I did ask the language group for a list of WMF fonts at the outset. I am still very open to any guidance. That said, web fonts have very different requirements than high quality typographic fonts. As one example, web fonts need to have small file sizes. File size doesn't matter for typographic fonts, but they need to support bold face, italics, and advanced open type features for proper ligatures, kerning, accent placement, etc. In addition, since many articles combine short segments of text in different languages, I have tried to identify high quality fonts with a consistent style (serif fonts, consistent weight, etc).
So far it has been most productive for me to respond to individual language speakers who can provide specific font recommendations for specific language groups. If someone wants to assemble a canonical list of WMF fonts for particular wikis as well as where the sources for those fonts can be found, that might be helpful. But most helpful would be reviewing the output in a specific script and letting me know if the font chosen is inappropriate (bad ligatures, overly casual, etc). --scott
ps. and as to the root cause: the naming inconsistencies are with respect to the *package name*, not the *font name*. Even if Karthik is successful, that will just be a debian package. I would still have the same issues getting the fonts installed on Ubuntu LTS, Ubuntu 13, Fedora, etc, etc. So while knowing the names of the WMF fonts is helpful, especially long term, it's not the problem we're trying to solve right now.