AVID:Requests for Comment/How about graphics information?

How about graphics information?
Is it possible to describe graphics information like this?

Computer System: Silicon Graphics Indigo

Animation Software: Alias Wavefront PowerAnimator

Try to look up SIGGRAPH conferences for research. For example: https://history.siggraph.org/conference/siggraph-1988-15th-annual-conference-on-computer-graphics-and-interactive-techniques/

Can we do that?

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this would work as a dedicated section, mainly because most logos we have no idea what graphics software or specialised equipment they used, but also because this kind of information is usually more suited for the Trivia or Technique sections, which are both much more broad and can cover a wider range of information. LoganStuff (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above. Gilby1385 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) per above. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Would've been interesting, but due to the fact that we don't know what or who made a lot of the logos, we can't have TBAs popping up all over the place on these pages. Plus, I think two more sections would make the reading time longer and would be overall completely redundant. So I'm out on this one. Vmoney25, talk, and my sandbox. 9:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) . Per above, this relies on us knowing what kind of hardware and software was used for each and every single logo. It'd be almost completely unused, and where we do know this information, we can already fit this in the Technique section. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 09:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) per everyone. There's no way this will work, and as a result, your RfC will end up closing as a failure. It's redundant too because we can fit what kind of hardware and software was used for each logo in the Technique section, so for all of those reasons, I'm out. AUnnamedDragon 4:42 PM, June 12, 2023 (CET)