Audiovisual Identity Database:Requests for Comment/Define appropriate use for Requests for Comment

It appears to me that RFCs are starting to be misused for trivial matters. Specifically, there's multiple discussions like AVID:Requests for Comment/Merge the 1st and 2nd Gracie Films logos (alongside other logos nearly identical in appearance) and AVID:Requests for Comment/Separate 1953 and 1956 TCF logos that are far more suited to article talk pages. Therefore I'd like to propose adding the following to the header section of AVID:Requests for Comment in order to clarify the purpose of this mechanism:

"RFCs should be opened about matters concerning the wiki as a whole, such as policy changes, enabling and disabling extensions, and features and ideas which would have significant effect on the wiki as a whole. Do not use this page to start discussions on page-specific matters, such as merges, splits, single category renames or deletions, except where a dispute pertaining to a single page is so significant that discussion on the article talk page has failed to effectively resolve it."

Talk · Edits 23:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support · Talk · Edits 23:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
2. One. Hundred. Percent.
   Support in the world. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Yeah, unless it's something that would a huge impact or nobody can agree on what should be done, I don't think we need to have RFCs for requests regarding certain pages like merging, adding or separating. Those kinds of discussions are way better suited for the talk page(s) of the affected article(s) or on the Forums. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Requests for Comment are meant to be used exclusively for things such as policy changes and changes which would require community consensus as they'd be big, not for trivial things like the examples given in the foreword of this RfC. Their use for anything else can be construed as misuse. I was actually going to post a message on those RfCs to clarify what the purpose of an RfC is as consensus for those trivial things should instead be sought at a different community venue such as the talk page of the page or the forums. Usage of RfCs for trivial things is akin to a country's legislature passing a law on whether a specific person should eat pizza or meatloaf for dinner, just silly overall. Agent Isai (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support I agree. Blad (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Support as per Isai. MinistrycraftEntertainment (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
7. Support, again per Isai. Not really much to say, really. Solarstrike (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

This discussion was hidden by site staff for the following reason: Disruptive arguing stemming from a now-retracted vote. Talk · Edits

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. # Oppose I don't know. Seems kinda mean. CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC) just mad because your memorial template didnt pass? ;) ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC) braah. just because I oppose doesn't mean i'm mad ;/ CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) you were really vague on your reasoning this is a fair idea to me so i dont know why you decided to oppose it other than "seems kinda mean" ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC) baaaaaaaah 🐏 CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC) you are impossible conversation over ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC) im a sheep baaaaaaaah 🐏 look, all im saying is that the wording could have been a little better. Like, how about something simpler? Like "you shouldn't do stuff that is for the forums here" or something like that. Aight? CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC) also, why would I be mad at something I opposed myself? CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)