AVID:Requests for Comment/How about graphics information?: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
LoganStuff (talk | contribs) |
Closing as failed |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archive top|Closing as '''failed'''. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
==How about graphics information?== |
==How about graphics information?== |
||
Is it possible to describe graphics information like this? |
Is it possible to describe graphics information like this? |
||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
===Oppose=== |
===Oppose=== |
||
{{Oppose}} I don't think this would work as a dedicated section, |
#{{Oppose}} I don't think this would work as a dedicated section, mainly because most logos we have no idea what graphics software or specialised equipment they used, but also because this kind of information is usually more suited for the Trivia or Technique sections, which are both much more broad and can cover a wider range of information. [[User:LoganStuff|LoganStuff]] ([[User talk:LoganStuff|talk]]) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
#{{Oppose}} Per above. [[User:Gilby1385|Gilby1385]] ([[User talk:Gilby1385|talk]]) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose}} per above. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose}} Would've been interesting, but due to the fact that we don't know what or who made a lot of the logos, we can't have TBAs popping up all over the place on these pages. Plus, I think two more sections would make the reading time longer and would be overall completely redundant. So I'm out on this one. [[User:Vmoney25|Vmoney25]], [[User talk:Vmoney25|talk]], and my [[User:Vmoney25/sandbox|sandbox]]. 9:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose}}. Per above, this relies on us knowing what kind of hardware and software was used for each and every single logo. It'd be almost completely unused, and where we do know this information, we can already fit this in the Technique section. [[File:Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png|100px|link=User:EternityMediaGroup]] ([[User Talk:EternityMediaGroup|Lets chat!]]) 09:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose}} per everyone. There's no way this will work, and as a result, your RfC will end up closing as a failure. It's redundant too because we can fit what kind of hardware and software was used for each logo in the Technique section, so for ''all'' of those reasons, I'm out. [[User:AUnnamedDragon|AUnnamedDragon]] 4:42 PM, June 12, 2023 (CET) |
|||
#{{Oppose}} but I will add that I would still like to see this information added to the Wiki if it is known. As Logan and EMG have said it would be far better suited to the Technique section. [[User:Luke2505|Luke2505]] ([[User talk:Luke2505|talk]]) 11:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
#{{Oppose}} Per everyone. [[File:Tabit Signature.png|75px|link=User:Tabit]] ([[User talk:Tabit|Discussion area ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]]) 11:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
[[Category:Closed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
[[Category:Failed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
__NOTOC__ |
__NOTOC__ |
||
Latest revision as of 14:18, 13 June 2023
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as failed. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
How about graphics information?
Is it possible to describe graphics information like this?
Computer System: Silicon Graphics Indigo
Animation Software: Alias Wavefront PowerAnimator
Try to look up SIGGRAPH conferences for research. For example: https://history.siggraph.org/conference/siggraph-1988-15th-annual-conference-on-computer-graphics-and-interactive-techniques/
Can we do that?
Support
Abstain
Oppose
Oppose I don't think this would work as a dedicated section, mainly because most logos we have no idea what graphics software or specialised equipment they used, but also because this kind of information is usually more suited for the Trivia or Technique sections, which are both much more broad and can cover a wider range of information. LoganStuff (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- Oppose Per above. Gilby1385 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.
· Talk · Edits 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) - Oppose Would've been interesting, but due to the fact that we don't know what or who made a lot of the logos, we can't have TBAs popping up all over the place on these pages. Plus, I think two more sections would make the reading time longer and would be overall completely redundant. So I'm out on this one. Vmoney25, talk, and my sandbox. 9:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above, this relies on us knowing what kind of hardware and software was used for each and every single logo. It'd be almost completely unused, and where we do know this information, we can already fit this in the Technique section.
(Lets chat!) 09:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) - Oppose per everyone. There's no way this will work, and as a result, your RfC will end up closing as a failure. It's redundant too because we can fit what kind of hardware and software was used for each logo in the Technique section, so for all of those reasons, I'm out. AUnnamedDragon 4:42 PM, June 12, 2023 (CET)
- Oppose but I will add that I would still like to see this information added to the Wiki if it is known. As Logan and EMG have said it would be far better suited to the Technique section. Luke2505 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per everyone.
(Discussion area ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 11:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
