Talk:Requests for comment/Rename of Kurdish Wikipedia

fnord Let's stop the personal attacks. fnord

Close

Do people still want to rename kuwiki? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Abd has closed this RfC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PRS. I did not see this comment before closing. However, the question is one that really should not be asked here. So even if someone still wants it, this isn't the place. kuwiki is the place, and that should have been obvious from the start. This was classified as a proposal to close, but it wasn't. No closure would have been involved. A renaming is a nuisance, but isn't a closure, other than maybe for a day while scripts go through everything. The user base would have remained the same. The content would have remained the same except for links.

I have no idea what the local politics were. Meta generally stays out of that. 'Twere up to me, RfCs like this would be speedy closed, before they turn into train wrecks. (I've made such speedy closes in the past, when I caught an RfC before it had attracted comment. Those closes have stuck, as I recall.) Indeed, I'd recommend that no RfC be started without some agreement first, i.e., there would be a "proposed RfC." On Enwiki, it takes two users to file an RfC. One drafts it, and the draft may be visible, but it doesn't get listed as an RfC until it has met requirements. The RfC itself, in that early stage, is not open on the RfC page itself, but comments may be collected on the Talk page.

It might be useful to look at the set of RfCs and see what they have accomplished. We have a tendency to do things the way they were always done, regardless of whether that works or not. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposals to change (or create) rules for RFC are probably better on the general talk page, not one of a closed request.

It should however be kept in mind that for renaming wikis (i.e. changing their subdomain) there can also be situations where a rename is necessary for the logical consistency of our projects. It doesn't matter then if the community is against it if they e.g. currently use the ISO code assigned to a different language. But bugzilla:19986 tracks that, and also tells us it is atm technically impossible of course. --MF-W 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MF-W. This is simply small-scale discussion coming out of this particular request, which is why it's here. I don't expect any particular attention to be paid to this, here. If a proposal is to be made for RfC rules, yes, I'd make it on that Talk page. I won't make that request now because I don't yet have a clear idea of exactly how it would work. --Abd (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)