Audiovisual Identity Database:Requests for Comment/Define "POV" in removing Legacy sections: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content added Content deleted
(→YES) |
m (Copying from Category:Requests for Comment to Category:Passed Requests for Comment using Cat-a-lot) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| 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 '''passed''', with a majority of votes on "YES". ''[[User:Logohub|<span style="font-size: 120%;"><span style="font-family:'serif';">Logohub</span></span>]]'' ([[User talk:Logohub|talk]]) 18:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
So I see there's a bit of a conflict in what's considered "POV". |
So I see there's a bit of a conflict in what's considered "POV". |
||
| Line 30: | Line 35: | ||
*No. This will open the floodgates to bring back the same problems this change was designed to curb. --[[User:Bridgeleoi|Bridgeleoi]] ([[User talk:Bridgeleoi|talk]]) 21:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) |
*No. This will open the floodgates to bring back the same problems this change was designed to curb. --[[User:Bridgeleoi|Bridgeleoi]] ([[User talk:Bridgeleoi|talk]]) 21:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
<s>* Per Shakla. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 21:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)</s> |
<s>* Per Shakla. [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 21:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)</s> |
||
===Comment=== |
|||
Problem is the title of this and the question asked are totally different. I would be fine with some additional guidelines on POV. But encouraging the vague "favorite of many" statement is a bad idea. Almost every logo is a "favorite of many". --[[User:Shakla|Shakla]] ([[User talk:Shakla|talk]]) 06:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Source to that? I think that most logos aren't a "favorite of many" but instead just treated more indifferently. There are also logos that are disliked. Most of the people saying yes seem to understand the question. [[User:AlmightyKingPrawn|AlmightyKingPrawn]] ([[User talk:AlmightyKingPrawn|talk]]) 06:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''|''' ''But encouraging the vague "favorite of many" statement is a bad idea.'' |
|||
:No it's not. Look around. (are people praising the logo in YouTube comments, is the logo included in favorite logos videos, do people talk about the logo positively, etc.) If this logo's reputation is well-known among the community, then obviously our Legacy statements have justification to put in there. |
|||
:'''|''' ''Almost every logo is a "favorite of many".'' |
|||
:True but again, if the reputation is well-known, absolutely I think it should be included. I think you are just going off YOUR own belief on what you think it means.<br> -<span style="font-family:'AVID Sans';">Compooper</span> 11:15, 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> |
|||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
||
[[Category:Passed Requests for Comment]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 08:23, 28 February 2023
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So I see there's a bit of a conflict in what's considered "POV".
These statements include but are not limited to:
- "this logo is a favorite of many"
- "this logo is fondly remembered for those who watched (SHOW)"
- "many people like this logo due to its animation"
Some consider statements like these to be good enough, and I think it's because of the fact that they assume it's not just one person, and believe most people are in agreement.
Then, on the other side, some users are removing Legacy sections written out as such, saying that they are "POV" and "unfounded". Some users have attempted to put back those sections, but ultimately get deleted again. Because of this, there is no general consensus on what or what not to consider "POV".
So, I'm making this proposal to hopefully solve this. I'm going to include a Yes-No vote, not just a typical Support-Oppose vote. The side with the larger number of votes will be added to the tutorial guidelines and will be effective following the closing of this vote.
-Compooper 12:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Should Legacy include "favorite of many" statements?
Don't forget to explain your reasoning.
YES
- Big yes from me here. Most statements in this vein can be backed up by literally looking in a YouTube comments section (*cough* Starz 2016 *cough*).
(name change coming soon) 13:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC) - It's a yes from me. Logohub (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah! This is a crucial part to the legacy section
(• USER TALK! •) 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC) - Yes, I fully support this. I have noticed the Legacy section to be the source of some community drama recently, so some clarity on how it is to be used would be welcome and should help kerb the drama Luke2505 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely. SnowflakesOmega (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if it is a logo that really is popular in the logo community and/or a show fanbase and not something that is clearly a single editor's opinion. For two examples for judging, does it appear on logotuber "favorite logo" compilations on YouTube a lot? Are the comments on uploads of the logo individually praising the logo even if the commentators do not appear to be part of the logo community? I've been waiting for this RFC for ages because without naming names some recent edits have been driving me nuts. I think the system used for YMMV on TV Tropes would be a good model in keeping the Legacies balanced in consensus. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Initially voted "no", but changed my mind after reading AlmightyKingPrawn's reasoning.
· Talk · Edits 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) - Yes. DmitriLeon2000 TALK CONTRIB 23:45, November 30, 2022 (UTC)
NO
- Absolutely not. It's a pointless filler phrase. Most logos could be considered "a favorite of many" depending on what one's definition of "many" is. It wasn't on that many pages to begin with. The legacy section is not meant for vague observations. --Shakla (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- No. This will open the floodgates to bring back the same problems this change was designed to curb. --Bridgeleoi (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
* Per Shakla.
· Talk · Edits 21:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment
Problem is the title of this and the question asked are totally different. I would be fine with some additional guidelines on POV. But encouraging the vague "favorite of many" statement is a bad idea. Almost every logo is a "favorite of many". --Shakla (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Source to that? I think that most logos aren't a "favorite of many" but instead just treated more indifferently. There are also logos that are disliked. Most of the people saying yes seem to understand the question. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- | But encouraging the vague "favorite of many" statement is a bad idea.
- No it's not. Look around. (are people praising the logo in YouTube comments, is the logo included in favorite logos videos, do people talk about the logo positively, etc.) If this logo's reputation is well-known among the community, then obviously our Legacy statements have justification to put in there.
- | Almost every logo is a "favorite of many".
- True but again, if the reputation is well-known, absolutely I think it should be included. I think you are just going off YOUR own belief on what you think it means.
-Compooper 11:15, 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.
