Forum:Why are you guys viewing the Technique of completely still logos as "misuse"?: Difference between revisions
From the Audiovisual Identity Database, the motion graphics museum
Content deleted Content added
Sanicspeed3 (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{Forumheader|Administrators' Board}} {{Forumpost |text=On pages for completely still logos, particularly vanity cards, the proper technique description for these pages ("none") is being seen as "possible misuse", and therefore a violation of rules. I have pages made whose drafts I can't submit because of this. What's going on here? |username=Sanicspeed3 |rank={{subst:#ifingroup:bureaucrat|Bureaucrat| }}{{subst:#ifingroup:sysop|{{subst:#ifingroup:bureaucrat| |Administrat..." |
Reverted edits made by ArmanPikachu (talk) Tag: Undo |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|Administrators' Board}} |
{{Forumheader|Administrators' Board}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{Forumpost |
{{Forumpost |
||
|text=On pages for completely still logos, particularly vanity cards, the proper technique description for these pages ("none") is being seen as "possible misuse", and therefore a violation of rules. I have pages made whose drafts I can't submit because of this. What's going on here? |
|text=On pages for completely still logos, particularly vanity cards, the proper technique description for these pages ("none") is being seen as "possible misuse", and therefore a violation of rules. I have pages made whose drafts I can't submit because of this. What's going on here? |
||
|username=Sanicspeed3 |
|username=Sanicspeed3 |
||
|timestamp=23 January 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Forumpost |
|||
|text=That is part of a new rule on usage of the "Technique" section per [[AVID:Requests for Comment/Redefine usage of Technique on still logos|a passed RfC]]. |
|||
|username=AUnnamedDragon |
|||
|rank= |
|||
|timestamp=23 January 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Forumpost |
|||
|text=I would do this: |
|||
In-Credit mentions of a company are NOT logos if it's just text that's part of the credits, same font and all. |
|||
If there is an artistic design in-credit, it IS an in-credit logo. |
|||
Still logos are logos as long as they have some artistic merit to them. |
|||
|username=JMFabiano |
|||
|rank= |
|rank= |
||
|timestamp=23 January 2024 |
|timestamp=23 January 2024 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 4 February 2024
Report post
|
On pages for completely still logos, particularly vanity cards, the proper technique description for these pages ("none") is being seen as "possible misuse", and therefore a violation of rules. I have pages made whose drafts I can't submit because of this. What's going on here? |
Report post
|
That is part of a new rule on usage of the "Technique" section per a passed RfC. |
Report post
|
I would do this: In-Credit mentions of a company are NOT logos if it's just text that's part of the credits, same font and all. If there is an artistic design in-credit, it IS an in-credit logo. Still logos are logos as long as they have some artistic merit to them. |