AVID:Requests for Comment/Controversial logos section

Controversial logos
Some logos are controversial, for many reasons. How about we do a category containing these type of logos? Is this also opinionated?

Support

 * 1)  NLiteChannel.jpg (The Third Place) 13:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Yeah it is. It feels more like a CLG Wiki thing. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) We're called Audiovisual Identity Database, not Logo Reception Wiki. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  we shouldn't have redundant categories.   Logohub   (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per everyone Compooper (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per all. Also, please make sure that you will create a RfC without unnecessary categories thing. Cattotld (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Unconstitutional. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 14:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) As per everyone above Sickminecraft45 Signature Icon.jpg   (Talk to Me!) 16:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  Doctorine Dark (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) . We are not the Reception Wikis. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) For a while I thought this was for logos with controversial content (gore, sexuality), but we have the content warning guidances and categories for those. SnowflakesOmega (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) per everybody else. This is something CLG Wiki and Qualitipedia would do. We're neither. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments
Is there anything I do an RfC for which isn't hated by everyone? Sonicfan19198282 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just that your ideas tend to be the ones we want to avoid. CLG Wiki was infamous for being way too opinionated. This is one such idea. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)