I agree, "synced blocks" is much more descriptive to the end user and makes a clear distinction between this block and all other reusable patterns, templates and re-usable blocks - of which there are many!

Cosign! Its much more self explanatory.

Agreed - this makes a lot more sense to me! Thanks for kicking this off.

+1 to rename, I'm not absolutely convinced that 'synced' is right but it's better than reusable so 👍🏻

@mtias I like "Synced Blocks" too. However, if the discussion continues, here are a few more suggestions for the "Reusable Blocks":

• Cloned Blocks/Clonable Blocks
• Replicator Blocks
• Reproduced/Reproducable Blocks
• Wormhole Block

If none of those options work, let me know.

The term "synced" is definitely a massive improvement over the current terminology. "Reusable" is a term that could apply to almost every block you can copy-paste, and the older "shared" (remember that?) would have sounded like "sharing to the repository".

"Synced" brings to mind cloud storage, which is pretty close to how the feature works. Additionally, it is something that could not be applied to standard blocks or patterns. You wouldn't say a Paragraph block is synced to any others, and in fact, the most obvious difference between reusable blocks and patterns is that the latter is explicitly not synced.

Thinking of other apps
"Stored Info Blocks"
"Canned snippets"
"Content snippets" (:-)

I personally think that the word "synced" is a bit confusing. It makes sense when you know how these blocks work, but I don't think it really improves things for a new user. It's also kind of a tricky word on its own and is not common vernacular.

What about a more general term that emphasizes that these blocks are used throughout the user's website. I am thinking something like "Global" blocks?

I personally think that the word "synced" is a bit confusing.

I agree. For a non-specialist, this really doesn't have any meaning. I think global is an improvement. How about "site wide"?

What do the major page builders call them? Because they have had them for years before Gutenberg.

Aren't reusable blocks really a collection of reusable blocks? And is that collection really anything different from a widget area? I think if WordPress 5.x were to drop down from the sky brand new to us today, it would be hard to explain to someone how a widget area filled with blocks was any different from what we now call reusable blocks.

Reusable blocks are really a powerful thing, but it feels like they have been poorly managed by core.

What do the major page builders call them? Because they have had them for years before Gutenberg.

• Avada: global elements
• Beaver Builder: (saved) global modules/columns/rows
• Brizy: global blocks
• Divi: global modules/rows/sections
• Elementor: global widgets
• Oxygen Builder: reusable parts
• Visual Composer: global templates

Global blocks sounds better to me, reminds me about global variables with global scope. Synced blocks imply sincronization even for the first time of being created. Also, the word synced is too long for a lot of languages.

I maintain a reference page to explain the multiple block types. Hopefully this add context for those picking a name that is descriptive not just to authors but also compared to the other block-types. Naming is hard, so it’s great to see the effort here.

https://brain.vandragt.com/books/wordpress/page/blocks-in-simple-english

I would suggest as the aim is to surface content in multiple places, to use the word Content instead of Blocks as part of the name. Perhaps something like Global Content?

My vote goes to "global". It's intuitive even in non-English world.

I would suggest as the aim is to surface content in multiple places, to use the word Content instead of Blocks as part of the name. Perhaps something like Global Content?

That's an interesting idea. Again I come back to the question of what, on a practical level, is the difference between a group of reusable blocks an a widget area made of blocks? If they are all just groups of blocks with content, how are they essentially different?

+1 to Global Blocks.

I think "Synced Blocks" is fine but something like "Global Blocks" would be fine too. Unless it would be too confusing with "Global Styles", which is already set?

Looking at other software, for example Notion, their terminology is "Synced Blocks" too for that type of content.

I agree that the name "reusable block" should be changed... But like all others above, I don't believe that "synced block" would be the best choice.
Reusable blocks are pieces of content that the user has customized and saved on their site so they can be reused & synchronized everywhere on their site. And it's also important to consider that it can be more than a single block. I can have a collection of blocks nested inside a group saved as a reusable-block... So even the term "block" is inaccurate in this case.
It's a user-created, personalized, site-wide, synchronized piece of content.
With that in mind, I'd propose the term Personalized Content.

The term "global" is familiar because most other page-builders also use it... but that should not be a real concern IMO.
If all others are doing something sub-optimal, that's no reason for us to follow blindly with the excuse that it's familiar.

"Global Blocks" makes the most sense to me.

By using "synced blocks" it's inferred they're synced somewhere - is that off-site? Is it a backup mechanism?

By using something more descriptive, like "Global Blocks" I think it's more clearly defines what they are.

Quick +1 for the term Global Blocks, for many of the reasons others have previously said.

Reusable blocks are pieces of content that the user has customized and saved on their site so they can be reused & synchronized everywhere on their site. And it's also important to consider that it can be more than a single block. I can have a collection of blocks nested inside a group saved as a reusable-block... So even the term "block" is inaccurate in this case.
It's a user-created, personalized, site-wide, synchronized piece of content.
With that in mind, I'd propose the term Personalized Content.

I agree that "block" might also be confusing since it can be a collection of blocks as well as a single block. However, every block is/can be "user-created, personalized". So I do not feel that the "Personalized" gets to the root of what this type of content is. So I could see either "Global Blocks" or "Global Content".

The term "global" is familiar because most other page-builders also use it... but that should not be a real concern IMO.
If all others are doing something sub-optimal, that's no reason for us to follow blindly with the excuse that it's familiar.

I actually think it being familiar is the greatest asset to "global". I am not saying it is the perfect, but it's recognizable and we are already using it in "Global Styles". Furthermore, those that are coming back to core WordPress from page-builders will instantly recognize the functionality and understand it.

I actually think it being familiar is the greatest asset to "global". I am not saying it is the perfect, but it's recognizable and we are already using it in "Global Styles". Furthermore, those that are coming back to core WordPress from page-builders will instantly recognize the functionality and understand it.

I'm mostly trying to think of what a new user, someone who has never seen WordPress or a builder will think.
Does the term "global block" make sense without having the context and experience of another, 3rd-party builder?
Is there maybe some other term we can use that will make more sense than something that a random page-builder chose a decade ago and then all other builders adopted because marketing?

Don't beat me but I'm starting to think that "reusable content" is the most accurate descriptor for this concept. The whole idea - from user's perspective - is about the content piece that can be used in multiple places. Not about the block-based construction (where patterns play their role).
EN is not my mother language so I cannot judge if there's anything tasting bad in the word "reusable" in this context.

What is the process for deciding these issues?

Picking up on the points raised so far:
From my experience, the main issue I've observed with 'Reusable Blocks' is that new/novice users edit them without realising they're changing other parts of the site.... and it could take a long time until they realise, if ever.

So: 'global', 'sitewide' or 'synced' are all an improvement - but I still think synced is the most effective way of dealing with this problem as it helps people to understand how they work and the ramifications. Perhaps the "are you ready to save" interface could be changed to: "are you ready to sync"? Notion explain the concept well.

I accept that 'global' is commonly used, but the end user, part time content editor is unlikely to be familiar with 'global styles'.

Content v Blocks v Widgets
Widgets and blocks are somewhat interchangeable terms. The difference between "content" and "widget", could be explained as: "site authors create content - in the content area, whereas widgets could be embedded from other sites and mostly appear in sidebars, etc". 'Synced Widget' doesn't really make sense as most site builders know that editing any widget is a sitewide change.... but do end users know that?

My vote is for 'Synced Content'

I agree with the previous contributors who've stated "global" is a better term than synced. Synced, as noted, makes it seem like you're moving the blocks to and from some other server (ie Cloud syncing).

Global is a term that's been used by lots of page builders and other tools, and I think will properly invoke the idea that "this is a block that when I change it here, I change it everywhere."

It's also worth remembering the similarities between Reusable Blocks and the full site editing Template Parts. Come to think of it... what exactly are the differences between the two? A Template Part is basically just a glorified Reusable Block provided by the theme, isn't it? Or am I forgetting something?

what exactly are the differences between the two?

This is the point I was trying to raise.

I also question calling them reusable/global blocks since they are really a group of blocks. At least they can be.

Currently the mechanics of Template Parts and Reusable Blocks are virtually identical, and for all intents and purposes one can be interchanged with another. But this probably wont always be the case.

The nuance is their intended purpose... Template Parts are reusable sections of layout that can be used across multiple templates. Consequently it is possible to assign semantic meaning to them, for example one might be defined as a Header, or a Footer.

We're only really scratching the surface of what this unlocks, but for now it means you are able to swap one header for another directly while editing a template. As block themes and the pattern directory mature a need will arise to surface contextual patterns that have been designed for these semantic purposes in the editor. IE when I'm editing my web site header I should be able to browse block patterns that have been designed for that purpose.

My 2c is that it doesn't make sense to insert Template Parts unless you're editing a template (although currently you can insert them anywhere 🥲), and therein lies the distinction. Reusable Blocks are to content, what Template Parts are to templates.

None of this really helps with what to call Reusable Blocks, but I just wanted to share the context :)

I also question calling them reusable/global blocks since they are really a group of blocks. At least they can be.

Technically, a reusable block could still be considered a "block", in the same sense that a Group or Columns is a block. It's just a block that is designed to contain other blocks. Additionally, the editor presents reusable blocks a lot like a Group or Columns: it is a single unit, complete with a single toolbar for moving, transforming, and performing other block-level actions. And on a technical level, it's literally a single block:

<!-- wp:block {"ref":1337} /-->

There is a caveat, however: reusable blocks generate no surrounding markup of their own, and thus have no boundaries on the front-end. There's been some discussion (#17640) about adding alignment controls to reusable blocks, which would require adding real wrapper markup, but I don't know if such a change is desirable. (It would make reusable block markup a bit more consistent between editor and front-end, though I wonder if the same could be accomplished with display: contents.)

Still, from the editor's perspective, the reusable block is just as much a block as a Paragraph, Group, or Template Part.

So I'd argue that having "block" in the title is completely accurate. However, that doesn't mean calling it a block is useful. Everything shown in the inserter is either a block or a list of blocks (AKA patterns), so whatever we end up calling reusable blocks, I don't think they necessarily have to contain "block" in the title.

On another note, I think both "global" and "synced" are improvements over "reusable", and I'd be happy with either. Both are more exclusively descriptive of the feature than reusable... at least in my mind. I do personally prefer "synced", but since "global" is already so widely used, I think it would be fine to go with that for the sake of familiarity.

"Reusable" is a term that could just as easily apply to Patterns, but I wouldn't think of "global" nor "synced" as applying to them. So in my mind, that's a definitive improvement in terms of distinguishing the purpose of Patterns versus Reusable Blocks.

One thing I would say is that you can describe a navigation menu, a widget area, or a template parts as a "synced block" or "global block". They all fit the description. So in this context perhaps the label is one level above where it should be.

Since there is already some confusion amongst these concepts (Template Parts and Reusable Blocks in particular), could this be an opportunity to add some clarity by coming up with a name that better indicates the content-centric nature of Reusable Blocks?

I don't think they necessarily have to contain "block" in the title

I agree.

It is nice to see all the activity going on here! One major reason is this article by Sarah Gooding at
https://wptavern.com/gutenberg-contributors-propose-renaming-reusable-blocks
(There are additional naming comments under the article.)

One comment on that article that stood out to me was this one by Yui:

What about “My blocks” ? It emphasises them belonging to personal (or site) library of blocks, somewhat personal to user.

We’re using this term in russian WordPress translation instead of ‘Reusable blocks’ , there been some discussions about renaming that or finding another term, but ‘My blocks’ has also good point.

I've actually seen this exact terminology before in the LEGO Mindstorms NXT-G visual programming system. The drag-and-drop elements you pieced together to create programs were called "blocks", and you could save a group of them as a "My Block", which was essentially the equivalent of a function. My Blocks were literally the "reusable blocks" of NXT-G.

(In hindsight, it's really funny that people often use LEGO bricks to describe Gutenberg blocks, since LEGO had already used the blocks terminology over a decade earlier to describe a remarkably similar concept.)

However, I would not recommend the usage of "my blocks" as the terminology, mainly because it seems ripe for confusion with custom block types. I just thought it would be interesting to point out that there's actually a precedent for using the term "my blocks" for something remarkably similar.