Talk:Global rename policy
|←Global rename policy||Talk:Global rename policy||Archives→|
Please remember to:
For older conversations you can see the archive index.
Hi. Can "This is of course the case both for users who registered with a violating name, and for users who renamed to such a name." be changed to "This is of course the case both for users who registered with a violating name, and for users who were renamed to such a name." since the user is not the one doing the renaming, but rather the one being renamed. I didn't want to break any meta rules by editing it myself, but I think it should be an uncontroversial correction. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Such kind of copyediting is uncontroversial and welcome. The "must not be edited" part refers to actual change in meaning. --Vogone (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Note about local projects
I added this to the background section of the policy just now. I don't mind reverting if people feel it needs a formal RfC, but I was adding it as a general best practice more than anything else. The immediate cause being this rename/reversal which had been discussed on the list,(pings to PlyrStar93, 28bytes, and Nihlus, all having been involved on it) but there have been discussions about the same concept for around 6 months now and it was what motivated Sakretsu's application for renamer. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Should probably have some sort of community discussion, but I agree that it's a necessary addition. Vermont (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, since the addition was not to the policy itself, but to the background section as a documentation of what amounts to the advice that is given to anyone when they apply or that we eventually end up with when there is a controversy on the list, I thought the "boldly post and see if there are objections or tweaks that can be made" method could be effective. Often these type of discussions happen without anyone ever really updating anything ever, and I think this is a relatively uncontroversial idea where some sort of proof text might be helpful. The policy remains unchanged, but the background reflects what we current best practice is and documents it without imposing any new requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fair and sensible, but do reckon community consensus need to be obtained. Here is fine or maybe a RFC will be more preferable. However, we must be aware of people who are unjustly blocked on projects, or username blocks. In addition, we do need more active Renamers if such a process is going to be the norm as we do have some inactive Renamers which cause some projects to be affected in a way that Prima Facie, they have Renamers but can't be reached in time. --Cohaf (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Of course, I support the addition. I think it's just common sense to put it in writing since discussions have shown we are more or less on the same page about this matter.--Sakretsu (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- On Cohaf's point, I think leaving this thread open is likely fine for community discussion. As Sakretsu has pointed out, anytime there is a controversy/discussion/disagreement, the outcome is almost always "If you don't know the language/project, and it looks controversial, let someone else handle it."
When a reasonable time has passed and people think it's fine, could someone mark this addition for translation? I would, but I'm less than good at fidgeting around with translations. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)