I see no inherent problem of confusion if this is well managed. Coca-cola has Coke Zero and Dasani in their family of products. Yet nobody confuses Dasani for C

I see no inherent problem of confusion if this is well managed. Coca-cola has Coke Zero and Dasani in their family of products. Yet nobody confuses Dasani for Coke. Nobody even confuses Coke Zero for Coke. Sometimes it makes sense to have a strong association with the "flagship" brand and sometimes not. Also, I suggest that maybe one should think about branding from the perspective of a naive user. Is it true that there is a well-understood distinction between Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikinews? I think not. We can't even get people to understand that Wikileaks isn't associated with Wikipedia. For the general public, if it has "wiki" in the front it's Wikipedia. Given that, the main problem is using words that are almost, but not quite, Wikipedia. If you work at the Foundation, and have to explain what you do to anyone else, it's pretty annoying. I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation on MediaWiki software on a project primarily for Wikimedia Commons which is a backend for Wikipedia. It sounds like you're just doing permutation rounds of several syllables. I'm not sure what the argument is about, other than the various wikiprojects' disdain for each other and the Foundation itself. Which I admit is sometimes earned, in every direction. The WMF isn't always the best partner. The standards for some wikiprojects are abysmal and for some they are quite high. But when you get right down to it, that's true of all the language variants of Wikipedia too, and they literally do share the exact same name. Has that been a problem as well?