a.- Rebranding is not a need. What ain't broken needs no fixing.
b.- Depending on how and by whom the counting is made, some 75% or more of the people who have participated in the rebranding process are against it. So it's not a question of advising on it. The point is killing it off.
c.- I've been reading the link and it seems that opinions are those and that it is not a question of my being in the Land of Valencia, it seems that in most (all?) other places the feeling is the same: just not rebrand.
d.- It looks that WMF is going to keep on with their intention to rebrand (forever?). ¡Pero niños, qué pesaos sois!
e.- No, I'm not interested into advising or making part of a committee. (Just in case anybody was to ask).
f.- Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Wikimedia is Wikimedia. Wikidata is Wikidata. I do know that a lot of people "outside" Wikiworld are mixing concepts. Yeah, true. But it's also the case that millions of people mix the Netherlands with Holland, the United Kingdom with England, and the USA with America. But I haven't heard of any rebranding efforts by those three places. What leads me back to (a.-): no rebranding is needed.
Creo que sí, que estaría bien que alguien fuera al comité. Ya tiene mi opinión arriba explicada en la lengua de los comités, más que nada para que se entienda [cuando más del 75% de la peña está en contra y siguen pensando que es un tema que goza de apoyo, realmente parece que hay un problema cognitivo]. Calculo que incluso si van siete y los siete están en contra del rebranding, volverán a presentarlo otra vez y otra y otra hasta acabar con nosotros por aburrimiento [hoy mi planificación no incluía escribir este tocho, iba sobre muixerangas y edificios de Agres].
Y paro aquí. Gracias por la paciencia.
L U