TWW - recursive acronym for TiddlyWiki Wiki (like PHP) ?
Or T2W/T2W/T2W/TwW
Honestly overall I would stick with TiddlyWiki - not least because of its uniqueness and hence searchability. Also - changing the name seems at odds with one of the USPs of TW - longevity.
Neat idea.
For those not familiar, here is the idea of recursive acronyms.
A famous one is …
— GNU (GNU is Not Unix)
I don’t see, so clearly, how you could do it for “TiddlyWiki”, though I’d see it for “TW” IF you changed the name to “Total Wiki”. (TW is Total Wiki)
Meanwhile African Mailman …
TT
I think the simplest option has been overlooked: just truncate “Tiddly”
TidWiki
Its a small change, it preserves the essence of the old name without being offputting, its shorter, and it doesn’t really break searchability so it could be rolled out ASAP.
Spot on! Tidbits are central to English cultures in cuisine and information.
It is also accurate to TW architectures.
TT
Thank you @ohok that’s a highly inventive proposal. Most proposals only cover renaming TiddlyWiki itself, but I think it would indeed be necessary to rename “tiddler” at the same time. The backwards compatibility aspect is good, too: we would still be able to use “TW” as an abbreviation, and .tid for tidbit files.
The word “tidbit” feels alien to me - I always used to use the word “titbit”. I think “tidbit” is a North American thing (ref). However - who cares! There, I feel better now.
TitWwiki might attract twitchers.
TidWiki would allow the file extension for <nodal-elements) to stay as .tid - the file extension .tit would just be silly.
It’s interesting that searches appear to work: Here, Let Me Google That For You! Teach People How to Google
Would have to work on the backronym.
Just in case, I’ve gone ahead and registered tidwiki.{org|net|com} for a year.
It may have been said elsewhere (didn’t get a chance to read all of the comments), but the part I like least about the name TiddlyWiki is the Wiki part.
For many (and indeed in the definition of wiki), wikis are collaborative solutions. I find TiddlyWiki to be first and foremost a personal knowledge management platform (or digital garden, if you prefer that terminology), and many others have suggested the same. TiddlylWiki generally isn’t first designed for collaborative editing (yes, some plugins do allow that, but still…). TiddlyWiki is great to share one’s knowledge, but wikis are meant for collaborative editing…
Whenever I introduce TiddlyWiki to others, I am forced to add something along the lines of “it’s not really a wiki, in spite of its name”…
That said, I like tiddlers as a concept (nugget of knowledge), and don’t mind the Tiddly part of the name at all. Maybe we can simply drop the Wiki part of the name, nothing else changes?
I would like to add tweaky.wiki to the possibilities
The outstanding feature of tw to me is that it can be transformed in whatever I need.
edited…
Somewhat (and some etymologic research) later I decided that it is not such a good idea 
That “wikitionary” definition overreaches by ADDING “collaborative” to it’s definition of “wiki” as a noun.
Their etymology citation correctly notes that “wiki” is abbreviated from Ward Cunningham’s “WikiWikiWeb” usage. However, if you follow the link to Cunningham’s correspondence in which he discusses, at length, the origins of the word, you will not find any reference to “collaboration” anywhere.
While the meaning of words can, and does, evolve over time, it is clear from Cunningham’s coinage that his original intent was to emphasize the “quick” aspect of a “wiki website”; i.e., a website that can be constructed and modified quickly, without the burdensome specification and engineering development process that typically precedes the creation of more conventional “non-wiki” websites.
For my own take on the meaning of “wiki”, see Inside TiddlyWiki: What’s In A Name and the subsequent pages, The Wiki Way, What Is TiddlyWiki?, and MicroContent: Smaller is Better.
Please note that I have no objections to discussing new names for TiddlyWiki, but I also have no problem with the use of “Tiddly” (small) and “Wiki” (quick) as a clear, concise description of it’s primary functionality.
-e
My try:
I heartily support the name tidwiki and even more heartily support calling tiddlers tidbits - even if we stick with the name tiddlywiki.
Playing with names without the wiki in the name:
tidhome is a personal last name but does not seem to be in use for products.
tidcentral - like a central station or headquarters
tidquarters is not an option - search results show viagra and erectile dysfunction in the results.
tidpool - A pool of tids saved in a webpage. Or pooling them together with others. Sounds like tadpole and tidepool and Deadpool, so it sounds “familiar”. Also, tiddlers were little fish, right? So pool in the name creates some continuity with that, for those who know the meaning of tiddler.
Personally I would prefer to keep Wiki in the name. I’ve never thought of a wiki as being collaborative by definition. I always tend to call it my “personal wiki” when im talking about it with people. its a common enough phrase that it has a wikipedia article.
IMO, the defining characteristic of a wiki is “individual documents that are interlinked into a web”. By extension, TidWiki is a wiki for all the tidbits of information you toss into it.
Also want to reiterate the advantage of searcahbility. TidWiki is close enough to Tiddlywiki that most search engines will still give you the results you expect. Theres over a decade of Tiddlywiki discussions out there to search for so thats a pretty big advantage IMO
I agree this is a critical aspect of Wikis but the other is the hyperlinks between content and on this parameter tiddlywiki is more than competent. I have being hopeful the collaborative part would develop, and despite many “honourable mentions” we are just “not there yet”.
Let’s brainstorm a name for the next version of TiddlyWiki ?
Sure;
But lets have a version worthy of a new name if we are going to change it, then the name should reflect its features.
Right.
… was taken from the Hawaiian language (A Polynesian language).
A marvellous linguistic culture in which men (like @EricShulman ) can dance in grass skirts.
TT
I think “WIKI” fits many use cases.
Especially when the version you use is off-the-shelf AND ready-to-do.
When it comes to “infinite tweaking / customisation” (the meat of the sandwich = the real bespoke activity—fully seen in this discussion group) my feel is “Wiki” is NOT right at all.
Why? Well you can see the issue on review sites for “Wiki tools”.
I have never seen one yet that presents TW accurately.
I dunno where to go from here; but knowing origins and blockages matters, perhaps?
Just a comment
TT
I’m sure I’ve written about this elsewhere but the story for me is that I encountered the original C2 wiki back in 1997 and was immediately transfixed by what I saw as two almost entirely orthogonal features:
So, I always saw the word “wiki” as covering both of those characteristics.
Those two features relate to TiddlyWiki differently:
For a long time, this has been explicitly stated at https://classic.tiddlywiki.com/#TiddlyWiki
Unlike most wikis, TiddlyWiki isn’t about group collaboration; it is a wiki in the sense of elevating linking be a part of the punctuation of writing
But that’s all history! My position now is that the word “wiki” isn’t very helpful for us because for most people it just evokes “Wikipedia”. (Or “WikiLeaks” – at the height of the controversy one of the staff at Osmosoft was entering the USA and was asked by a border agent “TiddlyWikiWiki? Isn’t that illegal?” 
)