AVID:Requests for Comment/Ban RFCs requesting renaming sections and the wiki: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:40, 26 December 2022

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

Closing as failed, with an oppose vote majority. Logohub (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we ban any RFCs that request changing the names of sections? I admit I made a huge mistake with this RFC and renaming FX/SFX to Technique and Editor's Note to Legacy is enough! So I would like to see the following line added to the RFC page:

Please do not create an RFC about renaming any sections/descriptions on this wiki!

Also, I like to add the following line to the RFC page due to this RFC that reads:

Please do not create an RFC requesting to change the wiki back to the CLG Wiki name or any other name or it will be closed immediately!

Are any of my proposals any good? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

Support for the wiki renames. I suppose it could be benificial. (name change coming soon) 09:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support for the wiki renaming RfCs. The wiki name is fine the way it is. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 12:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support This is similar to my RFC that was closed as no consensus (even though Support took over most of the votes). (• USER TALK! •) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for the section renames. There can be a valid reason for renaming a section. (name change coming soon) 09:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for real, on the section renaming. I think those RfCs need improvement, like the reason why you want to rename those sections. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂)

Oppose These are rather harmless. For me to support this, I'd like to see a better rationale on why we should ban them. Other than your proposals, nothing of value was argued. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Given enough time there may arise valid reasons for renamings.Thatvhstapeguy (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

Comment:

Are any of my proposals any good?

Scary Logos Section, Remove Trivia, they all speak for themselves. We don't think your proposals are trash (or at least I don't), we just think they need more effort and more bright and out of the box ideas.

(• USER TALK! •) 19:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

they need proper justification as well, rather than just, I think this would be cool

(name change coming soon) 01:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know about the rest of your proposals, but this one clearly runs afoul of this principle. --Raidarr (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Requests for Comment]]
+{{Archive top|Closing as '''failed''', with an oppose vote majority. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 03:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)}}
 Should we ban any RFCs that request changing the names of sections? I admit I made a huge mistake with [[AVID:Requests_for_Comment/New rules for Availability section and other changes|this RFC]] and renaming FX/SFX to Technique and Editor's Note to Legacy is enough! So I would like to see the following line added to the RFC page:
@@ Line 33: / Line 34: @@
 :they need proper justification as well, rather than just, I think this would be cool [[File:MinistrycraftEntertainment-EternityEntertainmentsignature.jpg|50px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 01:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 {{comment}} I don't know about the rest of  your proposals, but this one clearly runs afoul of [[w:WP:AJR|this principle]]. --[[User:Raidarr|Raidarr]] ([[User talk:Raidarr|talk]]) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
+{{Archive bottom}}