AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos section: Difference between revisions

From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
Dominicmgm (talk | contribs)
Line 18: Line 18:


===Comments===
===Comments===
{{Comment}} Is there anything I do an RfC for which isn't hated by everyone? [[User:Sonicfan19198282|Sonicfan19198282]] ([[User talk:Sonicfan19198282|talk]]) 18:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
[[Category:Requests for Comment]]
[[Category:Requests for Comment]]
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 18:38, 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

  1. Support (The Third Place) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

Oppose

  1. Oppose Yeah it is. It feels more like a CLG Wiki thing. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We're called Audiovisual Identity Database, not Logo Reception Wiki. (Lets chat!) 13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we shouldn't have redundant categories. Logohub (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per everyone Compooper (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Oppose Unconstitutional. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 14:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  7. Oppose As per everyone above (Talk to Me!) 16:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Doctorine Dark (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. We are not the Reception Wikis. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:52, 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)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.