The nice thing about Berkeley is that everyone knows what it means, and everyone knows what it means specifically in connection with a project (the project is located in or otherwise has some connection with the place named Berkeley).
Many of the names you suggest, either accepted or rejected, are names whose meaning is known by nobody except some specialists; many of them can’t even be pronounced by normal people. Of the ones that are known by normal people, normal people still don’t know what they mean when used as a qualifier for “project”. Never mind whether there’s another project named “Orchard”—calling yourself that when you don’t grow any trees is just confusing.
(Of course, you can still use a weird esoteric word that you expect people to memorize just as a name, but then the meaning hardly matters at all.)
Could do “Bay Genomics Project” if this is the main issue, don’t even need to change the acronym. I don’t like any of your shortlist because I wouldn’t know what any of them mean without googling (and might not understand the connection even if I did) and feels like they’re trying too hard to be clever or something. I like it when names are straightforward and descriptive.
Or another way of thinking about it after a bit of reflection: it makes sense to me to do lexicogenesis to find concise names for new concepts, but not for an organization name.
I like it when names are straightforward and descriptive.
I have been hearing this advice… However, I think there is something good about having a name with character. To give an illustration, consider “The Haldane Institute”. This has gravitas / character / something, which “Reprogenetics Institute” doesn’t quite achieve. (Haldane in particular I think already has things bearing the name, and is also ambiguously a eugenicist.) (I agree my list isn’t great. My current frontrunners are Balbiani, Carmenta, or just plain Reprogenetics Institute.)
The nice thing about Berkeley is that everyone knows what it means, and everyone knows what it means specifically in connection with a project (the project is located in or otherwise has some connection with the place named Berkeley).
Many of the names you suggest, either accepted or rejected, are names whose meaning is known by nobody except some specialists; many of them can’t even be pronounced by normal people. Of the ones that are known by normal people, normal people still don’t know what they mean when used as a qualifier for “project”. Never mind whether there’s another project named “Orchard”—calling yourself that when you don’t grow any trees is just confusing.
(Of course, you can still use a weird esoteric word that you expect people to memorize just as a name, but then the meaning hardly matters at all.)
One of the main reasons to rebrand is that putting “Berkeley” there makes a lot of people think it’s affiliated with the university, which it’s not.
(I kinda agree with your other points, but still don’t know what to call it.)
Could do “Bay Genomics Project” if this is the main issue, don’t even need to change the acronym. I don’t like any of your shortlist because I wouldn’t know what any of them mean without googling (and might not understand the connection even if I did) and feels like they’re trying too hard to be clever or something. I like it when names are straightforward and descriptive.
Or another way of thinking about it after a bit of reflection: it makes sense to me to do lexicogenesis to find concise names for new concepts, but not for an organization name.
I have been hearing this advice… However, I think there is something good about having a name with character. To give an illustration, consider “The Haldane Institute”. This has gravitas / character / something, which “Reprogenetics Institute” doesn’t quite achieve. (Haldane in particular I think already has things bearing the name, and is also ambiguously a eugenicist.) (I agree my list isn’t great. My current frontrunners are Balbiani, Carmenta, or just plain Reprogenetics Institute.)