AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos section
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Controversial logos
Some logos are controversial, for many reasons. How about we do a category containing these type of logos? Is this also opinionated?
Support
- Support (The Third Place) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
- Oppose Yeah it is. It feels more like a CLG Wiki thing. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose We're called Audiovisual Identity Database, not Logo Reception Wiki. (Lets chat!) 13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose we shouldn't have redundant categories. Logohub (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per everyone Compooper (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per all. Also, please make sure that you will create a RfC without unnecessary categories thing. Cattotld (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Unconstitutional. โ~๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ-๐๐ค๐๐๐ง๐ฉ๐จ~โ (๊ง๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๊ง) | (๊ง๐พ๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐๐จ๊ง) 14:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose As per everyone above (Talk to Me!) 16:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Doctorine Dark (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. We are not the Reception Wikis. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose For a while I thought this was for logos with controversial content (gore, sexuality), but we have the content warning guidances and categories for those. SnowflakesOmega (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per everybody else. This is something CLG Wiki and Qualitipedia would do. We're neither. ยท Talk ยท Edits 22:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: Is there anything I do an RfC for which isn't hated by everyone? Sonicfan19198282 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's just that your ideas tend to be the ones we want to avoid. CLG Wiki was infamous for being way too opinionated. This is one such idea. ยท Talk ยท Edits 22:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.