AVID:Requests for Comment/Split most in-credit variants from standard logos
 | This proposal was submitted for staff review. If a week has passed and this proposal is still not reviewed, please notify site staff. Please do not vote on the RFC yet. If one or two staff members abstain or decline the draft, the publisher can continue working on it to address the issues raised. To add reasoning, use the following parameters "staffreason1" or "staffreason2" Staff member 1: Staff member 2: Last edited by Trevor807 (talk | contribs) 3 months ago. (Update) |
Split most in-credit variants from standard logos
I propose that in-credit print variants be split into new sections from standard logos. I do this for several reasons:
- The former may come first before the animated logo or be still in use after that logo's retirement. This complicates the logo's lifespan, most notably the 2005 Lionsgate logo. On top of that, it may not even cover the usage of the standard logo despite it being the main variant described, leading readers to assume, without proper context in the header, that the animated logo debuted earlier or is still being used without considering its in-credit counterpart (the 2019 DreamWorks Animation and 2002 Sony Pictures Television International logos come to mind).
- Some in-credit logos, despite being completely different from one another, are placed under the same animated logo just because they were used during that logo's lifespan (e.g. the 1947 Mosfilm logo). That is like saying a newer logo with a drastically refreshed appearance is a variant of the previous logo (e.g. the ABC Television Network logos).
- Some animated/print logos are not directly based off each other. Again, placing them under the same section means they are the same logo with mild difference even though that is not the case.
- To fix the inconsistency regarding in-credit, print logo sections. Some are on their own sections while others are counted as a variant of the animated logo.
I'd say exceptions to this is if the print logo is directly based off the standard logo. For instance, if said version of the logo is boxed or cropped, then it is a variant of that logo. If the logo, in print form, is still, it can count as a variant of the in-credit logo, as its appearance is based more on the one where it is just the logo moving on a black background. The latter is often the case with British television logos.
If they were to be split, where would they go? I would keep them in the main article but under the header "In-Credit Logos". Keeping the sections covering specific classes of logos will make them flow naturally.
