Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Draft

message: I think including the usurpation policy/process in this is a mistake - that's really an operational (how to) project page that's best just referred to.  In other words, there is no synergy in combining it here; it's going to essentially be a cut-and-paste, which reduces the total word count only by a tiny amount (the cross-reference).  Contrast that to sock puppet info, where there was a sizable overlap.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with separating policy from process, as long as there isn't much overlap; for instance, there's very little overlap between Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process. --ais523 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including usurpation? 

message: The most important part of the policy, inappropriate usernames, seems even more subjective than before. Considering the incredibly poor state of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (aka Usernames for Deletion), we really need to hammer out this part. What names are "too long"? What names are "apparently random"? What names are "offensive"? --- RockMFR 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Two specific suggestions: I would suggest that the bit about using well known names says "unless it is verified". Noting on the userpage doesn't mean anything - I could claim on my userpage that I'm secretly Laura Bush, but that doesn't mean it's true. If, however, I sent an email from firstlady.gov, or whatever Laura's email address is, that's pretty definitive. Also, the current policy doesn't disallow referring to religion, only using the names of religious figures. I think it should stay this way, rather than forbidding any reference to religion. Natalie 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly this came from the earlier policy. "Too long" isn't on there at all. "Apparently random" refers to User:fjkfshdjkfsdhn and so forth. "Offensive" is clearly defined on the page. Tweaked page per your comments. >Radiant< 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I never personally had a problem figuring out "too long" or "random" and offensive is in the eye of the beholder, which we do specify. I think the problem with delineating "too long" or similar is that, frankly, kids with nothing better to do will try to get as close to disallowed as they can without getting blocked, which wastes everyone's time. But other's may have had more problems in this area than myself. Natalie 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate usernames 

message: The previous version made a few mentions to the GFDL, but this version is a bit too generic about it ("potentially violate copyrights"). --- RockMFR 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GFDL

message: I had never heard of this before today. Is there really anything substantial to this at all? Might it be better to focus that section on shared account in general, rather than getting into the obscure trivia of role accounts? --- RockMFR 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Role' accounts

message: Since when are these disallowed? This seems iffy, considering that most given names do not derive from English. I understand that leetspeak that be used to imitate an established contributor, but if we start disallowing non-English and leetspeak we are going to have to block at least 1/3 of the new names registered. Natalie 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thank you for the clarification. Just reading too fast, I guess... Natalie 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non English/Leet Speak 

message: The use of real names on WP has been a bone of contention on another essay/talkpage recently, and I feel the line The best username is typically your real name, a longstanding Internet nickname...places too much emphasis on choosing a real name, even so much to make a new reader believe it is the preferred option. I would suggest something along the lines of
*"The best username is one you are already familiar with, such as your real name or an already existing Internet username,..."
and then the Wiki specific choice. This may help to reassure new editors who may be put off by a perceived preference for real names. I'd rather find consensus for this than amend the first line of the first section, though. LessHeard vanU 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps making it clear that by "real name" we don't necessarily mean first, last, and middle initial. For example, one of the names I picked is my real first name, but the Wikipedia ID I chose certainly isn't my legal first and last name. I like your rephrasing - it makes it clear that we are saying that a real name can be a good choice because it is one the user is familiar with, not for some other arbitrary reason. Natalie 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your quote lacks the rest of the sentence, which clearly states "... OR a pseudonym". >Radiant< 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that by suggesting three choices, with a comma parameter between each, there is a suggestion that it is in descending order of preference; first, your real name, second, a internet nickname and, third, or a pseudonym. My suggestion is that a "real name" or established identity is one suggestion and the equal alternative is the pseudonym. Perhaps it is more a case of not having the word "best" at the beginning of the sentence, but a more neutral alternative? LessHeard vanU 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have no problem with that, feel free to edit the page. >Radiant< 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I tweaked it a bit to remove the use of best, and also suggest that a name could be based on your real or internet names(s) per Natalie's comments. LessHeard vanU 19:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  real names as usernames