Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest/More proposals

< Abstract Wikipedia | Wiki of functions naming contest
Translate this page
Other languages:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Round 1 complete. Round 2 will start 27 October.

WiKi-K'e

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikisetta or Wikirosetta

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Project Eco

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Project Aquinas

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • more a play on words on the term "knowledge acquisition" than the philosopher Thomas of Aquinas
  • I don't know much about Catholic theology, but is there any connection between Aquinas and "knowledge acquisition" other than his surname kinda looking like the word "acquisition" if you squint? I guess his Five Ways are about acquiring knowledge of God, or something, but that seems like a stretch. Regardless, using a specific religious figure is probably a no-go for something intended to be cross-cultural. (Would Muslims and Hindus be okay with the name?) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name does not indicate it is a wiki.--GZWDer (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not bad, although somewhat Western-centric and doesn't make the functionality obvious. The problem with the lack of "wiki" can be addressed by calling it WikiAquinas. It can be easily translated to Russian and Hebrew, although there will be a lot of K and W sounds in "Wikiaquinas": "qui" is actually pronounced as "kwi", which is very close to "wiki", so it can be a bit of a drag to write and say aloud in some languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki". For this one, "Wiki" is not in the name at all.--GZWDer (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifunction

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Universalpedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiWords

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikigram

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiprogram

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Hohonupedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

MultiWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

AIMO or Aimopedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Abstract Input, Multilingual Output
  • The acronym is in English, so how would it be translated into other languages? Would they keep "AIMO" or translate it word by word and then turn it into an acronym? Also, probably doesn't meet the desideratum of The name should not restrict the wiki only towards the goal of the Abstract Wikipedia or be only about natural language and content abstraction, but should reflect the potential that the functions may be used in a large diversity of ways and places. But I do think it sounds okay, it's not bad by any means. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Aimopedia"; the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. Just "AIMO" does not indicate this is a wiki, and any other variant with "aimo" will not tell an external visitor sufficiently what the project is about either imho. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiglobal

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiglobe

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikitemplates

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiuniverse

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • This would rather fit Meta in my opinion. It does not address the purpose of the project well enough. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that this is too broad in scope (according to the description above that would encompass also the long-term goal and all existing wikis, or that it could bring a confusion: "Wikimedia" is already the dedicated name for this "universe".
    The concept is not to generate everything, but just being allowed to generate some contents that could be brought to existing wikis, at least to create much better articles than very poor "stubs" (also frequently partly translated or with frequent problems of presentation, navigatibility, usability, accessibility: the need is evident from small and medium wikis that have a very slow and complex startup, even after the initial test in Incubator
    We've all seen problems caused by the fact that these small wikis could not easily be sourced reliably while being able to source at least interesting features, which would be immediately usable by natives
    This would greatly help their understanding and then improve that content and adapt it to their culture and current local communities of interest and even help develop their interest in many topics for which they have no clue or that find them to difficult to start with, while also benefiting of the experience gained in other languages, and even allowing mutual cooperation for administering these wikis, possibly even in talk pages to create more buinds between communities that have difficulties to talk each other and understand a sufficient common language). It would also allow easier cooperation across wikis to find more experienced admins to solve complex issues (notably those related to NPOV, and respect of peoples, while also setting a better limit to avoid conflicts of interests by the few experienced users that can decide against more the legitimate needs of modest contributors so that everyone can find a suitable space of work and cooperation also with their own sets of cultural interests). but even this larger goal can describe what could be Wikipedia abstract later, which will still be a part of our existing "Wikimedia" universe. clearly the goal for now is jsut being allwoed to compose several sources to generate modest contents (probably not more than a simple sentence or just a single phrase, such as to help build a navigatable structure, or sets of nav templates, or an index of topics, a reliable set of categories and all the necessary and suitable interwiki links, or a set of disambiguation pages appropriate for each language but still pointing to relevant stubs pages to be later completed; for this reason the initial pags would be bot-generated but still editable: we've seen that method used effectively in a rare language, notably Waray-Waray, except that this is made by a bot controlled by just a single user and it is not so open; instead of posting "stubs pages" the stubs could use templates with their content fed and basic presentation from functions but still in a form correct for the target language; but the Waray-Wray wiki is now usable by its community which now update it with less efforts but still with all the set of links to other more populated wikis and more possible sources in various languages). This could also be used to greatly accelerate the development of Wiktionnary (with basic definitions for some meanings/lemmas, while the local community would add their own language-specific expressions, or could find examples of use and citations in their culture to support each lemma; as well they could benefit from data-driven generated contents such as conjugations, declensions, transliterations, usable input methods; in Wikipedia thee data in Wikitionanry could have a Wikitionnary-based spellchecker, and we could create out own automatic translartos with smarter intelligence to help others understanding what is happening in the small wiki where problems are reported by very few users but difficult to assert). verdy_p (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishare

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikisum

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikibabel

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • I kinda like it, but (1) "babel" might be too Judeo-Christian-specific, e.g. would it work as well in a Chinese cultural context? (2) it might not meet the desideratum of The name should not restrict the wiki only towards the goal of the Abstract Wikipedia or be only about natural language and content abstraction, but should reflect the potential that the functions may be used in a large diversity of ways and places. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had immediately thought of this name also, but dismissed it for the same concerns you are raising here. --Thadguidry (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversal

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikitolk

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiglot

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiPreTranslate

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikifacts

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiCortex

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiChunks

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikigeneral

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Hyperpedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Hyperwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Datapedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

BigDaPedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
You are not missing it. ;-) Agree, not the right context. --Thadguidry (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Seems too vague; not really related to the ideas of translation, functions, templates, etc. Possibly better suited for Abstract Wikipedia than for Wikilambda. Also the name is too temporary, e.g. in 5+ years do we still want it to be called "NewWiki"? Finally, "newwiki" is the internal database name for https://new.wikipedia.org. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree, really vague --Thadguidry (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newpedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Alphapedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Х-pedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Could vaguely convey the idea of functions or translation, in the sense that input is linked to output, that might be a stretch. The word "wikilink" is already used to refer to a hyperlink to a wiki article, but I don't know if that's a dealbreaker. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honupedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Holopedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • The prefix "holo-" means "whole" in Greek, but in common use it is most associated with holograms, or maybe with the Holocaust, neither of which really fits as far as I can tell. Holomorphic functions are a thing in complex analysis, but the functions we're concerned with here have little to do with that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Jewish, and the similarity to "holocaust" doesn't bother me. It's also used in words like "holistic", and it's not a big deal. For better or worse, however, "Holopedia" is used as a nickname of the Minnan Wikipedia, so it can become ambiguous. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I will not prefer any names that do not start with "Wiki".--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the prefix "holo" has no direct relation to nazi's Holocaust. It is related to the English term "holy" (saint/spirit); "holocaust" is a composed as a name created after the genocide to describe it as a mass murdering/attack ("caust", related to "caustic") based on spirituality/religion ("holo"). And this is not proposing the use of "caust".
    Yes the proposal is highly related to "holomorphic functions" ("holo" because the space where the transform is not defined is very thin, almost invisible/transparent, insignificant, infinitesimal, compared to the space where it has a defined meaning, so it is difficult to observe and it just exists as a "spirit"; you can like it as well to "hologram" where this transparent space is diffused/spread "everywhere" but you don't see anything if you try to locate a point where this occurs; it also applies to "fractal spaces" and "fractal dimensions", i.e. non-integer dimensions that smoothly link spaces with countable finite dimensions), but it's too much technical for people not aware in advanced mathematics (and that also have difficulties to understand the base concept of "morphism", which actually means a transform by a regulated relation between different entities so that some properties are preserved by the transform, and which sometimes an produce no result or multiple results, possibly with uncertainty margins, i.e. just probabilistic or fuzzy results for which no universal decision can be concluded). Note that "morphism" is based on the greek radical "morph" (used also on Slavic languages) which just translates to the "form" radical in Latin (and most Italic or Germanic languages).
    But Greek terms in Italic/Germanic languages are considered too much scientific terminology. If we reduce "homomorphism" just to "holo" (which is also used on scientific terms based on Greek), we loose the important "form"/"morph" meaning that this feature better describes ("holo" is not a requirement), that's why I would not use it in "holopedia" which would be better used to describe a wiki-based encyclopedia about religions/spirituaty... I would largely prefer some variation based on the term "mutate" (change of form/morph, i.e. "transform"). verdy_p (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose you meant "holomorphism" when you mentioned "homomorphism", as you did not mention homomorphisms in your text before. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You suppose badly. see w:en:Holomorphic function which is also mostly the same as "holomorphism", but don't confuse it with "homomorphism" which exists too (not all homomorphism are homoporphisms, this remark applies also to the reverse; however all holomorphic functions are holomorphisms, the reverse being false). Yes it is a too technical term for what would in fine would be a repository of code to transform a set of data from any types to another set of data, plus some design feature to describe them like an API, and implement them with some guided processing model matching the described API. For Abstract Wikipedia only the output would be limited to some wikitext that is embeddable in some page, a sort of "supertemplate", except that its input would not limited to just text, and its implementation not limited to be using the wiki syntax or a Lua module and the output is still transformable. The above functions could take the whole existing database of some wiki or external source in input, so the functions are just like "bricks" you can combine in a graph-like structure and it may also have timing constraints and synchronization points I can think these "functions" like an extensible API offering a set of objects with accessors or methods but working as standalone modules and insatiable many times with their own internal state, much like a javascript or Lua "object" (that you can duplicate with a "new" to copy its internal state), and in fact the "functions" describes above are most like "morphisms" rather than true "functions" in the strict mathematical meaning.verdy_p (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too technical for most external visitors. Also, the project is not supposed to be an (encyclo)pedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiZinfo

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • I get why the Z is there, but it still looks weird. Maybe InfoWiki would be better, although that's probably taken already. In any case, the name doesn't really convey a sense of functions/transformations/translations IMO, and maybe would be better suited to Abstract Wikipedia than to Wikilambda. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is not easy to translate (not transliterate) to Chinese if the translated name needs to be informative. In Chinese, names of Wikimedia project are never transliterated.--GZWDer (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistream

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimorph

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Transmutewiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

NeoWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikilibs

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

UniWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki-optimum

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiverse

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimedia Ultimate

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimedia compendium

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Compile-Wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimedia TITAN

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Primewiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Zen-Wiki or Wikizen or ZenithWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Layman's Wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki of Everything

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Tempo Wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiabs

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Tractwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikitedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimuldia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikioperator

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikend

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Lingista

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikidatopedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiglobia or Globipedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikifedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiquest

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikireply

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Unclear how "replying" relates to the idea of translation, or functions, or templates. "Reply" evokes two-way communication, which is not what the site is for. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't a function sothing where you give some input and the function will return a response with some output? If there's no input, there's no output; if there's input but no output, it's just a blackhole that has no use... The description above seems to indicate that the "'function" will have some intelligence, look like an "artificial brain" (possibly using IA technologies, or BigData collection and aggregation to produce something else in various forms, not just translating the input?). verdy_p (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're meaning "artificial intelligence" by "IA", I'm unsure this will be used at all (there is enough of that already), and it certainly will not be the only aspect of the project. How your description fits "replying" is unclear to me either, and I don't think it will be clear to an external visitor. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similar to wikiquest: two necessary parts of the same thing. The initial description is too much centered to functions described in mathematical terms. But clearly the goal is not mathematical "functions": there's not necessary any valid output and there can be output without any input of custom data. The goal is too abstract to be usable, when in fact it will not be that but will ba a shared reusable library that will extend the API and that will also be largely independent of the language used (not just Lua modules, or Javascripts, or a set of extensions to Mediawiki API, or Mediawi hooks abut any mix of them and using also the potential of data already inside Wikimedia projects (pedias, dictionnaries, data, commons media) and related support projects (Phabricator, GitHub or other open source code repositories and open data repositories, and external open APIs based on web services or file sharing protocols and communication tools: social medias, RSS, mailing lists...). Each described "function" may be in fact composed of multiple components workign together. The result/output may also be variable over time, evolutive. And translated if possible (both in the questions or the replies and in input forms that could be used, where the input form will also be part of the function and will have various forms bving the result of another function generating it). These results may also be evaluated (with some automated metrics or from user's notation in order to qualify or order them under various criteria). verdy_p (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Flexipedia

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiama

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimentum

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Module Wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Mod-wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Axial wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Pref wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Algo-wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • I like "algo" in some form: algo-wiki, wiki-algo, AlgoWiki, algo.wikimedia.org, ... (I considered making a late proposal for WikiAlgo after seeing "Wikimedia Algorithms". We have split entries elsewhere for a-b and b-a, but we also need to consider that in some languages word order will be swapped.) Pelagic (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Para-wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikivars

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Structwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki++

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Bashwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki-sharp

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Build wiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimedia sharp

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki logics

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Bonwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiport

edit
Discussion

Wikimedia Polymorph

edit
Discussion

Wiki gate

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wiki-progs

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Curry

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiREPL

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Probably to technical for some visitors, but I don't think the project will be directly viewed by that many visitors either. What about translatability? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the wiki actually have a REPL? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually thought about this one also last night before falling asleep!, the entire REPL as a flow, which we definitely will have and currently do! REPL, in general can be thought of as overlapping workflows or just processes. R, read, is the extraction parts that will mostly be automated when the community opt-in to have pages created or maintained. But for a Wiki of Functions, that will only be the E, eval part from REPL, so maybe that's a subtle vote for WikiEval. The P, print, I would say would perhaps be renderers and I quite like that aspect of alignment. L, loop, could be thought of as the continual refinement as well as counter vandalism operations. Overall, REPL is a good way to think of the entire set of workflows or processes that generates knowledge and would probably be a great way to document as an example of those very new to Wikidata/Wikipedia and wondering/hearing about how the "Wiki of Functions" fits into the whole picture. --Thadguidry (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Functionwiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikihana

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiNexus

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiAlchemy

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Transmutation of substances, with a little bit of magic. "Alchemy" is such an old idea there are direct translations in European and Middle Eastern languages, and similar concepts for most others, as far as I can tell.

Wiki Etymology

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikigenerator

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikistructure

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiinfo

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikibasic

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Is this supposed to be a reference to the BASIC programming language? If so, I'm not sure it's appropriate, since that language will probably not be used on the wiki. If it's supposed to refer to something else, I don't understand its intended meaning. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTrans or TransWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiAda

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiCalculator

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • To quote the definition of function provided for this contest "In short, functions make a calculation on the data you provide, and answer a question you have about it." The WikiCalculator will provide (the definition for) various calculations that could be useful in different Wikimedia projects.

WikiMath

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • To quote the definition of function provided for this contest "In short, functions make a calculation on the data you provide, and answer a question you have about it." WikiMath allows people to do all kind of (math) operations to transform some inputs into new outputs, which then can be used in different Wikimedia projects. Also, the word "Math" is universally recognizable, as it is taught starting with elementary school.

WikiQuarks

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiexec/-s

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wixecutable/Wikiexecutable

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
Could there be issues with w:Wix.com? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

f(Wiki)

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiutilities / Wikitilities / Wikimedia Utilities

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • From wiki and utility (in the computing sense).

WikiIO / WikIO

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • From wiki and IO (input/output). I'm not sure how universal "IO" is, though.

Wikipoly

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiresult

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • From the point of view of a user, the contents of this wiki will be the result of some function or computation.

Wikiμ

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikisoft

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikido

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikibutton

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikibuttons

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiThought

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikifx

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikiroutine

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikireturns

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • Because the point of a function is that it returns something based on some input. While the wiki would host the functions, it would serve the returns, so this name would kind of emphasize the service nature of the project. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilisp

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikompose or Wikicompose

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikombinator(s) or Wikicombinator(s)

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimorphisms

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiLogic or WikiSense

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiLib

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikifuncs

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • ​ What do you mean: "Who told you that?" I wrote "I thought it meant etc.", wasn't that enough information? And now please stop this useless discussion, especially since I find your tone pretty aggressive and not pleasant at all. Not to mention the amount of your comments in this contest is proposterous and bizar already. Eissink (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WikiCore

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Arithmowiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikialgebra

edit

Easy to translate (d:Q3968) or even transliterate to many other languages; Meaningful name; Not too short, not too long; In rhyme with Wikipedia.

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikigebra

edit

Pros:

  • Portmanteau of Wikipedia and algebra;
  • Easy to translate (d:Q3968) or even transliterate into many other languages and in many other scripts;
  • Meaningful and memorable name related to math (see algebraic function and abstract algebra: the word algebra is a link between the two new Wikimedia projects; math is probably one of few abstract and international languages understood anywhere in the world);
  • Not too short, not too long (both gebra and pedia have 5 letters), and in rhyme with Wikipedia and Wikidata (all of which finish with the letter a);
  • Interwiki links will be possible by the distinct and available letter g, for example g:test.

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

curate.wikimedia.org

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
Curating info. Em-mustapha User | talk 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiphi

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiCalc

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

FunctionalWiki

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiMix

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiProcessor

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Phrasemaker

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiLua

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiFunk

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiEval

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiEquals

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiPlex

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  • With WikiPlex we will be able to raise to the power the value provided by the different WikiMedia projects, by weaving into their content newly created information through functions (check out this for the multiple meanings of -plex). Plus WikiPlex is just a cool, catchy name.

Wikiware

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikimedia Executables

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
  1. ↑ Ah, didn't notice this section on the talk page. ~~~~

Eval

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikibackend

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

Wikifyit

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiFyIt

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit

WikiWidgets

edit

Voting

edit

Discussion

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki_of_functions_naming_contest/More_proposals&oldid=20541335"