WikiMedia Foundation / MediaWiki Foundation – please avoid naming distinct things with names that differ only in the arbitrary order of the syllables! As with <includeonly> / <onlyinclude>, it is needlessly confusing to remember the different meanings attributable to such similar terms. (Though I suppose it is too late to rename either WikiMedia or MediaWiki.) — Richardguk (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. If MediaWiki gets a foundation then it should not be called "MediaWiki Foundation". I suppose it is not too late to rename MediaWiki if need be - the name has only been used for about 10 years and I think the projected life of the software is longer than 10 more years, so posterity has more stake in this than the current users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This reminds me of back in my noob days when I had no idea what the difference between MediaWiki and Wikimedia was. Hmm, how about something like Wikisoft or Librewiki (yeah, I know, it's the best I've got)? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about they just throw in another word? "MediaWiki Development Foundation" has a nice ring to it, and the word "development" will alleviate confusion. Sven ManguardWha? 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely needless committee whose actions are handled effectively enough by the Wikimedia Foundation. If it need be, just make this a subcommittee of the existing WMF, rather than a completely autonomous WMF, or whatever it will be named. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
