With naming what IMO matters more than choosing one name, is choosing a name that is consistent with other similar names in the codebase. A new developer will learn your project's specific convention in a few minutes, but will be completely lost if the convention is routinely violated here and there. This is especially important with what verbs to use in methods, and how to name interfaces/classes in a way that respects both the business domain and the techical use.

I've seen way too many times how much confusion is created and time wasted when a developer not too familiar with the project comes up with a brand new verb for a common action, and couples it with a new synonym for an existing business domain entity – or worse still, uses the same name previously meant for a completely different domain entity.

The unfortunate burden with this is that a new developer might be right that their name is better for their use case, which then leads to laboursome debates about which is more important: consistency or slightly crisper name for the one use case.

Naming gets far worse than that. I've worked on code where the naming was not just unhelpful, it was outright misleading. One of the worst I remember was a project which unsurprisingly was named after a game of thrones character. As I never watched game of thrones it took me about two weeks before I could even remember the stupid name, during which time I was also dumbfounded as to how the program worked until I realised the naming in the code was equally bad, completely misleading. Then there's the place where the stg1 environment was actually the dev0 environment...

It's one way to achieve job security for life though: https://github.com/Droogans/unmaintainable-code