AVID:Requests for Comment/Discontinue/Remove POV Terms

Discontinuation of POV Terms and Reasons

Ever since rejoining the wiki, I have learned many things. One of them is that terms like "We see ..." or "We hear ..." are awfully redundant. And let me give you a few reasons why this may be true.

• First of all, the terms are CLG-leveled, meaning they will not have professional uses for the Database at its current state. Not much to say about it due to a reason I will explain in a bit. Just remember that there are differences between CLG's required quality and AVID's required quality.

• Second of all, who even is "we"? Oh, i know it's the audience the term refers to, I'm just saying it because the audience is not in the logo whatsoever. And literally the same issue occurs for the audio section as well. Not to a strong degree, but certainly at a degree. To avoid confusion, Let me just say my biggest reason that supports the previous reasons.

• Third of all, the transition of the "Visuals" and "Audio" term transition, which indicates that ever since the term "Logo" became "Visuals" and the term "Music/Sounds" became "Audio", the POV terms became outdated. Back when the transition didn't occur, the terms were perfectly fine. If not, they are at least necessary. We can understand that the POV terms are alright for usage because the old term does not indicate that POV terms are unnecessary. Not very much for the Music/Sounds section though. But after the transition idea was approved, and especially since the name change of the Database, the POV terms are left as an automatic flaw for wiki pages due to their inadequate meaning.

I believe removing terms like "We see" in the visuals section and "We hear" in the audio section will be the best for both the quality of our editing skills and the quality of the wiki in general. Let's just face it: there is no way people still use those terms while they put in the aforementioned modern terms. That alone just doesn't make sense, and it sure is an issue users have with writing pages. And the fact that people still use the outdated terms for new pages and drafts to this day is the reason why I made this RFC. In case anyone asks about the replacing part, we still have multiple terms like "... is/are seen" and "... can be seen" that are shown in some pages, which not every single one of them are because of my clever tactics. Hope you understand the issues of the old term I figured out upon starting to be an active member. (hope the formatting works since preview mode can't show) 𝓘𝓝ℱ𝓔ℛ𝓝𝓞 𝓞ℱ 𝑇.𝓥.ℬ. (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I guess so. Gilby1385 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Another step in becoming a true database. · Talk · Edits 01:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support I would like to see summaries in both the "Visual" and "Audio" sections from a neutral point rather than from someone's POV. EsaïeGregoryPrickett (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I've already been editing some pages with "We see" or "We hear" (including the pages I created that use those terms) to replace them with more neutral terms, and I agree the two terms have run their course here. --AUnnamedDragon 8:45 PM, November 24, 2023 (CET)
5. Support hell to the yes. i remember talking about phasing out We See some time ago on the server before this rfc, so i am glad to see that this idea is starting to get picked up more. Diberhaze (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support (TALK•CONTRIBUTIONS) 02:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Agreed. (talk | contribs) 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Support Good idea (• USER TALK! •) 03:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Support TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 03:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
10. Support Now here's an idea I'm surprised hasn't occurred earlier! Gets my approval FryLetterman (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
11. Support Hard agree: using first person pronouns for an encyclopedic database doesn't go well. A neutral non-POV description should always be encouraged. Logoarto (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
12. Support per everyone above. Eternity Media Group (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
13. Support (таʟк) - your local toro inoue fanatic 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1.  Comment: Uhhhh, I didn't understand RfC very well, also what does POV mean by AVID? TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 03:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   To help you understand, I'm referring to the use of POV terms. Here's one as an example "We see a person from ohio". Terms like "We see" is an issue, and the reason why is due to the "Visuals" term having a big transition. It's a long story. 𝓘𝓝ℱ𝓔ℛ𝓝𝓞 𝓞ℱ 𝑇.𝓥.ℬ. (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   Well... I accept! TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 03:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   Here's another example, in this case from the description of the third Columbia TriStar Home Video logo (this is possibly gonna confuse you). The older description starts with "We see a screen full of clouds forming, tossing about." Comparably, the current description (at the time this was written) starts with "The screen cuts into a shot full of golden clouds forming, tossing about on a blue cloudy background." You can see how, with the "Visuals" term having a big transition, terms like "We see" are a issue and don't have professional uses for AVID at its current state, as TVB pointed out. --AUnnamedDragon 10:56 PM, November 24, 2023 (CET)

   Firstly, why does it start with "The screen cuts"? Like this is in the slightest sense, and people who read it will probably be confused. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 04:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   That's something I don't know. Most of that snippet, by the way, was written by Thisisanswer (only the last five words were my work), but as you explained, beginning the description with "The screen cuts into" definitely has the potential to confuse readers. Seeing as how "we see" was completely removed from all the other descriptions on the page and the term was in this case right at the start, I assume "The screen cuts into" was the best TIA could come up with to start the description, but still. --AUnnamedDragon 11:15 PM, November 24, 2023 (CET)

   I believe that "In a scene full of clouds forming " may be the best option that I chose, I don't know if "In a" is part of "We see". Thoughts? TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 04:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   I've just re-written the opening part of the description to "The screen cuts to a scene full of golden clouds forming..." in a attempt to avert confusion (by the way, if the description needs to be re-written again, I can tell you that I doubt the term "In a" is part of "We see"). --AUnnamedDragon 11:31 PM, November 24, 2023 (CET)

   I sent a message to TVB if he thinks "In a" is part of "We see", I believe he will send the message to me tomorrow. EDIT: He said, and he said that "In a" is not part of "We see", so we can use it. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 04:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

2.  Comment: What do we do about the "We start off with" statements? I don't have an idea as to how it can be replicated into a neutral point. (• USER TALK! •) 15:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   What I would do is use "The logo starts off with this" instead, or just rewrite the description at a more neutral point. 𝓘𝓝ℱ𝓔ℛ𝓝𝓞 𝓞ℱ 𝑇.𝓥.ℬ. (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   I have a few in mind.

   • Over a black background is [object].
   • [object] is seen over a black background.
   • The logo starts with [object] over a black background.
   • On a black background, [object] is seen.
   • The text [text] fades in over a black background.
   • The logo takes place over a black background, with [object] visible.

   Again, these are just my ideas. Compooper (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)