There has been negative feedback on the names we chose for `std::datapar::basic_simd` and `std::datapar::basic_simd_mask`. The pushback is against the name of the namespace. This paper does *not reconsider the namespace* itself, it only reconsiders our naming options. Much of the discussion revolves around the question of whether it is acceptable to repeat a namespace name for an entity inside that namespace. This paper looks at this question and aims for a “policy-like” LEWG answer (independent of SIMD). Among authors there was no clear consensus for one better alternative. We therefore invite reflector discussion, as we expect many strong opinions on the matter (naming is hard and most importantly not always objective). For now, the paper recommends to rename the namespace to `simd` and subsequently drop the `simd_` part from `basic_simd_mask` and `simd_mask`.