AVID:Requests for Comment/Availability rename: Difference between revisions
Reverted edits made by ForcedExcess26 (talk) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
<s>*{{Oppose}} no just no [[User:ForcedExcess26|ForcedExcess26]] ([[User talk:ForcedExcess26|talk]]) 20:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|||
**Why not? The "Sources" term sounds a lot more simple than the "Availability" term. Plus, community consensus exists for a reason. [[User:Rainbow Puppy|Rainbow Puppy]] ([[User talk:Rainbow Puppy|talk]]) 20:28, 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. [[User:Rainbow Puppy|Rainbow Puppy]] ([[User talk:Rainbow Puppy|talk]]) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
Revision as of 21:07, 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)
