Appropedia talk:Name/Archive: Difference between revisions

A need for urgency in closing the name discussion?

An open-ended renaming discussion is likely to stall promotion. For example, I would like to add Appropedia to the http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/resources/web-links.html page, and as many other pages as I can find, but I hesitate to do this if we are likely to change to a new name. If, on the other hand, we choose to move forward with promotion, that is, IMHO, effectively making a decision to keep the Appropedia name (and that may be just fine). I would prefer that such decisions be more "conscious." Shall we find ways to drive this discussion forward? First, raise the profile of the discussion to the main page? (Can do this very quickly.) Actively contact registered users and ask for their commentary? (Can do this in a day or two.) Set a deadline for proposed names? (Say, October 10?) Set another deadline for consensus on a new name (if any)? (Say, October 20?)

I think that setting a quick deadline is a good idea. I have been conducting informal, in person, minute-surveys and most people seem to stick with Appropedia based on either liking the name, or for the many people that do not get the name, based on the fact that it is already linked to and existing. I think that we should pick a faster timeline. As far as promoting this to the front page, I feel that we should be careful with how much we ask, and how much we give an impression that this site is here to stay. Indeed we are discussing this question late in the game, and the discussion does not engender the sense of how much other work has gone on here. I will be back in a few hours to say more, but if we do promote this to the front, maybe we could set up some type of quick and easy, radio button, survey tool to encourage more input. Thank you all for your time and consideration. --Lonny 10:36, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

I'm quite happy with all you've said, Lonny! Sooner closure is better, and process needs to be just long enough to ensure buy-in from the committed community. Maybe we're already there? Consensus seems to be: Appropedia is perhaps not the perfect name, but it's pretty good and has the advantage of being established, and there are no compelling new proposals at this point. (I'm glad that Apropedia, with a single p, points to Appropedia, but would not change the name there.)

• Does anyone have a variation from this rough expression of consensus?
• Who do we want to include in this consensus? (I'm curious how consensus works here.)

If we're not quite ready to close, then aggressive deadlines and a voting process. I arbitrarily propose:

• 0100 GMT Sept 28 for nominations
• Voting by logged-in registered users posting on this page (create a voting section?) until 0100 GMT Oct 1
• Ties involving the name Appropedia will go to Appropedia
• Ties involving other names will be resolved by the founder

What were you going to say, Lonny, before I rudely interrupted? --Curtbeckmann 15:21, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

This sounds like a good plan. I have moved this conversation here to the discussion page, put a voting section on the project apge and a link from the main page. --Lonny 19:06, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

I think that I would need to see quite a few votes to be swayed for the following reasons:

• The name, for better or worse, is now known.
• We have over a many visitors (still working on a good statistics package) that know the name.
• There are many links already set to appropedia (although this could be dealt with using a redirect).
• We have some high hits on search engines. Found out yesterday, after a colleague received unsatisfying results on a quiz he gave, that Googling, "energy units shame", has appropedia as the number 1 hit.

Finally, I think that we should wait to address the name until we have over 20,000 unique visitors per month. The name may not be ideal, but it is working. All that said, I look forward to further comments. Happy voting. --Lonny 19:39, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

I'm wouldn't like to see a name change until we've engaged in discussion with people from other wikis that we may wish to merge with (though whether we end up merging, demarcating our functions more clearly, or something else, remains to be seen). The outcome of those discussions is likely to effect the exact shape/scope of this wiki, which will affect the choice of name.

So I'm not in favor of urgency on this point - but rather plan to be a bit more urgent on the whole connecting-with-other-wikis thing. (Note, The Wiki Synergy Project is taking clearer shape - I think this will be a good point of reference for engaging with other wikis). --Singkong2005 ^talk 19:56, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

Comments

(should we move the initial bulk of the conversation from Village Pump to here?)

I think we should only move succint pertinent pieces to the pros and cons above. --Lonny 16:04, 24 September 2006 (PDT)

After seeing some of the commentary at http://www.blogschmog.net/blog/?p=471#comments, I was struck by a flash of genius (at least I thought so): VillagePump.org. The domain is available. Rather similar to VillageEarth.org. Come to think of it, I like the VillageEarth name as well. If others like it, maybe that's a carrot to lobby for coalescence with that group? --Curtbeckmann 15:45, 24 September 2006 (PDT)