Audiovisual Identity Database:Requests for Comment/Remove the audios that are in "Visuals" and place them in "Audio"

The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing as  failed per author request. Camenati (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

---

EXPLANATION

I recently saw some pages on AVID where there is a strange detail in the "Visuals"; for some reason, the sound effects and voices instead of being placed in “Audio”, are in “Visual”, which is bizarre to see. I don't understand why this is under "Visuals"; But doesn't this sound familiar? Otherwise, it's similar to when in the "Technical" section (at the time being FX/SFX), there was a small summary that was under the "Visuals" (at the time being "Logo") instead of being the special effect. Therefore, you need to remove EVERYTHING that has Audio in “Visuals” and put it back in “Audio”.

EXAMPLES: Jackhole Industries's second logo; and the Chicago Five Productions logo; There are others I saw, but I don't remember the name of the company. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 15:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I'm sure this would have already been planned in the first place during the initial renaming, but I'm all for it! Gilby1385 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Eliternal12349 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There are a lot of instances in which speech(es) and/or dialogue should be described. We cannot just omit the dialogue whatsoever, even if it means getting the sections to serve their respective qualities more. It's much more crucial than you think, in terms of the logo and its description as a whole. Doctorine Dark (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstood, I meant putting the sound effects and voices in "Audio" because "Visuals" is made to put the details in the logo, not voices and sound effects, since This is something that should be in "Audio". TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   Ah. Perhaps in some situations. Doctorine Dark (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose It would be quite awkward for the logo to just mention the motion of what noise/speech the logo is playing, especially if its essential to the logo. I'd be odd and kind of lack-luster if the Spiffy Pictures logo for example just stated "the animal zooms up, says something, and zooms back out" rather than "the animal zooms up, says Spiffy, and zooms out". (• USER TALK! •) 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
   • Good point. Gilby1385 (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Eliternal12349 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Charlie. Eternity Media Group (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose (talk | contribs) 09:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose Not terrible, but I'd say that if the visuals have some strong connection with a sound effect, it would be absolutely needed. Otherwise, it'd be hard to explain the event happening. TVB at McDonald's (chat is this real????) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1.  Comment: Bruh, I didn't know someone would reject an idea that is good but it was unnecessary, well... I give myself an L, I'm really disappointed in myself, I'd rather my RfC be closed now. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 01:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.