AVID:Requests for Comment/Availability rename: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
#{{Oppose}} per others. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Oppose}} per others. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
===Comments=== |
===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? [[User:Rainbow Puppy|Rainbow Puppy]] ([[User talk:Rainbow Puppy|talk]]) 23:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) |
* 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? [[User:Rainbow Puppy|Rainbow Puppy]] ([[User talk:Rainbow Puppy|talk]]) 23:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
__NOTOC__ |
__NOTOC__ |
||
Revision as of 23:38, 29 August 2023
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)
Support
Abstain
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose per others.
· Talk · Edits 22:55, 29 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)
