Audiovisual Identity Database:Requests for Comment/Music/Sounds section revamp

i have got two proposals for revamps of the Music/Sounds section:

Rename "Music/Sounds" to "Audio"

as the title would imply, i am proposing the rename of the "Music/Sounds" section to just "Audio". reasons being:

• to me, the Music/Sounds name sounds very clunky, and the use of the word Sounds makes me think that whoever named that forgot about the word Audio
• in a similar manner to the FX rename to Technique, Audio is more concise than Music/Sounds
• accounts for other audio in logos. e.g. voiceovers
• ties in with the wiki name

Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Oh. Yes. · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support It makes sense with a simpler term like "Audio" and I can really see your points regarding this section's new direction... Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, particularly for consistency across the wiki with this specific section. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I voiced my concerns on the Discord server about why "Music/Sounds" was a weak name. Again with the voiceovers point, "Audio" is much more inclusive of all types of cues that could happen during a logo's soundtrack. Compooper (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support I can definitely see this far simpler term being more inclusive. VenusandMars77 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Yes. Yes. One billion percent yes. (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately I need to oppose it because I don't want a rename, I just find it annoying that the Wiki is doing more and more unnecessary rebrands. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

   Please try and provide a proper reason as to why it's a bad idea, beyond just "I don't like change". Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

   1. It's because the name "Audio" sounds like for sound effect and voice. Not the music and sound effect. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
      1. Quite a few logos incorporate voiceovers. I don't think "Audio" can be construed as just sound effects and voiceovers by many users. Plus, how are the rebrands "unnecessary"? · Talk · Edits 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think the rebrands are fine honestly. (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Section absent in case of no audio

Again, Like the title says, if a logo doesn't have audio, the section is not there instead of just saying None.

Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

# Support Again, yes. · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Same reason as above. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose ...however, I don't agree with removing it if it has no songs or sound effects. That is like saying we should remove the Technique section if it is a still logo, which is necessary if people want to know if a logo is animated or has accompanying audio. It can also provide more detail to logos that don't have video captures available or those that are dead. Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
   1. Good reason to oppose. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Camenati. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Camenati's concerns are valid. When describing a logo without audio, if a video capture is not available, a text description would be very much helpful. Compooper (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Camenati. · Talk · Edits 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose (• USER TALK! •) 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)