AVID:Requests for Comment/Summarization section: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa"> |
|||
:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
::Closing as '''failed''', with an oppose majority. ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 18:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
You know how people usually just misuse the FX/SFX section to just summarize what happened in the logo? Like "FX/SFX: The logo unfolding, The text drawing in."? Well, i was thinking, what if we added a "Summary:" section that was essentially what everyone misuses the FX/SFX section for, and keep the FX/SFX section, but make it explicitly clear how to actually use it. What do you think? |
You know how people usually just misuse the FX/SFX section to just summarize what happened in the logo? Like "FX/SFX: The logo unfolding, The text drawing in."? Well, i was thinking, what if we added a "Summary:" section that was essentially what everyone misuses the FX/SFX section for, and keep the FX/SFX section, but make it explicitly clear how to actually use it. What do you think? |
||
===Support=== |
===Support=== |
||
| Line 24: | Line 28: | ||
:good idea, maybe have it like "Summary/Technique" or something shorter since that name may be too long. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
:good idea, maybe have it like "Summary/Technique" or something shorter since that name may be too long. [[User:Camenati|Camenati]] ([[User talk:Camenati|talk]]) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
:Agree with Eternity and Camenati. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 01:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
:Agree with Eternity and Camenati. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 01:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. |
|||
</div> |
|||
Revision as of 18:42, 2 December 2022
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
You know how people usually just misuse the FX/SFX section to just summarize what happened in the logo? Like "FX/SFX: The logo unfolding, The text drawing in."? Well, i was thinking, what if we added a "Summary:" section that was essentially what everyone misuses the FX/SFX section for, and keep the FX/SFX section, but make it explicitly clear how to actually use it. What do you think?
Support
Support I agree with that. 
· Talk · - Support I'm with Trevor on this one
(The Third Place) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC) - Support me likey.
(name change coming soon) 21:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC) - Support We should try that and see. SnowflakesOmega (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain I don't quite get what this would do for the sections. 
(• USER TALK! •) 16:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose What you've described is what the "Logo" and "Sounds" sections are for, at least according to this [[1]]. You make a very good point about its misuse, but personally I think the FX/SFX section is a bit redundant and should be removed completely. The people who made the logo/composed the music can be included in the "Trivia" section and whether or not its scanimate/CGI/stop-motion could be added to the "Logo" section, perhaps as the last sentence in the section after the description. Luke2505 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The funny thing is, the TAT logo section literally describes scanimation. (• USER TALK! •) 16:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The funny thing is, the TAT logo section literally describes scanimation.
- Oppose This seems redundant as currently proposed. It sounds like we would be effectively describing the logo itself twice over. I much prefer the “Technique” proposal. Or alternatively “Behind the Scenes”. The latter could also incorporate the current “Trivia” section if we wanted it to.
Talk · Edits 01:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC) - Oppose Originally supported, but now siding with Hb1290 here. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as BaldiBasicsFan. Hb1290's point seems more compelling to me. · Talk · Edits 05:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I dunno. I kinda like Technique better IMO Compooper 12:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm with Hb1290 on this one (The Third Place) 13:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments
An update on my initial Opposal, since the community seems to be in support for renaming FX/SFX to "Technique", I was thinking maybe it could incorporate the "Summarisation" section proposed here into one singular "Summarisation and Technique" section. That would mean that it'd describe the way the logo animates alongside the technique which was used to make it, basically what many FX/SFX sections contain presently. This way, pretty much all that would need to change on the Wiki is the "FX/SFX" name to "Summarisation and Technique". Luke2505 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)- this is the way. I like it (name change coming soon) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- good idea, maybe have it like "Summary/Technique" or something shorter since that name may be too long. Camenati (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Eternity and Camenati. · Talk · Edits 01:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
