AVID:Requests for Comment/Outlaw section removal RFCs: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
m (added Category:Closed Requests for Comment using HotCat) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa"> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
::Closing as '''no consensus''', with equal amounts of Support and Abstain votes. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
This is one I have seen a lot. |
This is one I have seen a lot. |
||
There have been multiple RFCs lately that ask to remove a section in a page. |
There have been multiple RFCs lately that ask to remove a section in a page. |
||
If we keep removing sections (which most have been on the wiki since a while), we will eventually end up with just Logo as a category. |
If we keep removing sections (which most have been on the wiki since a while), we will eventually end up with just Logo as a category. |
||
This is getting out of hand and while some like Nicknames and FX/SFX one has more sense, some like Trivia are starting to rock the boat with how much there are. So I suggest after we either pass or fail the one for FX/SFX (which I hope we pass personally), that we outlaw these types of RFC's entirely. Want more proof? Go to the oppose section of the Trivia RFC and you will see why we should outlaw these. [[File:Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png|200px|link=User:CharlieFiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:CharlieFiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 21:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) |
This is getting out of hand and while some like Nicknames and FX/SFX one has more sense, some like Trivia are starting to rock the boat with how much there are. So I suggest after we either pass or fail the one for FX/SFX (which I hope we pass personally), that we outlaw these types of RFC's entirely. Want more proof? Go to the oppose section of the Trivia RFC and you will see why we should outlaw these. [[File:Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png|200px|link=User:CharlieFiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:CharlieFiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 21:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I should note that there have been, out of 43 RfCs, 6 requests even slightly related to sections (not including this one), and 3 requests related to removing a section, at least at the time of writing this. This request is way too silly, as it's barely been clogging the RfCs. If there were a higher number of people making these requests, I would be able to support it, but there hasn't. Thus, I cannot support this request in the slightest. --''[[User:Blad|<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad</span>]]'' ([[User_talk:Blad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blad|contribs]] • [[mh:meta:Special:CentralAuth/Blad|global]]) 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Support== |
==Support== |
||
# {{Support|Strongest}} I feel like these are the worst types of RfCs out there. Overhauls are good, but '''NOT. THESE.''' [[User:JrStudios|JrStudios]] ([[User talk:JrStudios|talk]]) 13:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
# {{Support|Strongest}} I feel like these are the worst types of RfCs out there. Overhauls are good, but '''NOT. THESE.''' [[User:JrStudios|JrStudios]] ([[User talk:JrStudios|talk]]) 13:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
# {{Support|Strongest}} At this rate, we'll just remove the entire wiki [[File:CalvinWilkerson-transformed.png|300px|link=User:CalvinWilkerson]]([[User talk:CalvinWilkerson|The Third Place]]) 13:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
# {{Support|Strongest}} At this rate, we'll just remove the entire wiki [[File:CalvinWilkerson-transformed.png|300px|link=User:CalvinWilkerson]]([[User talk:CalvinWilkerson|The Third Place]]) 13:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
#:based [[User:Setrki Desu|<span style= "color:#f55197">[[User:Setrki Desu|'''SETRKI''']] *</span> <span style="color:#002f87">[[User_Talk:Setrki Desu|''talk_pag''e]] ~</span> ]] ([[User talk:Setrki Desu|talk]]) 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# {{Support|Strongest}} '''''in the world''''' <span style="font-family:'AVID Sans';">Compooper</span> 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
# {{Support|Strongest}} '''''in the world''''' <span style="font-family:'AVID Sans';">Compooper</span> 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
# {{Support|Strongest}} <small><span style="background-color: #FC0; border: 4px ridge #333; -webkit-border-radius: 12px; -moz-border-radius: 12px; border-radius: 8px; padding: 4px;">[[User:DmitriLeon2000|<span style="color:black;">'''DmitriLeon2000'''</span>]] <span style=" background-color: #333; border: 2px outset #333; -webkit-border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; border-radius: 8px; padding: 0px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User talk:DmitriLeon2000|<span style="color:white;">'''TALK'''</span>]]</span> <span style="background-color: #06C; border: 2px outset #36C; -webkit-border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; border-radius: 8px; padding: 0px 4px 0px 4px;">[[Special:Contributions/DmitriLeon2000|<span style="color: white;">'''CONTRIB'''</span>]]</span> <span style="background-color: #033; border: 2px inset #CCC; -webkit-border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; border-radius: 4px; color:#0CC">''02:03, 2 December, 2022 (UTC) ''</span></span></small> |
|||
==Abstain== |
==Abstain== |
||
| Line 16: | Line 23: | ||
==Oppose== |
==Oppose== |
||
#{{oppose|strong}} That is the entire point of an RfC, quote [[AVID:RfC]] here, "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.". If a section is flawed, why keep it? Sure, they can be annoying, but if it's silly, it obviously won't pass. --''[[User:Blad|<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad</span>]]'' ([[User_talk:Blad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blad|contribs]] • [[mh:meta:Special:CentralAuth/Blad|global]]) 17:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#{{oppose|strong}} Per Blad. --[[User:RSX-798|RSX-798]] ([[User talk:RSX-798|talk]]) 00:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Comments== |
|||
---- |
|||
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
</div> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Closed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 08:12, 28 February 2023
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as no consensus, with equal amounts of Support and Abstain votes. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This is one I have seen a lot.
There have been multiple RFCs lately that ask to remove a section in a page.
If we keep removing sections (which most have been on the wiki since a while), we will eventually end up with just Logo as a category.
This is getting out of hand and while some like Nicknames and FX/SFX one has more sense, some like Trivia are starting to rock the boat with how much there are. So I suggest after we either pass or fail the one for FX/SFX (which I hope we pass personally), that we outlaw these types of RFC's entirely. Want more proof? Go to the oppose section of the Trivia RFC and you will see why we should outlaw these. 
(• USER TALK! •) 21:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I should note that there have been, out of 43 RfCs, 6 requests even slightly related to sections (not including this one), and 3 requests related to removing a section, at least at the time of writing this. This request is way too silly, as it's barely been clogging the RfCs. If there were a higher number of people making these requests, I would be able to support it, but there hasn't. Thus, I cannot support this request in the slightest. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Support
Support I feel like these are the worst types of RfCs out there. Overhauls are good, but NOT. THESE. JrStudios (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)- Support At this rate, we'll just remove the entire wiki
(The Third Place) 13:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- based <span style= "color:#f55197">[[User:Setrki Desu|'''SETRKI''']] *</span> <span style="color:#002f87">[[User_Talk:Setrki Desu|''talk_pag''e]] ~</span> (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support in the world Compooper 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support DmitriLeon2000 TALK CONTRIB 02:03, 2 December, 2022 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain I know those RFCs may get annoying and I never expected more RFCs inspired by mine as well. In this case, I will just be mid because I was the one to do the influence with my first RFC. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Abstain I think there should be some restrictions, but not an all out ban, hence, I'll place myself in the abstain. 
(name change coming soon) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain There are valid reasons for suggesting changes to a section of the Wiki, given that lots of it has changed over the years, and sometimes outdated sections need an overhaul. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a change should be made so long as there is a well thought out argument to back up the OP's point. I will agree with the restrictions though, that an RFC proposing a section change should only be opened with a well built up argument in favour of the case. Opening RFCs saying "Well, we're removing all these sections, so let's remove [X] important section!" is very counterintuitive and does not do anything to help our Wiki evolve. All RFC proposals are manually screened by site admins prior to being added to the site, so it would be easy to reject ones created without valid arguments. Luke2505 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose That is the entire point of an RfC, quote AVID:RfC here, "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.". If a section is flawed, why keep it? Sure, they can be annoying, but if it's silly, it obviously won't pass. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 17:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Per Blad. --RSX-798 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
