AVID:Requests for Comment/Restructure and Rename the Availability Section

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

Closing with the following consensus:

• Passed for removing mentions of the word "expect" and only allow confirmed appearances in the availability section;
•  Failed for renaming the section. Logohub (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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

1. 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)
2. 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)

3. Stronger than Support for removal of "don't expect" phrase per others. · Talk · Edits 15:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support for removing "Don't expect" phrase, but... Logohub (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support for the restructuring and the removal of "Don't expect" and similar phrases (see below for second part). While I'm here, 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)
6. For the restructuring part, Support, but... (The Third Place) 16:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Support for restructuring. This is what the site has needed for a long time, but... Dominicmgm (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Support Absolutely Yes. "Editor's Note" became "Legacy", "FX/SFX" became "Technique", why not this? PokeRapMonster (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
9. Support For the restructuring bit I think the Availability section can do with a restructure! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain I feel like the "Availability" section should be split in 2 - "Current Appearances" and "Past Appearances". Current Appearances would include sightings of a logo anyone could go out and source in the present day, for example, on TV airings, streaming, home video releases (including older non-current releases, such as VHS tapes) or filmreels. Past Appearances would include sources where the logos have been seen in the past, but in the present day have either been cut or plastered with a newer logo, or Station Idents, which often go extinct as soon as they are withdrawn from Use. If logos are current or have no known cases of plastering, this section would not be needed. Luke2505 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   To add to this, the Past Appereances section would also get rid of the "don't expect to see this..." as a result. Luke2505 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   Could do, I guess. Gilby1385 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

2.  Abstain for the renaming part. (The Third Place) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
3.  Abstain for the renaming I think the Availability name should stay so I'm abstaining from the renaming part. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for renaming the section. I don't see anything wrong with it. Logohub (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose for rename per Logohub. · Talk · Edits 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose for the renaming. I don't really care either way, but I feel it's fine as well as per Logohub; but if there's strong arguments in favor of a rename that come up, I could be swayed in favor of it. Solarstrike (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   "Appearances" is a better name than "Availability", in my opinion.

   • "Availability" does not define the presence or appearance of a logo, and adds too much of the overused word "expect".

   • The word "Appearances" defines it way better than "Availability", and completely ditches the use of the word "expect" in all forms. Therefore, it also looks more concise in my opinion. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 16:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose We don't need to rename the section, but we still can rid the section of "Don't expect this to appear on" sentences. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose for the renaming. Per everyone above. Luke2505's idea is good, but splitting it into 2 different sections isn't necessary as it may be a little too complicated to understand ("Current Appearances" sounds like availability on ongoing/recent media more than sightings on newer prints) and the old one is more concise to use. Rather, past and confirmed appearances can be in different sub-sections in the Availability section. Camenati (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

   I'd be open to ideas on better names for that - also they could be subheadings under "Availability" rather than 2 separate sections. I think there is definitely a need, especially on certain pages, to clearly define sources where a logo can be found on prints currently in circulation vs sources the logo used to appear on but no longer does. As an example, the Viacom page is something that could seriously use this revamp. Certain logos (especially the syndication ones such as the V of Doom, V of Steel and Wigga Wigga) seem to have current and past sightings all mashed into one, which has only gotten worse in recent times when CBS have been issuing remastered prints of shows which replace the Viacom logos with their own. This can make it particularly hard for a reader to determine where they may be able to see these logos if they wanted to look for them. Luke2505 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

6. Oppose for the rename. The name is fine as-is. Dominicmgm (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose I liked the availability section the way it is and the Don't expect ones are also really good. Sonictailsknucklesshadow (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

   "Don't expect" phrases are overused. · Talk · Edits 15:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

8. Oppose - we don't need to rename everything for the sake of renaming. Thatvhstapeguy (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

   What about the restructuring part? Is there anything you have against the removal of the overused word "expect"? ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 14:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

9. Oppose It already had a reconstruction and no rename because the old name is fine, so why bother? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

---

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