Forum:Why are you guys viewing the Technique of completely still logos as "misuse"?: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:57, 4 February 2024

Sanicspeed3
User
23 January 2024

Okay, you guys don't know how to edit a wiki, you shall be deceased!

AUnnamedDragon
User
23 January 2024

Sorry my lord and savior, Sanic.

JMFabiano
User
23 January 2024

Sorry Sanic, our god. Please have mercy

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{Forumcat|Administrators' Board}}
 {{Forumpost
+|text=Okay, you guys don't know how to edit a wiki, you shall be deceased!
-|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
 |timestamp=23 January 2024
 }}
 {{Forumpost
+|text=Sorry my lord and savior, Sanic.
-|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=Sorry Sanic, our god. Please have mercy
-|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=
 |timestamp=23 January 2024
 }}