Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names

random

How random is random? When I comment on usernames I think about how hard they'd be for to remember and distinguish from other names - is this acceptable? Dan Beale 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. But you have to remember, what might be distinguishable or memorable for you might not be the same for someone else. For instance, I can never remember Raul654's numbers, although it is very simple for most. I seem to always forget it. And User:Dragonsflight, or Dragons Flight, or Dragon's flight, or whatever it actually is. I just can't seem to get it straight. You are welcome to comment on your opinion, but others may disagree. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is my name easy enough to distinguish? :) Random is usually considered over 5-6 letters that have no meaning or pattern (ie. kfslfg, which I just made by tapping some keys). Another random one would be something like Bob98375935). Usually 4 random things are fine. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Latin yet again

Let's not stick to process please (this user closed early or that user posted after it closed etc) or we're getting nowhere with this. I am assuming everybody strives for the best, so here are my considerations:

1. Non-Latin usernames allowed clearly by WP:U mainly because of m:Help:Unified login (which would otherwise be rendered useless)
2. Naturally very few people on earth have the capacity of reading all scripts, so there are bound to be unintelligible usernames (for most/many/some/few --doesn't matter)

Solution which is already foreseen: WP:U asks politely to tweak signature to Latin.

IMHO the above solution is insufficient, and creates lots of windows for numerous trolls. It also makes it hard for users to locate a username which they cannot type.

Proposed Solution:

• WP:U to clearly state mandatory Latin sigs with either a)the transliteration or b)translation of the foreign username.
• WP:U to clearly require a mandatory Latin user redirect of the same signed name to the foreign userpage.

That, proposed by a Greek. (Copying to WT:U shortly and encouraging discussion there -not here). NikoSilver 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

== non latin ==

The user name policy is clear: non latin chars are allowed. But some people here seem to think that other parts of policy are stronger, especially things like non-random, non-confusing etc. How should people proceed, by comments here, or by comments on the policy page? If very many people here think the policy is not working correctly then can they IAR? Dan Beale 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WT:U Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag as historical

This page is now a joke, we have people complaining left right and centre on any closure of debate. I can assure you I could come to a good policy descision on any username that comes through here, without the need to mass discussion by people. The page is once again turning into a vote and that's why users are getting annoyed when it doesn't go their way. I propose we tag this page as histrocial, UAA can deal with 95% of the usernames that come here - if it's not blatant enough to be blocked by UAA, then let it edit, if there needs to be a discussion, it can happen at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I second this vote. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. And maybe we should add the originally discussed proposal of a discussion section at UAA. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem, we don't need discussion, if its blatant, it will get blocked, if not - then it can edit. AN/I can be used to discuss the major disputes. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)