AVID:Requests for Comment/How about a template for a missing-in-action logo variation?
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
How about a template for a missing-in-action logo variation?
Since we have the {{MIA}} template for missing in action logos themselves, why not have one for missing variations of a logo (even if the logo itself is found)? For example, the 1976 Viacom logo could have a notice like this:
 | One or more variations of this logo is/are currently missing in action. The missing variation(s) is/are: "Rainbow" variant Please do not add reconstructions of the logo variation(s) if any exist, as they are likely not accurate to the actual logo variation(s). Additionally, do not attempt to add a finalized description of any of the logo variation(s) until it has been found in its entirety. |
Gilby1385 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
EDIT: Since Luke2505 suggested incorporating the Missing in Action Variation template into the main Missing in Action template, I have now added a new section for it.
Proposal 1 - New template
Support (1)
Support as creator of the original MIA template.
Nova (talk) (Logo not final) 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)- Support
(The Third Place) 18:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Abstain (1)
Abstain I'm not sure if we really need a template for missing variations. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain Per IAmThe789Guy
(Talk to Me!) 18:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC) - Abstain While I like the idea, I would recommend incorporating the Missing in Action Variation template into the main Missing in Action template. Luke2505 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain I am in between this. The legitimacy of this does not look a bit grand, but I support the idea of adding the template. โ~๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ-๐๐ค๐๐๐ง๐ฉ๐จ~โ (๊ง๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐๊ง) | (๊ง๐พ๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐๐จ๊ง) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose (1)
Comments (1)
Proposal 2 - Include in existing template
Support (2)
Abstain (2)
Oppose (2)
Comments (2)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
