Wikipedia talk:RfC/User names/Institutional memory

Names to include

I think we should only include terms that required debate on here. Let' leave the more obvious ones off. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template "rfcnindex"

See instructions at {{rfcnindex}} -- or just see how the entries are formatted now.

Besides reducing duplicate typing of usernames, this template lets the date be also a link to the archive entry.

And each indexed name is its own "anchor", for instance Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory#MyBuddha takes you directly to "MyBuddha"'s entry.

Enjoy! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future fomatting of this page/section

Perhaps, as some of these begin to grow, we should consider making subpages with samples, in the format that Ben has devised? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll work best as a one-page index. If it ever grows so big as to become unwieldy, then let's look at that option. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move?

I think it's time we moved Wikipedia:RfC/User names/Institutional memory → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Index by reason , and Wikipedia talk:RfC/User names/Institutional memory → Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names/Index by reason . For one thing, "RfC" isn't the actual name of the hierarchy; for another, "Institutional memory" is too broad a term, applying equally well to the main page history and to the /Archive subpage.

It would be nice to also have an "Index by name", perhaps automated with the same sort of code used to maintain the index-by-section-title of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchives. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow and "no consensus"

I think a distinction should be made between an "allow" decision and a "no consensus" decision. Borisblue 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]