AVID:Requests for Comment/New rules for Availability section and other changes: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content added Content deleted
(→Support: Reply) |
m (Text replacement - "AVID:Tutorial Guide" to "AVID:Tutorials") |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
[[Category:Failed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
<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 '''failed''', with a majority of votes falling under Oppose. [[User:Sickminecraft45|Sickminecraft45]] ([[User talk:Sickminecraft45|talk]]) 12:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Should we ban such phrases like "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" and similar phrases from the Availability section? |
Should we ban such phrases like "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" and similar phrases from the Availability section? |
||
| Line 18: | Line 23: | ||
# {{Oppose|Strong}} '''for the Availability part'''. I haven't really saw a problem with this. {{Oppose|Strongest}} '''''for the renaming part.''''' Like Scoob, can we not try to rename every single section. There was a early request similar to this. [[File:Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png|200px|link=User:CharlieFiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:CharlieFiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 17:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
# {{Oppose|Strong}} '''for the Availability part'''. I haven't really saw a problem with this. {{Oppose|Strongest}} '''''for the renaming part.''''' Like Scoob, can we not try to rename every single section. There was a early request similar to this. [[File:Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png|200px|link=User:CharlieFiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:CharlieFiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 17:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
#{{Oppose|Strong}} The renaming feels completely unnecessary to me, as right now I don't think there's any need to rename those descriptions, at least at the time of typing. It just feels like trying to change things for the sake of things. As for the Availability part, we already discourage using those kinds of phrases in the Tutorial Guide, and I've recently made a new template ([[Template:AvailabilityExamples|AvailabilityExamples]]) to tag their usage. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 18:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
#{{Oppose|Strong}} The renaming feels completely unnecessary to me, as right now I don't think there's any need to rename those descriptions, at least at the time of typing. It just feels like trying to change things for the sake of things. As for the Availability part, we already discourage using those kinds of phrases in the Tutorial Guide, and I've recently made a new template ([[Template:AvailabilityExamples|AvailabilityExamples]]) to tag their usage. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 18:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
#{{Oppose|Strongest}} '''''of all time.''''' Such statements in the availability section are banned already. Rename is also unnecessary. [[File:MinistrycraftEntertainment-EternityEntertainmentsignature.jpg|50px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose|Strongest}} '''''ever''''' I HATE the renaming part. [[User:Robloxfan999|Robloxfan999]] ([[User talk:Robloxfan999|talk]]) 13:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#:From the guy who suggested we remove trivia and we add a scary logo category, what did you expect? [[File:Novastar.png|20px]][[User:Nova|'''Nova''']] ([[User talk:Nova|talk]]) (Logo not final) 02:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#::Bruh of course its him. The biggest fan of change for the sake of change, oddly fixated on the Trivia section [[File:MinistrycraftEntertainment-EternityEntertainmentsignature.jpg|50px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 02:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Abstain=== |
===Abstain=== |
||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
#{{Comment}} "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" is already not allowed. Here's an excerpt from the tutorial guide: "Be specific! Don't just say "found on the company's releases at the time", name at least some of the releases the logo is known to be on." [[AVID: |
#{{Comment}} "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" is already not allowed. Here's an excerpt from the tutorial guide: "Be specific! Don't just say "found on the company's releases at the time", name at least some of the releases the logo is known to be on." [[AVID:Tutorials]] ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 9 October 2023
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as failed, with a majority of votes falling under Oppose. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Should we ban such phrases like "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" and similar phrases from the Availability section?
And also should rename Trivia to Facts, Music/Sounds to just Sounds, Music/Sounds Trivia to Sounds Facts, and Logos to Description? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Support
Support the availability part 
(The Third Place) 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- Support the availability part. Also, can we ban the use of "Don't expect this to appear on" comments? IAmThe789Guy (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC) IAmThe789Guy
- The thing is, there are some exceptions. Check the Availability section for the 2002 DNA Productions logo for instance. Doctorine Dark (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support ever. The Availability section is what needs to be fixed; per Calvin. Only confirmed appearances can go on the section. Plus, I think the names need to be changed to reflect the new era, in my opinion. We have had those names for over ten years, and it is time we change to a more serious fare. I am already growing tired of the old ones, in my opinion, so I might have strong or weak support on the renaming, or abstain from both. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 16:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose the renaming part (The Third Place) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Why should we rename our sections? They're perfectly fine as the way it is right now. Logohub (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose in the world for the renaming,
Abstain for the Availability part because it already has been implemented. Compooper (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose for the renaming part; it'd be change for the sake of change instead of change for the sake of being beneficial. Abstain for the renaming part as per Compooper.
· Talk · Edits 17:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose for both. Banning common phrases are rather dumb and hard to avoid for newcomers. Like the tip provided on the tutorial guide, it is not acceptable unless examples are provided, so for people who dislike this phrase, it is partially outlawed. As for the renaming part, no reason is provided why. This feels more like band wagoning the FX/SFX renaming than a reasonable proposal. As for the request itself, as I stated before, these sections are fine and concise as they are. "Facts" literally encompasses everything in the description, "Sounds" will feel off without music being prominently mentioned in the section, and "Description", similar to my reasoning with "Facts", sounds more like the "Logo", "Technique", and "Music/Sounds" sections combined. Also, if a DescriptionIncomplete template is added, then some editors may confuse that with the "Description" section itself rather than others in the article. Camenati (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for the Availability part. I haven't really saw a problem with this. Oppose for the renaming part. Like Scoob, can we not try to rename every single section. There was a early request similar to this.
(• USER TALK! •) 17:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose The renaming feels completely unnecessary to me, as right now I don't think there's any need to rename those descriptions, at least at the time of typing. It just feels like trying to change things for the sake of things. As for the Availability part, we already discourage using those kinds of phrases in the Tutorial Guide, and I've recently made a new template (AvailabilityExamples) to tag their usage. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose of all time. Such statements in the availability section are banned already. Rename is also unnecessary.
(name change coming soon) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose ever I HATE the renaming part. Robloxfan999 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- From the guy who suggested we remove trivia and we add a scary logo category, what did you expect?
Nova (talk) (Logo not final) 02:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Bruh of course its him. The biggest fan of change for the sake of change, oddly fixated on the Trivia section (name change coming soon) 02:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Bruh of course its him. The biggest fan of change for the sake of change, oddly fixated on the Trivia section
- From the guy who suggested we remove trivia and we add a scary logo category, what did you expect?
Abstain
Comments
Comment: "Seen on films/shows by this company from this time" is already not allowed. Here's an excerpt from the tutorial guide: "Be specific! Don't just say "found on the company's releases at the time", name at least some of the releases the logo is known to be on." AVID:Tutorials Logohub (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
