On 5/8/07, Claudio Mastroianni gattonero@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's a bit too late to rename project, _now_.
Not really. None of the names beyond Wikipedia has wide recognition, not to mention that even widely known names get changed all the time because of strategic reorientation or for other reasons. Sure, some of these name changes are failures (the idiotic Borland change to Inprise is a good example), but that is typically the case when a very popular, trusted name gets changed to something completely different. That is not the scenario we are talking about -- I would _not_ suggest changing the "Wikipedia" name.
Even if they are not as spread as Wikipedia, Wikinews/books/source/ etc are at least recognizable: they have a growing identity.
Not outside the wikiblogosphere.
Instead of resolving the problem of their less "importance amongst common people" compared to the Wikipedia's one, you just confirm the difference: by saying "Wikibooks is now Wikipedia Books" you say: "Yes, you were right; Wikibooks was less important then Wikipedia, that's why we renamed it".
No, it says that Wikipedia is our strongest and quite probably most universal project; it does not say anything about allocation of resources. And, as I've explained, arguing for partnerships and support actually gets much _easier_ once you throw the big W name around. Everyone is doing "the wiki thing" now, but there is only one Wikipedia. Guess which logo hangs on the Wikimedia office door? Not to mention the two lovely Wikimedia+Wikipedia banners that are used at conferences.. and, when I last visited, Wikimedia Deutschland still had "Wikipedia" on their sign. :-)
if you abuse of the brand "Wikipedia", you just make it weaker. As for now, Wikipedia is a strong brand: it makes people thinking at a _encyclopedia_.
Not really; see my response to Brianna. This is a bias in our own community: We have a strong attachment to our internal semantics, which do not necessarily relate to the way outsiders perceive our projects. For most who use Wikipedia, it's simply a site on the web that has tons of useful information (many are still not aware that it is user-edited). They do not share any academic definitions of what Wikipedia is or is not.
People will start to not understand which is the real identity of the wikipedia: encyclopedia? Books? etc etc etc
Hardly, as the projects would still very clearly be separate. People still think of Google first and foremost as a search engine, but they also understand that Google operates plenty of other projects (many of which, like our sister projects, have a connection to the search engine).
Summarizing: this brand-rethinking is not a solution. Instead, it gives more problem to solve.
That summary lacks argumentative support.