AVID:Requests for Comment/Restructure and Rename the Availability Section: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
Solarstrike (talk | contribs) Forgot to mention this. |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
#{{Support|Strongest}} Yep. I'm going to rename every single page (except Logo Variations and Trailer Variations) from "Availability" to "Appearances." [[File:Eliternal Text signature.png|50px|link=User:Eliternal12349]] ([[User talk:Eliternal12349|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Eliternal12349|Edits]]) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Support|Strongest}} Yep. I'm going to rename every single page (except Logo Variations and Trailer Variations) from "Availability" to "Appearances." [[File:Eliternal Text signature.png|50px|link=User:Eliternal12349]] ([[User talk:Eliternal12349|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Eliternal12349|Edits]]) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
#:i mean, you can't really do that yet [[User:NancerAVID|NancerAVID]] ([[User talk:NancerAVID|talk]]) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#:i mean, you can't really do that yet [[User:NancerAVID|NancerAVID]] ([[User talk:NancerAVID|talk]]) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
#'''''Stronger than''''' {{Support|Strongest}} per others. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 15:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#'''''Stronger than''''' {{Support|Strongest}} for removal of "don't expect" phrase per others. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 15:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
#{{Support|strong}} for removing "Don't expect" phrase, but... ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Support|strong}} for removing "Don't expect" phrase, but... ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
#{{Support}} I'm also going to throw in my hat in the ring with my own proposal - a more stringent and rigorous means of determining the appearance "tiers", because I have been seeing more logos lately showing up as "rare" or even "near extinction" despite them not really being hard to find or rare with some effort and cash...only because they show up on prints from the 80s or 90s on VHS or something like that. We need a serious reworking of how to determine which logos really are rare and which people are only saying are "rare" because they're old - because otherwise, we're only making rare logos for the sake of them. As for how to deal with that, we could work that through in a separate RfC. [[User:Solarstrike|Solarstrike]] ([[User talk:Solarstrike|talk]]) 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Support}} I'm also going to throw in my hat in the ring with my own proposal - a more stringent and rigorous means of determining the appearance "tiers", because I have been seeing more logos lately showing up as "rare" or even "near extinction" despite them not really being hard to find or rare with some effort and cash...only because they show up on prints from the 80s or 90s on VHS or something like that. We need a serious reworking of how to determine which logos really are rare and which people are only saying are "rare" because they're old - because otherwise, we're only making rare logos for the sake of them. As for how to deal with that, we could work that through in a separate RfC. [[User:Solarstrike|Solarstrike]] ([[User talk:Solarstrike|talk]]) 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
#{{Oppose|strong}} for renaming the section. I don't see anything wrong with it. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Oppose|strong}} for renaming the section. I don't see anything wrong with it. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
#{{Oppose|strong}} for rename per Logohub. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
Revision as of 16:03, 11 January 2023
After talks in forums, it is decided that this RfC has been created. This RfC is to state that the changes ʃall be to: completely obliterate the use of the word "expect" and state that only confirmed appearances can go in the section, and to change the name to either "Appearances" or "Confirmed Appearances" to comply with the new reformations. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Votes
Support
Support in the name of God, Heaven and Hell, everything in between, every creature on Earth, by the far reaches of the galaxy, by the inner rims of the universe, and every megaverse in the ultraverse, let it be known, let the word be known: Yes, we need to obliterate "Don't expect" from the pages because, as you mentioned, it is violating a rule (and also I quoted the angry video game nerd btw)IAmThe789Guy (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- Support Yep. I'm going to rename every single page (except Logo Variations and Trailer Variations) from "Availability" to "Appearances."
(Talk/Edits) 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- i mean, you can't really do that yet NancerAVID (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Stronger than Support for removal of "don't expect" phrase per others.
· Talk · Edits 15:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - Support for removing "Don't expect" phrase, but... Logohub (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support I'm also going to throw in my hat in the ring with my own proposal - a more stringent and rigorous means of determining the appearance "tiers", because I have been seeing more logos lately showing up as "rare" or even "near extinction" despite them not really being hard to find or rare with some effort and cash...only because they show up on prints from the 80s or 90s on VHS or something like that. We need a serious reworking of how to determine which logos really are rare and which people are only saying are "rare" because they're old - because otherwise, we're only making rare logos for the sake of them. As for how to deal with that, we could work that through in a separate RfC. Solarstrike (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
Oppose for renaming the section. I don't see anything wrong with it. Logohub (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- Oppose for rename per Logohub. · Talk · Edits 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
