AVID:Requests for Comment/Music/Sounds section revamp: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
i messed up the support thing |
No edit summary |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
##It's because the name "Audio" sounds like for sound effect and voice. Not the music and sound effect. [[User:TPatKB|TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon)]] ([[User talk:TPatKB|this is my talk page]]) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
##It's because the name "Audio" sounds like for sound effect and voice. Not the music and sound effect. [[User:TPatKB|TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon)]] ([[User talk:TPatKB|this is my talk page]]) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
###Quite a few logos incorporate voiceovers. I don't think "Audio" can be construed as just sound effects and voiceovers by many users. Plus, how are the rebrands "unnecessary"? [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
###Quite a few logos incorporate voiceovers. I don't think "Audio" can be construed as just sound effects and voiceovers by many users. Plus, how are the rebrands "unnecessary"? [[File:T807sig.png|50px|link=User:Trevor807]] '''·''' '''[[User talk:Trevor807|Talk]]''' '''·''' '''[[Special:Contributions/Trevor807|Edits]]''' 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
I think the rebrands are fine honestly. [[File:Charlie signature AVID.png|200px|link=User:Charlie Fiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:Charlie Fiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
#{{Oppose}} I think the rebrands are fine honestly. [[File:Charlie signature AVID.png|200px|link=User:Charlie Fiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:Charlie Fiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
===Comments=== |
===Comments=== |
||
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
[[Category:Requests for Comment]] |
Revision as of 00:58, 5 October 2023
i have got two proposals for revamps of the Music/Sounds section:
Rename "Music/Sounds" to "Audio"
as the title would imply, i am proposing the rename of the "Music/Sounds" section to just "Audio". reasons being:
- to me, the Music/Sounds name sounds very clunky, and the use of the word Sounds makes me think that whoever named that forgot about the word Audio
- in a similar manner to the FX rename to Technique, Audio is more concise than Music/Sounds
- accounts for other audio in logos. e.g. voiceovers
- ties in with the wiki name
Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Support
- Support Oh. Yes. · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support It makes sense with a simpler term like "Audio" and I can really see your points regarding this section's new direction... Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support, particularly for consistency across the wiki with this specific section. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support I voiced my concerns on the Discord server about why "Music/Sounds" was a weak name. Again with the voiceovers point, "Audio" is much more inclusive of all types of cues that could happen during a logo's soundtrack. Compooper (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support I can definitely see this far simpler term being more inclusive. VenusandMars77 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Yes. Yes. One billion percent yes. (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
- Oppose It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately I need to oppose it because I don't want a rename, I just find it annoying that the Wiki is doing more and more unnecessary rebrands. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please try and provide a proper reason as to why it's a bad idea, beyond just "I don't like change". Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's because the name "Audio" sounds like for sound effect and voice. Not the music and sound effect. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the rebrands are fine honestly. (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Section absent in case of no audio
Again, Like the title says, if a logo doesn't have audio, the section is not there instead of just saying None.
Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Support
# Support Again, yes. · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
Oppose
- Oppose Same reason as above. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose ...however, I don't agree with removing it if it has no songs or sound effects. That is like saying we should remove the Technique section if it is a still logo, which is necessary if people want to know if a logo is animated or has accompanying audio. It can also provide more detail to logos that don't have video captures available or those that are dead. Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good reason to oppose. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Camenati. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Camenati's concerns are valid. When describing a logo without audio, if a video capture is not available, a text description would be very much helpful. Compooper (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Camenati. · Talk · Edits 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose (• USER TALK! •) 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)