AVID:Requests for Comment/Remove the "No unspecific technique descriptions" rule: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Archive top|Closing as {{approved|passed}}. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)}}
==Remove the "No unspecific technique descriptions" rule==
So, there are a lot of simple technique descriptions like "2D animation", "CGI", etc. However, the tutorial guide says it prohibits these descriptions. I think this rule should be removed. There are a few reasons why I am requesting this:
Line 22:
===Comments===
{{Comment}} It has been at least a month, closure is needed. [[File:JrStudiosprofile.png|150px|link=User:JrStudios]]([[User talk:JrStudios|That guy who edits the Disney Home Video Bumpers pages]]) 00:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
__NOTOC__
[[Category:Requests for Comment]]
[[Category:RFCs closed in 2024]]
{{Archive bottom}}
| |||
Latest revision as of 00:46, 19 October 2024
The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Remove the "No unspecific technique descriptions" rule
So, there are a lot of simple technique descriptions like "2D animation", "CGI", etc. However, the tutorial guide says it prohibits these descriptions. I think this rule should be removed. There are a few reasons why I am requesting this:
1. The staff team considers these descriptions valid, making this rule pointless.
2. It makes editing the technique harder. Unfortunately, if such simple descriptions are the best you can come up with for the technique, they should be allowed to make things easier.
3. The technique does not always have to be too specific; sometimes, it's better to keep it simple.
Overall, for these reasons, I don't find this rule useful. What do you think? 
(Talk to me!) 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Support
Support We need more consistency in all fronts. Compooper (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- Support Per Compooper.
· Talk · Edits 18:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC) - Support per the two above. VPJHuk (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Changing the rule, though I think instead of removing it altogether it would be beneficial to alter it to say that expanded descriptions are recommended, but not required.
- Ramona (She/Her) (Let's Chat!) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support
(TALK•CONTRIBUTIONS) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - Support Yes! I agree, since I get confused trying to describe a technique used when it’s just a simple slide or cel animation being used. User:UnknownFromKnuckles
Abstain
Abstain While you do have a point, I still feel like technique expansions are justified in some cases, such as the "2D animation" example which can refer to either cel or computer animation. Gilby1385 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments
Comment: It has been at least a month, closure is needed. 
(That guy who edits the Disney Home Video Bumpers pages) 00:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
