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

From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum

Revision as of 23:17, 2 November 2022 by Hb1290 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 or...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.