Template talk:List of global renamers

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Home wiki[edit]

Since the global renamers page refers to the home wiki, a column should probably be included for this field. –xeno 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. I left some blank if I didn't know, and a couple are probably wrong, if someone else wants to double-check. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find this column unnecessary. Many users work on multiple projects and don't have a clear "homewiki", and global renamers probably mostly restrict themselves to requests in their main language (which also the part in the policy is about), if any, as they are theoretically allowed to process requests by any user. Vogone (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global renamers are currently being appointed based on their holding bureaucrat rights at one or more home wikis and the current version of the global renamers page indicates Global renamers should focus on requests from their home wiki, with the potential to expand to requests from other projects as they gain experience with global renaming.xeno 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken here. Global renamers are appointed based on a 14-days-long discussion on SRGP, for current bureaucrats merely a "speedy process" until 2015 exists. You aren't required to hold bureaucrat permissions on any wiki to obtain this right. And that sentence you quoted above probably refers rather to language than a specific wiki, as the second part of that sentence indicates. If we blindly followed the home wiki interpretation, SRUC requests would only be handled by metawiki users and global renamers from wikis which abolished their username change request page had exactly nothing to do. The only reason I could think of why such a restriction would exist, is the language barrier. I believe that sentence in the policy needs rewording. @Ajraddatz: If I am completely wrong, please enlighten me. I imagine you know the best why it was worded that way. Vogone (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. However, with the guidance in the policy that global renamers should stick to their home projects to ensure that they are handling cases of which they know the relevant username policy, I think the column in the table is useful. If people wanted to list multiple, or none at all, that would be fine too I think. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Global renamers#Scope: "The purpose of this group is to allow users who are experienced bureaucrats on individual projects to help with the global renaming process..." [emph. mine], (though this is getting a little off-topic, discussions about whether bureaucrat rights are a prerequisite should be held elsewhere) –xeno 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trijnstel: if home wiki is not relevant to actions of global renamers, please remove the line from the proposed policy page which refers to it. (or perhaps it is meant to say "focus on requests on projects where they hold bureaucrat rights in which the page should be reworded and the column reinstated with a different heading such as "bureaucrat on" or something) –xeno 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xeno: Sorry, missed this. The wording "home wiki" is imho confusing as everyone defines their home wiki differently. So like I said: "not everyone is a crat on their homewiki, some have multiple homewikis, some have none, and homewiki isn't relevant for renamings either" - I still believe it's not relevant since the language skills of the global renamers are more useful. But I missed the line in the global renamers page about the "home wiki" and yes, I think it's better to reword it to what you proposed (and some are a crat on multiple wikis so I guess it's indeed useful to know on which projects they're a crat). Later on if we appoint global renamers with no crat experience, I think we should remove that line. Still: the global policy is the only policy we will rely on when SUL finalisation is complete. Trijnsteltalk 14:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Home wikis are relevant for renamings, in this case, since global renamers are given the direction to rename primarily from there. But "bureaucrat on" might be more appropriate. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last update not working[edit]

Using "last update" here is not optimal. When seeing this page from Global renamers the line from last updated it taken from Global renamers not from this template. Right now, this template says "2014-10-01" but in page Global renamers it says "2014-09-26" (and that is correct for that page). /Hangsna (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it and it should be updated manually from now on. --Glaisher (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Hasley, I think the automatic list will be useful in this place, since it is almost impossible to guess that it is at the bottom :) Iniquity (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restore it, but I do not think it is appropriate to have redundant links, particularly considering that the parent page is translatable but this not (so we cannot translate the "automatic list" part ). Sgd. —Hasley 20:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasley I thought to use TNT template for this :) Iniquity (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{TNT}} is not needed (and should not work). It should now be possible to add translatable content using template parameters. Sgd. —Hasley 20:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hasley, yes, I already saw it, thanks :) Iniquity (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]