Replying to Forum:Availability Reformation

I am tired of seeing "It is expected to appear on X" and "Do not expect this to appear on X" being used, because it breaks a general rule: Confirmed appearances can only go in the section. Do you think that "It is expected to appear on X" can be removed, so that the section can only have confirmed appearances ("It will appear on X", "It appears on X", and "It did not appear on X")? I do not like the use of the word "expected" in the section.

Glad I'm not the only one annoyed by "Don't expect this to appear on X". I mention that in some RFCs, but the only responses I got were "It's necessary" (simplified). Also, I did a forum post about this comment, but the only one who agreed was Shakla (long gone). The rest of the responses were like "NO, it needs to stay" or whatever.

I agree with this. I've replaced the "don't expect this to appear on X" phrase on some articles. And "it is expected to appear on X" needs to go too.

Apparently, that is the main goal of this forum. Not only we need to remove the phrases that contain the overused word "expect", maybe a new name for Availability can work too, like "Appearances" or, even better, "Confirmed Appearances", as the rule complies "Only confirmed appearances can go in this section".

There is one specific situation where I think "it's expected to appear on X" is valid: when it's a brand new logo and has been stated by the studio to appear on a certain film, e.g. when Disney said that Disney100 would make its debut on Strange World. Outside of this, one is a prediction, and the other breaks the rule of confirmed appearances. So outside of that one, specific situation, they've got to go.

An RfC could be in order regarding Availability.

Good option. We may plan the RfC on reforming and renaming the Availability section.