AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos section: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
→Comments: Reply |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archive top|[[AVID:SNOW|SNOW]] close. This request has {{Rejected|failed}}. [[User:Compooper|Compooper]] ([[User talk:Compooper|talk]]) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
==Controversial logos== |
==Controversial logos== |
||
Some logos are controversial, for many reasons. How about we do a category containing these type of logos? Is this also opinionated? |
Some logos are controversial, for many reasons. How about we do a category containing these type of logos? Is this also opinionated? |
||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
: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. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 22:19, 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. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 22:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:13, 10 February 2023
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. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 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.
· Talk · 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. · Talk · 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.
