AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos 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

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

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)
10. 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)
11. 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)