Temperament naming: Difference between revisions

Line 34:

* The previous name is fairly new (within the last year).

Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename.

Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename. With that said...

~~Importantly, if there is not~~ at least one strong reason ~~in favor of a rename, then~~ the previous name ~~absolutely must~~ not ~~have received much usage~~ (~~considering usage by people other than~~ the ~~inventor/~~proposer of the name ~~as more significant) for a rename to be considered; if it has received enough usage that a rename would be inconvenient~~ and ~~confusing but~~ there are strong reasons for it, the new name can become the new standard and the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes.

Every rename proposal must have at least one ''strong reason''. The only time it is acceptable for it not to is if the previous name has very little or no usage and the rename does not cause friction (e.g. the recent proposer wants to change the name and there are no objections).

If there are external references (outside of the wiki) beyond the mere proposal of the name, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.

~~In other words~~, ~~whether~~ the ~~old~~ name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning or is moved out of the spotlights ~~depends on whether the old name has received enough usage that it could cause significant confusion~~.

If, however, a name has received enough usage outside the wiki that a rename would be ''significantly'' inconvenient and confusing and/or if there is a very large amount of usage on the wiki so that many people may have seen and remembered the previous name, the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes. The only exception to this rule is if the name is NSFW, in which case it should be at the very least moved out of the spotlights if not removed entirely.

This summary of conventions aims to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. Minor reasons may be included if they are abstract in nature rather than overly specific in application.

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 * The previous name is fairly new (within the last year).
-Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename.
+Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename. With that said...
-Importantly, if there is not at least one strong reason in favor of a rename, then the previous name absolutely must not have received much usage (considering usage by people other than the inventor/proposer of the name as more significant) for a rename to be considered; if it has received enough usage that a rename would be inconvenient and confusing but there are strong reasons for it, the new name can become the new standard and the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes.
+Every rename proposal must have at least one ''strong reason''. The only time it is acceptable for it not to is if the previous name has very little or no usage and the rename does not cause friction (e.g. the recent proposer wants to change the name and there are no objections).
 If there are external references (outside of the wiki) beyond the mere proposal of the name, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.
-In other words, whether the old name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning or is moved out of the spotlights depends on whether the old name has received enough usage that it could cause significant confusion.
+If, however, a name has received enough usage outside the wiki that a rename would be ''significantly'' inconvenient and confusing and/or if there is a very large amount of usage on the wiki so that many people may have seen and remembered the previous name, the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes. The only exception to this rule is if the name is NSFW, in which case it should be at the very least moved out of the spotlights if not removed entirely.
 This summary of conventions aims to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. Minor reasons may be included if they are abstract in nature rather than overly specific in application.