Funnily enough, one of my prime complaints with the Git disassemblies are that they *don't* have any standard. Shit changes between them like crazy, no standard assembler, no standard macro operations, nothing. It's essentially a headless train, hoping that people hang on. It's not to say the Git disassemblies didn't bring some improvements with them; it's that the intent got muddled down into a mess that ends up alienating both crowds while finding an odd niche at the same time. Yeah, we'll never get 100% agreement on data splitting organization, but we can at least attempt to find a compromise of divide where a general consensus can work. Honestly, the Git disassemblies have this problem where they try to be as ROM-accurate as possible, to the point that it becomes unfriendly to users. For research, that's all well and good, as the intent is to study and understand and document. To someone whose intent is to get in and modify, though, there's stupid hoops to go through because people pored over bit-for-bit accuracy to the point of assembler hackarounds and other engineering to make it assemble exactly as the original ROM. There's plenty room for disassemblies that try to be consistent in labeling and data division, as well as not being anal and self-defeating with perfect build accuracy. But this is something that requires a lot more proper discussion and hashing out to get in a more solid state, so I'll leave it there for now. I've really thought through the subject, though, and I'm sure others have as well, and there's plenty of space for a happy medium that bridges the divide between the old and new and make things forward-compatible. I've mulled on similar, actually. The current username changing system is abused to crap, and it makes identification of users a total pain in the ass. This is unhelpful and unintuitive, and the feature may be steadily phased out entirely. We'll give word on a final decision regarding that, but your issues are pretty solid with the name-changing.