Brianna, lovely post, as ever.
Interesting thread; while I feel the energy spent thinking about branding is slightly misdirected, energy spent towards helping the projects gain further definition and individual identity would not be (and many of the results - including stronger sense of identity and stronger recognition - would be).
I like the idea of focusing each project on a single word that defines what it does, for use in interproject templates, independent of resolving the naming issue.
SJ
Why not just use the phrases "Wikipedia Sources" etc with potential developers right now, then?
I'd appreciate other critical commentary on this brand model. Frankly, I see very few benefits in the strategy we have chosen to adopt (perhaps more as a habit than as a result of careful deliberation).
I'm guessing that's because brand recognition wasn't at the forefront of people's minds when they mused about potential project names. e.g. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011854.html :)
Making such a major change merely in service of brand recognition seems backward to me, especially given that we're not selling anything.