wikimedia" in it, makes sence. We should be more careful about our brand in general. Ziko (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are, for all essence and purposes, superseding Wikitravel. This name pays homage to that, and should be less confusing to viewers who care little about the ownership structure. --Piotrus (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This works. Not the greatest, but better than a lot of stuff here. Courcelles 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An acceptable choice to everyone, I think, if not anyone's first choice? Having "Wikimedia" in there is nice, since it's a recognized and very successful brand. --PeterTalk 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple and to the point. Wikimedia Commons isn't a catchy name either, just descriptive, but it works well. --Waldir (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the following reasons: a) The purpose has already been defined as a "Travel Guide" not a "Voyage Guide"; b) travel.wikipedia is an imperative declaration by itself; c} "Voyage" implies Dramamine. It would be better without the subdomain, i.e., .travelwikipedia.org. -- Dcshank (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
：But this is not travel.wikipedia. See the section title again. ✒Bennylin 06:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't have the most zing... but that's what I like about it. Not divisive. Across all languages, the user knows what they are going to get.--184.108.40.206 18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes it is easiest to satisfy the most people with the bland. We shouldn't be tempted towards the boring just because it is uncontroversial. --Inas (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This url is very large and not functional, it is not pretty. And "voyage" is very close to many words in Latin languages, viagem (pt), viaje(es), viaggio (it), viatge (catalan)..., even Esperanto "vojaĝo"... whereas "travel" leads us to nothing. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in favor, no other projects use this schema, tl;dr. Catchy helps. FT2(Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
don't like the enormous urls, do like the idea of travel.wikimedia.org redirecting. -- phoebe | talk 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like a name like this would get no brand mileage. If it does become a well used site, then people might start calling it wikitravel (I'm thinking travel.wikimedia is a mouthful, maybe people say travel wiki, which sounds a bit odd since wikipedia has gotten people used to wiki-first, so maybe they switch it around and then end up at wikitravel), which may lead to confusion and open Wikimedia Foundation up to more lawsuits from Internet Brands. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
worst option from a brand perspective. We don't need another Commons... -- 23:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. A real brand is urgently needed. However it will be named. -- DerFussi (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikitravel will be a project like Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, etc in several languages. The format which is normally used is xx.wikiyyyy.org, like en.wikipedia.org and en.wikibooks.org, and thus en.wikivoyage.org. That is a much more normal and easily name to be used than what is mentioned above. Also a wiki with travel in the name, like (language-code).travel.wikimedia.org, would certainly be called wikitravel too many times (like species.wikimedia.org is called Wikispecies) and that will raise confusion with the other wikitravel which has a lawsuit with the Wikimedia Foundation. Romaine (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everybody will mistakenly remember "wikipedia" instead of "wikimedia". 99%+ Internet users have never heard about Wikimedia. Even if a redirect is created, that makes the URL harder to remember. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it certainly seems to have worked well for Commons. Besides, we can indeed redirect from travel.wikipedia.org to travel.wikimedia.org, like we already do for instance wikipedia.com --> wikipedia.org; it will eventually stick. --Waldir (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because people simply call it "The Commons" or its variations, seldom "Wikimedia Commons". "I got the image from 'the Commons'", compare it to "I got this article from 'the Travel'", or worse, "wikitravel", as Romaine pointed above. ✒Bennylin 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed to this as well: long, unwieldy, impossible to remember. It would have been fine as a temporary neutral compromise name, but since we're jumping straight to final one, there's no point. Jpatokal (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. LtPowers (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a really perceptive (and possibly crucial) observation, Lieutenant - few will have thought through all the positive and negative implications that follow from that shrewd observation... --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as the title of this page is "Proposed Names", I assume that the proposed project name indeed would be identical with the domain address, i.e. travel.wikimedia.org - as others have said, a very unwieldy and impractical name. Maybe it would become Wikimedia Travel, analogous to Wikimedia Commons, which has the address commons.wikimedia.org, but this isn't said explicitly here... Gestumblindi (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Agreed with LtPowers and Gestumblindi -- this name is either NULL or impractical. "Wikimedia Travel" is uncomfortably similar to Wikitravel. MER-C (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not my first choice, but quite catchy. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel}Reply[reply]
Surprise, surprise, I like my suggested name, for the reasons below. It's outside the box, short and snappy, has its roots in the Global South, a ready-made gorilla mascot, and gives us the opportunity to create our own recognizable brand. --PeterTalk 01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My second choice. Would have been my first if not for the potential trademark problems with the .com domain issue. — Ravikiran r (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short and catchy, though no idea what it means. "Travel" does not pop to mind when seeing this title. So, a bit of a weak support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rugendo might be a bit controversial, since it doesn't have the familiar old wiki prefix, but it has some real upsides in extreme ease of pronunciation--tell anyone of any cultural background anywhere in the world that it's Rugendo, and they'll probably be able to guess how to spell it--which futhers the WMF goal of increasing contributions from cultures beyond the Global North. It also has strong vowel/consonant combinations that make it catchy, and it has the potential to catch on as a real brand like Google, Yahoo, etc. It means travel in several Bantu languages in Tanzania and Kenya, and is also the name of a silverback gorilla in Rwanda's Volcanoes National Park—a backpacker gorilla could make a great mascot! (as submitted by User:Peterfitzgerald).
How it is actually spelled? IPA[rʊgɛndɔ] as suggested by the proposed „russian version“ below?--Tchoř (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, it's impossible to come up with a term that's easily translated in every language. I daresay none of the other options has been selected with more interlingual concern than this one has. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not. I'm just saying, even if you can find a few language families that don't work well with Rugendo, you'll find dozens more for all of the other options. LtPowers (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not catchy, doesn't contain the word "wiki", meaningless in English, unlike other existing project names. Also, rugendo.com is already registered and is already in use for a travel-related website, making for possible problems estanlishing a trademark, and rugendo.net is also registered, with a domain parking page. -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the .net and various other common domains—just not the .com. --PeterTalk 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
rugendo.com seems to be an amateur photographer's travel blog, not a business. Would it really present trademark problems? --Avenue (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having seen the number of people who use .com for WMF projects at almost every opportunity, despite a constant attempt by us to promote the .org URL, I think not having access to the .com domain here is indeed a problem. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Meaningless to almost everyone, and lacks the key "wiki" part. Kill it with fire. --Piotrus (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a little strident, don't you think? The meaninglessness is the point; it allows us to define the term, much as Yahoo or Google have. And why does the name have to include the word "wiki"? That's an assumption that needs to be examined before it's accepted blindly. LtPowers (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French people would stare at the word wondering how to pronunciate it. Not that it has prevented Intel from being successful in France. I guess you pronunciate the "g" like in "magenta", not like in "merengue" ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meaningless and confusing ("rug-end-o"?), inconsistent with all the other projects. Strongly recommend against. — Hex(❝?!❞) 09:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meaningless, typical "Web 2.0"-project name of which we have seen so many over the last years you can't even remember what is what. And the pronunciation is unclear as well. Mutante (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bland writing on the wall is clear, of course, but the claims that rugendo is meaningless are false. It means travel, in the sort of language that isn't well represented in WMF voting processes like this one :P --PeterTalk 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is a strong brand because it combines a new word/name "wiki" with an internationally understood word part "pedia". Same for wikimedia. Finding an entirely new word in some obscure language doesn't help people understand what it is. Unfortunately it's too late to suggest variations. - FakirNL (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are play on words (Googol and Flicker, respectively). ✒Bennylin 10:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming that to be true (I'm aware of the Google pun, but I can't find any evidence for Flickr's derivation), it's missing the point. The point is that both of those words have come to enter the popular lexicon, with meanings very far divorced from any original inspiration. The fact that "rugendo" doesn't have any apparent meaning to speakers of European languages can be seen as a plus, not a minus, as it means it's a blank slate onto which we can write our own definition. That it means "travel" in certain non-European languages is an added bonus. LtPowers (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps if you'd read some of the earlier comments, you'd know that it's a word that means "travel" in some African languages. Are you saying that any idea that isn't based on an English word is "stupid"? LtPowers (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(COI: I submitted it originally) I like it mostly because it is short, because you can change the pronunciation slightly depending on what suits you best in your mother tongue (I consider this an advantage) and because 'via' has a connections to travel-related words in several languages. For me it is at 50/50 with WikiVoyage. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Call me an idiot, but I don't know if it's meant to be pronounced as VYE-UH, or VEE-UH. And I've only ever head the word "via" in context of road directions. ie, head to the city via the freeway. JamesA (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per jztinfinity (comment #5 on travel.wikimedia.org above): "Wikipedia has gotten people used to [the word] wiki-first", the only exception to this is mediawiki.org ✒Bennylin 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds a bit too close to Via Rail, the incumbent national Canadian commercial rail passenger line, for my tastes. VIA in Canada is like Amtrak in the US or SNCF in France. We need to be carrier-neutral and not appear to be endorsing one vendor or mode of travel over another. K7L (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was thinking the same as above, actually, that it implies association with VIA Rail in Canada. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1st) Has some "zing", encourages curiosity and adventure. Works for me. FT2(Talk | email) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not bad; I wonder if Wikiventure might have been better... moot point now, though. LtPowers (talk)
Good name in English at least (see discussion for my thoughts on other languages), and I like the rationale articulated for including local non-travellers. To the comment above about Wikiventure, I'm afraid that really doesn't work, too many people in this environment would associate that with venture capital investing. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like this. Sounds exciting and gets people interested. Travel is meant to be exciting, conjuring images of exotic places and memorable experiences. 1st preference. JamesA (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (en: Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies)Reply[reply]
I like this one because it implies people having an enjoyable time, seeing new things, with a little bit of excitement and the unknown. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is my cup of tea. I think dcoetzee once wrote a game called wikiadventure, but I don't think he'd mind at all. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We should go to WikiAdventure to plan our adventure! Our last adventure included taking a class, touring a monument, visiting the library, eating snacks at a park, then going back to our hotel."
"Adventure" is a fun term for doing almost anything which is not boring.
Adventure emphasizes personal participation and can include local activities, whereas concepts like "travel", "voyage", or "visit" do not do this to the same extent.
The word "adventure" is nearly the same in English, the Romance languages, German, Swedish, Turkish, and others.
Editing Wikipedia is also an adventure. Wikipedia readers should do more than merely visit or go to Wikipedia. They should be bold and explore options to learn and engage. The term aligns with the brand and it would be great for the Wikimedia community to associate itself with the concept. (As submitted by User:Bluerasberry).
Who says editing Wikipedia isn't already an adventure? It reminds me rather of the early text-based adventure games and MUDs. You find yourself in a strange and unwelcoming town where you have to kill rats before you eventually proceed through a bizarre ritual to be given a mop, at which point you can lead roving bands of rat-killers to write an encyclopedia or something. Let the adventure unfold! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the similarity to other languages, I suspect that while there may be plenty of cognates, they differ enough that the casual visitor is not going to immediately pick up on that. And the English word is not universally known the way "books" is. That being said, plenty of language versions use a translated equivalent of Wikibooks, and I would think that was fine here as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
problematic that it scans as wikia-venture (at least to me?) Nonetheless it is an awesome name and should be used for something. -- phoebe | talk 21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but "adventure" sounds pretty childish to me . Also, not everyone will be looking for an awesome exploration experience; some people might just want a good, comprehensive, community-curated guide to a new place they need to go to for professional, academic, or whatever reasons. --Waldir (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like it! But only if also similar domains are redirected to it (wikikompass, wikikompas etc) because otherwise it is likely to be misspelled in germanic languages. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pundit (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC) while clearly it is a lost cause, I believe it would be better NOT TO HAVE AN ENGLISH-ONLY word in the domain. The project is going to address different communities and thus using a word exclusively English is perhaps not the best way to go about it. 'Compass' (just like 'encyclopedia') is a word present in most European languages, so from this point of view it is better.Reply[reply]
Too static. Which travel is not. (a destination is a place not a dynamic thing a compass shows you a direction but doesn't go there itself, so to speak; like "destination" the word has to match the feeling... travel is very dynamic and "lets go for it!" exhilarating in a way a "compass" isn't) FT2(Talk | email) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does this comment (about "destination") have to do with wikicompass? LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure about this. "WikiCompass" sounds more like the name for a mapping project than a travel guide. --Carnildo (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For sure, compass is not the first thing to come in mind if you want to visit a place which doesn't include pathfinding trip. It shows direction (where is it; how to get there), but it doesn't tell you anything else. Just like Carnildo said, it sounds like a wikimap. ✒Bennylin 20:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LeeGer (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Allthough I find the alternative that ErikvanB on dutch Wikipedia came up with (language-code).websiteaboutbeautifulplacesthatyoucangotoonfootbybusairplaneoranyotherformoftransportation.org) also very good. Unfortunately we can't vote for that.Reply[reply]
Too static (a destination is a place not a dynamic thing, the word has to match the feeling) FT2(Talk | email) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would be my first pick. Closer to what we are doing. Xltel (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A guidebook could be anything... it's not obviously travel related. (Granted, neither is Rugendo, but at least that term doesn't have pre-established notions.) LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too long. Drop the "book"-part and just make it wikiguide.org ? Mutante (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too "blah". Interesting places are often explored as more than a "holiday", with anticipation and excitement, word should match/evoke that feeling more exactly. FT2(Talk | email) 18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Peter above, there's more to travel than holidays. -- The Anome (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least voyage is a multi-lingual word, the context of "holiday" is British and Commonwealth specific. The name does not travel. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The site should welcome business travellers. I don't think that I would send my boss a link to this site if he was asking about where to stay when visiting a customer. Could also get non-travel content like "How to decorate your home for Christmas". AlasdairW (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this, it gives an adventurous sound without sounding cheesy, it rolls of the tongue easy (granted I speak only English and have my own personal preferences regarding words and sounds) and is easy to remember. I guess if I were to characterize what I like about it, it is a sense of boldness. Moreover, no baggage from previous sites. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Memorable, short, little risk of confusion. (Well, there's always World Nomads, but they sell insurance, not travel guides.) Jpatokal (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Jpatokal says, this is a short, snappy, and very easy one to remember. Nomad is a word that exists in a huge range of languages, and has a very simple phonetic structure for speakers of those that don't. It's a much cooler name than most of the alternatives here as well. Coming up with this one was one of those collective completely serendipitous moments where people unintentionally stumble upon a really good idea. --PeterTalk 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, may suggest a site for RVers etc, not all travellers. Actually most names are similarly vague (too bad Wikitravel is taken!), and generally this is better than most. —innotata 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomad/nomads conjures an image of moving around over land (i.e. nomad people). Nomads don't travel by train, by ship, or by plane; they travel by horse and caravans. It's US/Europe-centric, and will not be the first name to come to mind when you're planning to visit other countries by plane. Wikinomad to Hawaii?? Wikinomad entry on Hong Kong?? The verb just doesn't work there. You want 'visit' Hawaii, thus you 'wikivisit' it. ✒Bennylin 19:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wikinomads.org should be the primary domain, but it helps that we have .com and .net with us. -- Sundar (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure, but the word has two negative associations with me: in the middle there's something like 'gnome', wiki-gnomads'? Just what it sounds like. Also 'nomads' is in the Netherlands used for a motor club which doesn't have a positive image. But this might be very local (not sure?). Effeietsanders (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are .com and .net listed? Please let's at least be consistent about the TLD. Mutante (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomads is an org like Hells-Angels, and therefor no suitable to my taste. Edoderoo (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Passport" will be understood by travellers in a wide variety of languages, since many passports feature the word in English (or French which is very similar) in addition to the local language. the wub"?!" 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it. It works for both the process of using the wiki to enable a visit to new places, and visiting the places virtually through detailed and vivid descriptions on the wiki. --Waldir (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very strong support. It's short, easy to remember, explains what it is (plus the word wiki), easy to pronounce (what-you-see-is-what-you-read kind of word), all vowels/syllables use 'i' -- which in most languages spelled the same --, and has a potential to be a household name like Wikipedia. Usage example: "I'm going to Bali!" "Let me 'wikivisit' it first..."/"Can you 'wikivisit' it for me?"/"What does wikivisit say about that place?"/"I'll add some info to wikivisit". The only drawback I can think of is that "wv" prefix have already taken by wikiversity.. ✒Bennylin 19:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much easier to type and say than 'wikivoyage'. In everyday language I am much more likely to 'visit' a place than I am to 'go on a voyage' to a place. Barrylb (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. It's simple and straightforward. With regards to what it evokes, for me it encompasses the whole idea behind the project: it will enable you to "visit" destinations, etc. and "see" them (see Latin visito to see where I'm coming from). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not my first choice, but quite a good name and already has good reputation. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Admin on en:Wikivoyage. editor on en:Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Commons, ex Wikitravel)Reply[reply]
Using the existing name of a community helps continuing the already existing projects and those communities. Also fits perfectly with the goal of the project. Romaine (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My third and final choice - out of gratitude to the hard working (interim) hosts of our wonderful new Travel Guide. I do have strong reservations about the difficulties of pronunciation for non-IndoEuropean language speakers and the restrictive connotations in English but these are not insurmountable if different branding is used - at least for Chinese and Japanese versions --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original travel guide proposal called for naming the Italian and German versions of the WMF travel site "Wikivoyage" , so I think we should honor that commitment. Using the Wikivoyage name should also simplify the migration to WMF. -- Wrh2 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As already stated in the straw poll: It's an established name that works across different languages, and the people currently running Wikivoyage are ready to join the Wikimedia family as a whole (community, content, trademark, association). This will make things so much easier. As a side effect, chosing the name of an already existing project helps avoiding the false impression that the new Wikimedia project is all about forking Wikitravel. -- Arne (akl) (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no perfect solution. At least Wikivoyage kind of has a brand, and is a word in English, despite difficult pronunciation. JamesA (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (en: Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies)Reply[reply]
First choice. I believe in paying homage to the successful project being absorbed. This would also make transferring things easier, and more importantly than almost anything else, would create minimal disruption for end users, many of whom are not following these proceedings. Sven Manguard (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the name. Using it keeps things simple. Also nearly one billion people globally speak a romance language (Spanish 390M, Portuguese 193M, French 120M, Italian, 62M). If the term is fine in German than it should also be fine in English. All are joining as equals and I do not think a name should hinder this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Existing brand in a couple of languages and the name, while not perfect in English, gets you thinking of travelling. -Shaundd (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second choice due to its established nature. — Hex(❝?!❞) 09:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is impossible to have a name which fits to all languages of the world, but Wikivoyage is a most reasonable option. Several reasons: The word voyage is like travel a word for travel. It is used in Romanic languages but also used in English or German. So, we can show that this new site would be become a real international one. It is the first time for the Wikimedia movement to take such an international name. We can great our readers and writers with Bon voyage. The name is already used by one part of the new travel guide and it is well established and working since almost six years. So we have a tradition we could be proud of. And at least the migration of Wikitravel articles took place at Wikivoyage including the adaption of site-related extensions. All it's done includig the change of the namens. --RolandUnger (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, name recognition is an important, if not the most important factor in a situation like this. If it were possible to use the name "Wikitravel" that would be my choice, but obviously trademark/copyright issues prevent that. That being the case, Wikivoyage seems like the clear choice to me. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't that be the setup no matter what is chosen? I think the first one just says it because it would be a fourth level, which would be new on a public facing project. Courcelles 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind, whatever name is chosen, Wikivoyage community is coming along, because their domain will be absorbed/redirected to the new travel site. Thus it's not necessary to vote for it just because you want "all" of WV to be welcome; there will *be* no independent Wikivoyage after this.--220.127.116.11 20:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually like this name, but the previous yes/no poll on this name did not pass, and I think that people who opposed the name for that poll would get pissed if it got overrided by this one. Jztinfinity (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's true. I saw serveral people opposing the process (seeking for approval without a real choice), but having no issues with the actual name Wikivoyage. -- Arne (akl) (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do understand that my comments do not come from any sort of hostility towards Wikivoyage, or anything like that (and Paul O'Brien/IBobi, do you really need to flame my posts anonymously? This project is going forward regardless.). I recognize that Wikivoyage is the obvious choice by inertia, given that we have consolidated our content on their servers, but I don't think it is an ideal name for three reasons:
1) Most importantly Wikivoyage is a really difficult word for speakers of non-European languages. Combining it with "wiki" doesn't help, either. There are no hard consonants, and voyage is a pretty advanced vocab word for speakers of non-European languages. I personally have had enough trouble while traveling and talking to locals and other backpackers of very diverse backgrounds, trying to get people to understand Wikitravel, which is a good deal easier! One of the WMF's core goals moving forward is to expand beyond the Global North. As a travel site, it is obviously imperative that this project do the same, and I think having a snappier and more easily pronounceable name is really important for furthering that goal.
2) Wikivoyage is not ideal in English. While attracting English speakers is of course not as big a challenge as those of less-represented linguistic backgrounds, it still hurts if we have an awkward branding. In American English (at least), "voyage" is used almost exclusively to refer to sea/space travel or spiritual quests, rather than to travel generally. It always sounded quite awkward to me, and although I was very sympathetic to Wikivoyage's goals (as opposed to those of Wikitravel's hosts), I didn't think it worth joining their effort because I thought the name could never really catch on in English.
3) Lastly, the idea was always to re-unite our communities on equal footing as a new project. Using the name of one of the communities isn't really in line with that goal, as it makes the WT exiles, who have been denigrated as "refugees" who should just be grateful anyone is "taking them in," as a junior partner. Trying not to treat Wikivoyagers as a junior partner, and putting aside any past injuries, was something the initial project proponents from Wikitravel were really sensitive about... :/ --PeterTalk 01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree. Thanks for exposing this so clearly. I just don't think that issue #3 above should matter that much. I'm pretty sure everyone would prefer the name wikitravel over wikivoyage, but it's just not a choice we can make. If wikivoyage ends up being the second best name (per the community decision), I don't think we should consider ditching it for the third best just to get both communities on equal footing. --Waldir (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite being in favor of the wikivoyage name option, I tend agree with Peterfitzgerald's point 1: In Japanese, it translates to ウィキボイエジ or ウィキボイージ, not very easy. I disagree about point 2: "Bon voyage" is employed widely in the context of travel. About 3: History and "wikivoyage" being the name of a current website should not matter in the current discussion, I think. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second that. And based on that reason, I chose wikivisit instead. ✒Bennylin 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's important symbolically. And I've never heard anyone say "Bon voyage" to someone heading off on a car trip. LtPowers (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, it's French and pronounced differently than "Wikivoyage" is in English. LtPowers (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? I thought "wikivoyage" pronounced like "bon voyage"?? So then, without knowing the difference between French and English pronunciation of the word, would it confuse people if I pronounce it like "bon voyage"? ✒Bennylin 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In French, it's "voy-AHZH"; in English it's "VOY-uhdge". Would it confuse people? Not if they're French. Otherwise, I don't know. LtPowers (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Big american companies and organisations like Chrysler or NASA named one of their products Voyager. And this word is difficult for Americans ... -- Jensre (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nicolas1981: ボン・ヴォヤージュ or ボン・ボヤージュ (transliterated bon voyage) is a fairly well perceived loan phrase in Japanese, and by analogy ウィキヴォヤージュ (wikivoyāju) or ウィキボヤージュ (wikiboyāju) would work well for Japanese speakers, I guess. (except for elder people) --whym (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's good then, we won't need to change the name when space travel will be common ;) Amqui (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technical note: With this name we'll face the conflict of interwiki shortcuts since v: is already used for Wikiversity. OTOH Assuming the fact the travel guide site will be more popular and edited than Wikiversity (no offense intended), it can be rather assigned to the travel guide than to Wikiversity and existing links in form of v:foo fixed by bot (there's actually not so much of them around Wikimedia wikis). — Danny B. 23:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I"d suggest "wv:", and making the existing Wikitravel/wt: be an alias of that. Jpatokal (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary should have got t: or something and did get wikt: . Wikivoyage can use y: Romaine (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fits the bill of being sufficiently descriptive of its purpose and its affiliation. --Ohconfucius (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems good, but since I am moderately active on zh wikipedia, I have ran into another problem, 'travel' and 'voygae' translates to the same word, so I can't think of a name for http://zh.wikivoyage.org -TheChampionMan1234talken-wiki 04:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]