AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos section: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
# {{Oppose}} Yeah it is. It feels more like a CLG Wiki thing. [[User:IAmThe789Guy|IAmThe789Guy]] ([[User talk:IAmThe789Guy|talk]]) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
# {{Oppose}} Yeah it is. It feels more like a CLG Wiki thing. [[User:IAmThe789Guy|IAmThe789Guy]] ([[User talk:IAmThe789Guy|talk]]) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
#{{Oppose}} We're called ''Audiovisual Identity Database, not ''Logo Reception Wiki''. [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:EternityMediaGroup]] ([[User Talk:EternityMediaGroup|Lets chat!]]) 13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
Revision as of 13:25, 9 February 2023
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)
