AVID:Requests for Comment/Change the website URL to av.id

Change the website URL to av.id
I think this URL would be much more efficient and quicker to type. NancerAVID (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I support this, but not in the way that it's being proposed, but instead as a 'shortcut URL', like how Twitter has t.co, or the Wikimedia Foundation having w.wiki. It'd be useful for quickly writing down and sharing URLs to pages, although I'm not sure of how it would actually be implemented. LoganStuff (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be down with that. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 19:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds more logical to me. Gilby1385 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) While this might work, the opposers below are making good points. Gilby1385 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sounds good on paper, but we don't have funds. Also, domain should be something like avidlogos.com, not av.id. JrStudios Logo .png(What you gonna do when clip-ons come for you!?) 09:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) both implementing a custom url as well as your chosen name, but for two separate reasons. Regarding the custom name chosen, it's honestly just too short. Luke2505 has suggested we have av.id as the shortened url, while I've proposed avidatabase.org as our primary one. Regarding a custom url in general, I fear that would cost money that we don't have right now. There are plans to start getting money in to put towards miraheze, but right now nothing is happening yet. Until those plans are in motion, I stand strong in my opposition. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding on to this, I highly doubt any member of staff would be willing to fork out money from their own pocket in order to support a url that we honestly don't really need either. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 23:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I dont think miraheze can do that. ForcedExcess26 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they can. You just have to pay for the domain (outside of free domains like .tk)  Logohub   (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * still oppose because that sounds expensive ForcedExcess26 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) per Eternity. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) also per EMG.   Logohub   (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) also per EMG. Paying for the domain sounds expensive, and "av.id" is too short as Eternity pointed out, so for those reasons, I'm out. AUnnamedDragon 4:33 PM, May 27, 2023 (CET)
 * 4) per EMG. Phbsignature.png (таʟк) 23:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) This could also step on the AVID (video company's) toes legally, they probably would want something like 'av.id' as a redirect to something like the actual AVID site. But that's just me. TheAmigo67 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Firstly, this will require a user (most likely a trusted one) to purchase a domain, secondly, it's a premium domain so first-time registration is going to be extremely high, and thirdly, what's the point? -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * fourthly it could break the wiki ForcedExcess26 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't break the wiki. Custom domains work on Miraheze. -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 21:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this would have gone better if a) it was passed through wiki functionaries who would actually need to deal with logistics for this, b) had a draft phase to get multiple options on the table from the start, and c) was framed more hypothetically ie, if avid had the means to do this, would this be a good idea. As it stands the RfC will likely fail from oppose momentum but if it had taken these steps early it may have gone differently and the outcome may have been a usable suggestion for site operatives to keep on the back burner for later. A followup section is still possible but would likely end up neglected at this stage of voting. --Raidarr (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of this. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 110% this. Unfortunately the RfC was posed as a "right here, right now" approach, and didn't seem to consider enough other important factors early on. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 00:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * i didn't really know what to write at the time of posting, however a lot of people here are making good points about it just being a shorthand NancerAVID (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to factor in costs, y'know? If it's a two-to-four letter name, you really aren't in luck there. Those are really expensive. -- Cheers, Bukkit (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)