On 5/9/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5/8/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Besides that, since in the modern world "-pedia" is often used for refering something encyclopedia alike, names alike "XXpedia Books" "XXpedia Dictionary" would be confusable. I've seen some people failed to distinguish dictionary from encyclopidia, and vice versa, but I am not sure such ambiguity is helpful for increasing our "recognition" in the long term.
Modern encyclopedic collections such as Britannica and Encarta contain far more content than just what you could rigidly define as encyclopedic, such as atlases, important source texts, licensed dictionaries, interactive media, learning materials, etc
You don't understand my points. I am here talking about publications which contains "pedia" as part of their brand names. Encarta isn't the case.
In Japan we have seen many -pedia named publications (most of them are published by major companies. I got 50 results with -pedia suffixed paper publifications on amazon.co.jp. Some of them seem to be textbook (or very narrow interest encyclopedia) but no atlas, dictionary, media collection or quote books.
And I would point out those materials you called
what you could rigidly define as encyclopedic, such as atlases, important source texts, licensed dictionaries, interactive media, learning materials, etc
has weeker brand image or nothing, and don't make the connotation of -pedia suffix broader.
Another concerns, for some people, even Wikipedia is a word too long to recognize. For them It is not only a buzz word, but also nonsense foreign-sound words. I have seen many Japanese people who call wikipedia "wiki" (there as even a campaign "don't call it Wiki"). The brand name is not so globally established as you wishes, specially in non Indo-European language areas. I don't expect much longer Wikipedia blah blah blah is memory-friendly for those people.