AVID:Requests for Comment/Availability rename

The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unsuccessful due to overwhelming early opposition and author withdrawal. --Raidarr (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Why rename Availability?

I wasn't aware of a recent revamp until very recently. But I would've support it as I'm sick of the Availability scale.

Anyways given its current direction, I honestly think it should be renamed into something like "Sources". The "Availability" term just sounds kinda ridiculous at this point, so I think it needed to be changed to sound more simple and better.

Also, terms like "rare" and "common" should still be in use, but like with Legacy, those terms should have importance or community consensus behind it.

Here is an example of how it could be in use if this RFC passes:

Sources: This is perhaps the rarest logo on this wiki. 15 years of searching have yielded only a partial recording.

Rainbow Puppy (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose no just no ForcedExcess26 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Why not? The "Sources" term sounds a lot more simple than the "Availability" term. Plus, community consensus exists for a reason. Rainbow Puppy (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Oppose It sounded like a decent idea, until you provided your reasoning, especially with that example you provided. The new name does not line up well with something such as community consensus-based rarity. Camenati (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I missed that other RfC. Nevertheless, renamin' the section "Sources" isn't a bad idea, but your reasoning ruined it for me, so for that reason, I'm out. --AUnnamedDragon 6:46 PM, August 29, 2023 (CET)
3. Oppose per others. · Talk · Edits 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per everyone else (What you gonna do when clip-ons come for you!?) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose, as your proposal doesn't show how it would improve AVID, but rather just claims that one term is "ridiculous". Eternity Media Group (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose, same issues as above, quite frankly. --Azve (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose because your reasoning does not justify why we should remove this section. You say that "Availability is just ridiculous", so you are only bringing subjectivity into this argument without any objective reasoning. Think of what would be beneficial for the wiki and the community, not just yourself. Compooper (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose The Availability name is fine as it is. No need to change the name. -InfinityRoberts- (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
9. re Oppose Per everyone ForcedExcess26 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose You know what, I realized that this idea I came up with is extremely stupid. The Availability section is already seen as fine as is. Rainbow Puppy (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Per those opposes, welp should we just rename Availability and not anything else? I don’t wanna cause drama, but the rarities and common statuses of logos like T.A.T. Communications Company and Sony Pictures Television are kinda important. If any user is to abandon user consensus, are we gonna remove the Legacy section from the site? Rainbow Puppy (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.