Forum:Should we ditch nicknames?: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
|text=If consensus is for it, I'm not opposed. |
|text=If consensus is for it, I'm not opposed. |
||
|username=Hb1290 |
|username=Hb1290 |
||
|rank=Administrator |
|||
|timestamp=8 September 2021 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Forumpost |
|||
|text=I definitely think nicknames now are not necessary. IMO it's a reflection of the old Scare Factors. I brought this issue up before in an old thread: |
|||
{{quote|I've seen a lot of logos here have too many nicknames, most of them are wordy, redundant, or too specific, and I doubt anyone but the writer used the nicknames anyway. A while ago I removed a nickname from the Bum Motion Pictures (South Korea) page that referenced bum as in butt, even though it wouldn't make any sense in a South Korean context anyway.}} |
|||
But now that I think of it, you're right Shakla, nicknames are not encyclopedic material. No one calls the 2002 Paramount logo "Ultra Majestic Mountain" nor "Perumount the Fourth". They call it "the 2002 Paramount logo" or "the old Paramount logo". They're unnecessary and most of them names only the writer use (or made up). |
|||
Of course there ''are'' logos with legitimate nicknames, such as Screen Gems, Viacom and Columbia's sunburst, but they can just go in the Editor's Notes. |
|||
|username=Logohub |
|||
|rank=Administrator |
|rank=Administrator |
||
|timestamp=8 September 2021 |
|timestamp=8 September 2021 |
||
Revision as of 04:17, 8 September 2021
This thread has been featured.
| Report post
|
Perhaps we should get rid of the nicknames on descriptions. It's just a bunch of low-quality filler. A lot of in-jokes. It's not encyclopedic material. Only a few nicknames have any regular use in discourse outside of the wiki. The last 2 New Line Cinema logo descriptions each have 17 different nicknames. That's beyond excessive. |
| Report post
|
You know what I'm very much in favor of this. We should only keep nicknames that are common community discourse like V of Doom, S from Hell, Splaat, etc. |
| Report post
|
agreed, i have legit never seen a singular person that has called the 20th Century Studios logo the "Disney Tower" lol |
| Report post
|
Yeah, might as well do it. Another reason I can think of is that some of them are based on information that has since been removed, and are thus outdated. |
| Report post
|
If consensus is for it, I'm not opposed. |
| Report post
|
I definitely think nicknames now are not necessary. IMO it's a reflection of the old Scare Factors. I brought this issue up before in an old thread: I've seen a lot of logos here have too many nicknames, most of them are wordy, redundant, or too specific, and I doubt anyone but the writer used the nicknames anyway. A while ago I removed a nickname from the Bum Motion Pictures (South Korea) page that referenced bum as in butt, even though it wouldn't make any sense in a South Korean context anyway. But now that I think of it, you're right Shakla, nicknames are not encyclopedic material. No one calls the 2002 Paramount logo "Ultra Majestic Mountain" nor "Perumount the Fourth". They call it "the 2002 Paramount logo" or "the old Paramount logo". They're unnecessary and most of them names only the writer use (or made up). Of course there are logos with legitimate nicknames, such as Screen Gems, Viacom and Columbia's sunburst, but they can just go in the Editor's Notes. |
