Project Name Change

Yes, I understood it as you said here, just wanted to share that it has also it’s own possibilities as a name too… :smiley:

1 Like

Somebody suggested slipbox, like org-slipbox? To me that sounds much better than something like asterisk or backlink. I like the logo though.

That logo would be for the name “Ergo”.

Oops, missed that completely. I am fine with ergo, like it better than the other more technical suggestions. Cheers

1 Like

org-notes is not used (although there is something similar, org-noter).

org-box neither.

1 Like

I think it should start with ‘org-’ like other org add-ons tend to. I like ‘ergo’ by itself, but ‘org-ergo’ is awkward to say and sounds like ‘or-ger-go’.

I’ll suggest ‘org-zk’, and I like ‘org-notes’ best of the above alternatives. It sounds different enough from ‘org-noter’ that I don’t think confusion is too likely. ‘Org-backlinks’ isn’t bad either, but it implies a much more limited scope for the package than it actually has.

The main argument I’ve heard in favor of using the prefix is that it increases discoverability. However, if a package’s metadata is written properly (mentions Org in it’s description and keywords) it’s equally discoverable in MELPA and through package.el without the prefix. Flouting that tradition actually makes a package stand out in a sea of org- prefixed packages. For example, my package, doct. First page on MELPA when you browse “org”:
23rd out of 336 packages.

Had I named it org-doct or something similar it’d be sitting on the 3rd page at around the 139th package- at right about the point where anyone browsing (org-if org-they org-browsed org-that org-far org-at org-all) org-would org-inarily org-be org-numb.
Even so, discoverability mostly boils down to word of mouth and usage with Emacs packages. Packages need advocates- people who care enough to use, share, and improve them.

I’m not aware of any technical argument for using such a prefix. If anything the technical argument from a developer’s perspective is in favor of using a shorter prefix. Prefixes are a necessary evil, as Elisp does not have proper namespaces yet. The longer the prefix the more of a burden it is to type, read, and reason about. Imagine a recipe that referred to every ingredient with similar prefixes:

"Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich"


- 2 ingredient-slices ingredient-bread
- 2 ingredient-tablespoons ingredient-peanut-butter
- 2 ingredient-teaspoons ingredient-jelly

Spread ingredient-peanut-butter on one piece of ingredient-bread.
Spread ingredient-jelly on the other piece of ingredient-bread.
Combine ingredient-bread-peanut-butter with ingredient-bread-jelly.
(optional) Cut crusts off of ingredient-sandwich-bread-peanut-butter-bread-jelly.

Enjoy ingredient-sandwich-bread-peanut-butter-bread-jelly--crust-maybe!

Even for a simple recipe it becomes cumbersome quickly.
If there is another reason to stick with the org- prefix, I’m open to hearing it, but I have not come across anything convincing.

I assume the zk is for zettelkasten, which IMO artificially limits the usage of the package. We’re not strictly adhering to the zettelkasten method as far as I can tell as well.

To me this one feels like an understatement of what the package can/does enable.

1 Like

Imo, just keep it org-roam and don’t bother with the renaming. At most what could be done is an explicit disclose that the project is not anyhow connected with RoamResearch, but only somehow inspired by it.


Sure, and I agree. There is no hurry and no need right now.
However, if this keeps flowing as a slow undercurrent, when the time is right, the name will be there.
If not, we may have to decide on a hurry. :wink:
BTW, if we are pointing to a core concept of this, at least in my mind, Memex is the core.
Probably many of you have read the original article:
In my case, it’s one of the reasons I started with hypertext at the end of the 80’s. :slight_smile:

While I don’t have a particular stance on a name change, I think one key consideration is discoverability. Org-roam is memorable and easy to search, while Ergo could bring up a whole host of irrelevant results. The audience is definitely not big enough to make it the number 1 result if there were any products with similar names.

1 Like

There seems to be a fair amount of support for keeping the current name and no agreement on a replacement. I like “Ergo”, but I have another project which I can use that name/logo concept for. I rescind my suggestion.

I don’t feel very strongly about the name for org-roam, but just wanted to give a thumbs-up to @nv-discourse on ‘ergo’ and the logo - I like that a lot for something!

My 2 cents:

The name for this project needs to change ASAP. The fact of the matter is this project touts itself as a free “replica” of a commercial product (Roam by Roam Research).

Potential customers of Roam are 100% being diverted to org-roam, which gives Roam Research every incentive to pursue litigation.

If I go to the first thing I see is a giant logo that says “ROAM” on it. ROAM not ORG-ROAM.

So we have software that is a “Roam replica with Org-mode” that is using the ROAM trademark in it’s logo. (Trademark in the U.S and many other countries is typically first to use, and it’s hard to argue it operates in a different category, specifically when org-roam directly touts itself as a replica.)

Imagine creating org-netflix, saying it’s a free replica of Netflix, and then creating a website that has a giant logo that has just the words NETFLIX on it.

It is BEGGING for ligation.

This project has a lot of potential, but change the name now – change it yesterday, before it becomes a bigger issue.


Might be a closer scenario, now vulture capital is involved…

1 Like


Agree with you. And I can tell you a “funny” story. I know Org since many years, but when the first person mentioned “org-roam” I was thinking it is an extension to manage sharing Org-files between different machines (like roaming in a cellphone context). Yes, never heard of Roam or org-roam before and so it was not intuitive to decipher what org-roam really is. Meanwhile I found out, nevertheless. :grinning:

I agree that it should be renamed. org-roam sounds like its meant to be a replica of roam research, which it is not. This is a little misleading, and opens the project up to cease & desists.
A few suggestions that I think capture the core network-of-notes functionality:


I like org-nexus the best.

It captures the mechanical aspect: “a series of connections linking two or more” org files.
It also captures the projects motivations: “the central and most important” part of the users knowledge management workflow.

oops, didn’t realize this had already been suggested, and that the poll is already closed.

I support changing the name eventually. At the very least the description on github ‘Rudimentary Roam replica’ should probably be changed…(maybe just use the description on ’ A plain-text personal knowledge management system.’) I just don’t want to see @jethro and co’s awesome work get hit with legal issues, but I get that there’s more important things to focus on than this.

A few names I thought up in case there’s another name poll in the future:

  1. org-grok
    The package helps you grok things. You can also do bacronyms like Gracefully Roam Org Knowledge.

  2. org-galaxy
    Because you become galaxy brained when using the package. Also the org roam graphs look kind of like stars when zoomed out.

  3. org-bliss
    One of the main features is bidirectional links. Bidirectional LInk Super System or a similar bacronym (e.g. one of the s’s could be Slipbox instead)

  4. org-rogue
    Fits the vibe of package names like evil, swiper. There’s a ‘ro’ in ‘rogue’ so there’s probably a fitting bacronym in there somewhere.
    (I guess we might have to check if this guy is ok with it.)

1 Like

I like org-galaxy (and the reasons given).