AVID:Requests for Comment/Prohibit mention of personal uploads in Availability section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing proposal as passed. Logohub (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Personal uploads relate to captures of logos/other media posted by individuals (i.e. LogicSmash, Broken Saw, etc.) rather than official channels of companies. If that is acceptable to consider in the Availability section, then YouTube uploads will be often mentioned. The issue with this is that we're basing this information directly off of YouTube videos and channels, some of which may be unnoteworthy and unreliable, considering there exists many logo captures that have no source. That includes calling a very rare logo like the 1971 Viacom logo common thanks to YouTube uploads, which feels off and dishonest since readers want specific sources to find the logo rather than somebody's direct capture of it.

Not to mention this can also be considered adding non-notable information in the same respect as the million-subscriber eligibility criteria or even self-promoting. With the latter, there is a possibility someone may upload their own capture of a logo, or even insert it into fake openings, and put it in the Availability section by mentioning their channel name and video. Doesn't that make the site feel more informal? Also, the "inserting non-notable information" instance has happened recently where on one article, a YouTuber with only around 1,000 subscribers is mentioned for having a lot of captures related to a specific logo (gtp2day).

While most pages do not have "Can be found on numerous YouTube uploads" or something like that, I think this rule should be stated to only allow official sources by real companies/workers who were involved in the making of the logo. Pages must stick to the notability rule, so why not sources? Camenati (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

Support The availability section is to discuss about what primary or reliable source the logo is seen in, not personal unreliable channels unless verified. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Agreed. Compooper 19:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support per everyone else.
★ Nova (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support (lets talks) 20:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Agree with you. · Talk · Edits 20:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Support per everyone else (The Third Place) 15:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Support --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Logohub (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Support --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 11:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose No. Just No. This is a good way to tear the wiki apart. This is the most worst idea I've Ever seen in my life (My Talk Page) 20:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why this proposal is awful? Camenati (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly if a logo has become Extinct and someone has uploaded a video with the logo on it, We would be able to see what the logo looked like. Not all official YouTube Channels upload the logo. It can be plastered before they upload the episode or movie on YouTube. (My Talk Page) 21:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of this proposal is remove mentions of personal uploads in the Availability section, not remove them entirely from the article. There was nothing in the proposal that specifically mentions image and video captures on the article and that only those uploaded by official channels are allowed to be embedded rather than personal channels' captures. Camenati (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons why Qualitipedia was shut down by the way. That network is filled to the brim with personal preferences and as it was shutdown, the Editor's Note table got remodeled into Legacy. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As a former admin of the network, this statement baldi pointed out is correct. I do not want this to go down the path the Reception Wikis did. This wiki is too large and significant to start restarting the baby-ish things. This is why we also removed scare factors. Let this pass. JrStudios (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an unfortunate misreading. As Camenati pointed out, this is just removing references to them in the availability section. If this was on removing them entirely, there would be much less support MinistrycraftEntertainment (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1. Why not just make a list of reliable sources, that have proved themselves trustworthy over and over again? Blad (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

   Disregard this reply, thank you. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 11:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

---