For me there's a basic philosophical issue; version 1.0's represent a "finished product", completion. Calling something "Wikipedia 1.0" is, in my mind, an oxymoron. I don't want to promote the idea of a "complete and finished" version of Wikipedia--Wikipedia needs to be understood as an ongoing process. "Wikipedia 0.1" doesn't have those philosophical problems. The *reality* of the situation is that when all is said and done the title of the print version is likely to be "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". We can choose whatever name we want for the project to make it. I think Nupedia, with its history of using a certification process to develop articles, is an appropriate name for the project. But so would "the Wikipedia Snapshot Project" or "Skippy".

TC> Or "Crippled, Frozen Wikipedia Suitable for Dead-Tree TC> Distribution" if you want to be more honest about it.... I'd call Wikipedia "crippled" if it was only usable in a particular medium (say, for example, wiki). ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <evan(a)wikitravel.org> Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide

Stan Shebs wrote: I find myself coming around to the idea that "Wikipedia" needs to be part of the name. I agree that it would no longer be a wiki and just having the year in the title itself gives the impression that it is a snapshot. Thus any additional words will be reduncancies of some sort. Short titles are more attractive to the public.. There's a risk in trying to put too much into the first edition. I support the idea of relatively short production runs that can be easily sold out. The first edition especially is bound to have a lot of bugs and errors.. I even have doubts about whether a credible print copy can be produced in 2004. Once the first edition is ready, it should be easy to produce CD versions quarterly. How about Wikimedia's own stamp catalog, with a numbering system that can compete with Scotts' overprotected proprietary one. Ec