AVID:Requests for Comment/Rebranding proposals

Following the rebranding, several users have suggested changes to be made to the wiki. This RfC is to decide if these suggestions should be implemented.  Logohub   (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Limit to only three nicknames)
There is a tendency for nicknames on the wiki to be overly excessive and meticulous, redundant, and heavily opinionated. Therefore, putting a limit to the number of nicknames (and including only official ones when possible) should be done.

Support (1)

 * 1) Nicknames have got out of hand somewhat sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) That's for sure LurkingManiac (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Yep, there are a ridiculous amount of nicknames which are not needed to describe one logo. Another suggestion I would like to make to improve the nicknames is to stop using stupid names like "Logo's Brother" or "The Personification of All That Is (Some exaggerated term)". Camenati (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Nicknames drive me mad. It really annoys me when someone does an entire edit and it's just adding a nickname under the "X's Y Cousin" copypasta. They really should be either the official names, really widely used nicknames (eg S From Hell, V of Doom) or something short and descriptive enough (eg Warner Bros. having "The Shield"). AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 5) This is a much needed change to AVID. You don't know how many nicknames Nancer removed from the 20th Century Studios page and that I had to remove AGAIN because someone (not named to avoid harassment) restored those nicknames. ★ Nova (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I remember when this was talked about before and I mentioned a limit of max. 6 nicknames. 3 will do too though, and while it might be hard trimming them down on the big pages, it will hopefully generate more straightforward and on-the-point choices. PM pinter (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) the nicknames are not just ridiculous but also nonsensical and it makes us look like the exact people we are trying to both avoid being and distance ourselves from. Mr. Gann (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Nicknames are a bit unconventional for this site, hopefully this helps contain the issue! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  So many of these nicknames aren't even used all that much (I've never seen anybody use "Burning S" for the Screen Gems logo). Plus way too nonsensical. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Many of the nicknames are ridiculous. I have never heard anyone call the CGI Disney logos "Zooming Castles". Dominicmgm (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Too many of the nicknames appear to be made up on the spot, to a point where they have become useless. In fact, the nickname field should be dropped and genuine ones such as the "S from Hell" and "V of Doom" should be noted in context. --Pingu (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (1)

 * 1)  I do somewhat like this idea, but I think it would be a problem for some logos. Jecken (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm in favor of removing nicknames, but not so much placing a limit of 3.  There's going to be pointless edit wars about which ones to include.  Nearly all listed nicknames are fan-made and have no mainstream usage.  I don't think there's a need to list hardly any of them. The "(and including only official ones when possible)" makes sense.  And when that applies, could be included in a trivia section. Shakla (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments (1)
Three nicknames is probably a little too strict, so I think a limit of 4 or 5 would be fine. CalvinWilkerson (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Merge Company Bumpers Database with AVID)
The Company Bumpers wiki was originally split off from the CLG Wiki because it does not fit the "closing logos" image. However, the CB wiki is poorly maintained and fairly inactive, thus creating a breeding ground for socks and vandals who often continue their antics there after being blocked on CLG/AVID. Company bumpers also often intersect production logos, and some logos (such as Paramount Home Entertainment, Walt Disney Home Video and Columbia TriStar Home Video) serve as both production logos and bumpers.

Support (2)

 * 1)  YES, That site I have barely used in a long time (even in wikifoundry.) So seeing this change works out SUPER WELL. -SORA- (HifiSara9000seven) (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't even use CBD that often, so this would work. ShanuJackal (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  LurkingManiac (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  honestly it's pointless to argue against it at this point considering what's described above and the name is not exclusive to logos anymore. Mr. Gann (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Matt once found a rare warning screen/Universal Home Entertainment logo hybrid, so that counts as both a bumper and a home video logo. LMgamer36 (2020, 2022-present).webp (Visit my talk page!) 00:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yep Mr. Gann (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Never fully understood why it was a second wiki. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 2)  Can't argue. How it is described above tells the whole story. Nothing more to add. PM pinter (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  This seems like a good idea in my opinion. Jecken (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  It really makes more sense to have bumpers back here, and it will help out with the activity on their pages! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  This ain't Closing Logos Wiki anymore, and CBD isn't given as much attention as AVID. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  This is the most welcoming change for the rebrand, it shows how we've evolved from a "closing logo group" and have become an audiovisual identity database, so this is pretty much a no-brainer.
 * 7)  I agree with the points listed above. AVID has become an Audiovisual Identity Database, as the name says, so making Company Bumpers a separate website, despite them also being a type of Audiovisual Identity doesn't really make sense anymore. So yeah, I agree with this change. DannyTheMuppetMan 12:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Reintroduce commercial logos)
Originally covered in a separate wiki on WF before being taken down, commercial logos are considered "auduovisual identity", and are very similar to production logos. Several companies (such as Sony and Intel) have their logos serve as both a production logo and a commercial logo.

Support (3)

 * 1)  because they're already starting to be implemented. CalvinWilkerson (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Y'know what, that actually kinda sounds like it'd be worth a shot. I'd definitely like to see this in action! LurkingManiac (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  I mean, some variations of other logos come from TV spots so why not? Also, I have something in mind with this category. Camenati (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  They are also audiovisual design, and they too need preservation. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 5)  Audiovisual advertising comes in a variety of forms. It's such a goldmine of identities that we can't look over. I'm definitely down for this. PM pinter (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I kinda like this idea. I also like the only commercial logo page so far. However, if this allows any company with commercials, then I think this can become a problem. Jecken (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  some variants of logos are from commercials too, we just overlooked them for too long honestly. Mr. Gann (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I really like this idea! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Like company bumpers, they do count as audiovisual. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  I actually think that's a good idea, would like to see the commercial logos. Cattotlebofficial (talk) 10:32, 5 october 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  It's a no brainer, plus, like Calvin said, they're already in the process of being implemented. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments (3)
Much like how a company's station IDs are split from their production logos, should commercial logos also receive the same treatment? Grouping them, commercial logos, station IDs, and production logos on the same article with it categorized as just "Station IDs" or "Commercial logos" won't sound fair to all three type of logos. Not to mention they both appear before or after different types of media. Camenati (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah CalvinWilkerson (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Reintroduce startup/shutdown screens/logos)
Originally being covered on the WF wiki before being removed altogether for not being "logos", bootscreens/startup screens/logos are considered "audiovisual identity" and again are very similar to production logos. AVID already have console startup screens so it would make sense for OS startup screens to be included.

Support (4)

 * 1) See also 3 CalvinWilkerson (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) in the world. i really don't know why we have console startups but not os startups. so this makes a lot of sense to me. tmsl (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, please, I would love this addition. ShanuJackal (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) tmsl said above exactly what I would have. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 5) all of this Mr. Gann (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Yeah, makes sense seeing that console startups are already here. PM pinter (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I really liked the Microsoft Windows pages on the Wikifoundry version of the wiki before they were removed. Technically they're not logos, but this could work well. Jecken (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Same as bumpers and commercial logos, they also count as audiovisual. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Another no brainer. It puzzled me as to why computer OS startups weren't allowed. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  No doubt, they were removed a really long time ago and I was never convinced of the reasons. Jet Dzhet (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Reintroduce infoboxes)
Infoboxes were briefly implemented before being removed. Infoboxes could make page navigation much easier and could supplement very long background sections by offering "at a glance" information.

Support (5)

 * 1) as the original proposal of this dea before it was unilaterally shut down. sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I was really upset when this idea for the wiki was shut down. The few pages it did roll out on looked so much more professional that way. This was going to be a strong support, but I agree with Camenati's point below. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 3)  Makes the pages look professional, but not going to be upset if more people agree with Camenati. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (5)

 * 1)  On one hand, infoboxes seem useful in cramming huge sections of background into well-defined words and dates; I mean, that's how it has been on Wikipedia for the longest time and I too tried my hands on them (LBS Communications). On the other hand, it might break the page as said by Camenati, so I'm not sure on whether I should support or oppose this proposal. PM pinter (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (5)

 * 1)  Might not complement the structure of the page layout very well. Imagine if the gallery and infobox are on opposite sides and then the description on the former takes up both halves on the bottom. That feels off, you know? Not to mention articles will look inconsistent if they have little to no background information. Camenati (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 6 (Replace "Editor's Note" with "Legacy")
"Editor's Note" sounds vague and some confuse it for a personal commentary section when it's not. "Legacy" sounds more fitting and less opinionated. It should also be an optional part of a page, since not all logos are notable enough for it to warrant an editor's note/legacy section.

Support (6)

 * 1) A much better approach to that secton. The Editor's Note was a good idea, just implemented badly. sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per the proposal's explanation. Camenati (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Of course. Not including it when it's not necessary and the rename, while it might not change the whole purpose of it, makes it look more professional (at least when editors know how to use it PROPERLY). PM pinter (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  This name is much clearer! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Much more suitable of a name. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I think this is a good idea on general principles. Diskkihoax (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (6)

 * 1)  I'm all for doing something with the Editor's Note, not sold on the Legacy name.  Think it will cause the same issues.  Definitely agree that it "should also be an optional part of a page", never understood why "Editor's Note: None" was plastered everywhere.  Could do without the "none" note, repurposed scare factors, reviews and the inane "is a favorite among the  community".  Drafting a trivia or misc. section (which some descriptions already have) would suffice in most cases.  Shakla (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (6)

 * 1) I do not think the issue is with the Editor's Note concept itself, but rather when users use it to state their own opinions that no one else has. I've always edited those sections of the pages with the same basic guidelines of YMMV pages on TV Tropes, removing all complaining and anything more gushy than just saying "beautiful" (eg a ridiculously over-the-top-in-love-with-the-logo Nikkatsu Editor's Note that I gave a serious trim to recently), as well as cutting anything that is clearly just the editor's opinion and not general consensus. I think that the rebrand to "Legacy" will not do much, the logo kids will see it as the same thing as Editor's Note and not do anything different. What we need is more control over what exactly an Editor's Note is. As stated, the YMMV on TV Tropes is a good guideline I feel. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 2)  I can see how Editor's Notes are "too opinionated", but replacing it with a section called "Legacy" feels a bit wrong to me. Jecken (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments (6)
I'm not sure about the rename to "Legacy" specifically, because the Editor's Note section is sometimes used to point out other things such as errors and inaccuracies. That said, all opinionated statements that don't add any value (such as "This is a beautiful/bad logo") should definitely be removed. --Axel (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the renaming could probably work for two reasons:
 * The errors could be documented under the trivia section (if it fits within the scope of that section)
 * For the renamed section, it can be used for how the logo has influenced other logos, such as 20th Century Fox being the inspiration behind various logos including Kim Lợi Productions and others.
 * Another option that also might make the section renaming useful is that "Editors note" could be a separate section from "Legacy" for warnings about certain things that could cause issues for some editors, such as flashing lights and possibly questionable content, while the Legacy section can be used for the reasons I explained above. The reason the suggestion of changing the purpose of Editors note and adding a new section could help is that the name "Editors note" implies that it’s a note directed at editors who either 1): have epilepsy (for flashing lights) or 2): any editor who may not be comfortable with seeing questionable content on a logo. The editors note section could

also be used for the inactive phone number section (or template?) found on some pages here Friendly Mountain12 (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm most likely not gonna vote here, as this is my proposal, and I'm not a narcissist. ★ Nova (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 7 (Remove the "Print Logos" section)
With the wiki being refocused to audiovisual identity, the print logos section stands out. Even so, the section is often overlooked, with most pages from this section being carbon copies of Logopedia pages, and frankly Logopedia does its job on covering print logos much better.

Support (7)

 * 1)  I am not a fan of those print logo articles. They often plagiarize Logopedia and if these type of logos are described on the main article, then what is the point of visiting the print logos section? And once again, Logopedia did it first and better and the AVID Wiki does little to distinguish itself from the former. Including variants of print logos? Logopedia does it too albeit in a different page linked to the main one. I can't really think of much to improve on this section. This section is better off on Logopedia. Plus, if commercial and startup logos will be acceptable on the site soon, then the Logopedia plagiarizing will only get worse. Camenati (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Been growing an increasing grudge towards this as of late, with it reaching a head when someone added various book publishers without on-screen logos to this category on Logos To Be Described. Anything we can do with it, Logopedia has already done way better. Maybe we can link to them. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022
 * 3)  Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! ... YEEES!!! This makes the most sense! PM pinter (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Yeah, we should just leave this to Logopedia. ★ Nova (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Redundant, given the existence of Logopedia. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Same as others; Logopedia does it a lot better. Trevor807 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I agree with everyone: Logopedia does it better than we ever could. CalvinWilkerson (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (7)

 * 1)  I don't like having the removal of Print Logos, because I Feel like Excluding them would be a missed opportunity. Yes, they are specifically made for something like Posters, Merchandise, etc. but Print logos do sometimes show up on Visual Media. (Ex: Transformers: The last knight,  barbarian, etc.)  -SORA- (HifiSara9000seven) (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm not a big fan of these pages, and I can see how it can be seen as "too similar to Logopedia". However, just like replacing the Editor's Notes, this idea feels a bit wrong to me. Jecken (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 8.1 (Remove country names from non-US logos' page titles unless they share the same company name)
Some users regard the policy of only putting country names in non-US logo page titles as very US-centric, thus not providing a neutral point of view. Because of that, some proposed the country names should be removed from the page title, unless they share the same company name.

Support (8.1)

 * 1)  Well, this one's kind of a no-brainer. LurkingManiac (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 23:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Definitely nationalist, potentially racist...why do we even still do this? CalvinWilkerson (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  still do not know why this is still a thing considering that people could have a perception that this site is nationalist (and they're not wrong for thinking that btw), so yes, leave this in the past. Mr. Gann (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  I do see how people view this as nationalist and potentially racist. Unless different companies from different countries share a name (i.e. Japanese Sega and Argentine Sega), we should remove them from the page names.  ★ Nova (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  If the purpose of it is to go all international, then sure, why not? PM pinter (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I actually somewhat like this idea. However, it may make people have to look at other sections of the page to find out which country the company is from. Jecken (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the backgrounds can tell readers which country a company originates, and some studios have their logo in their native language (i.e. most Japanese logos), so they don't really need to look harder. ★ Nova (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think PM pinter said it best! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Miraheze's servers aren't even US-based, so having all non-US logos have the name of the country in the name is not only nationalist, but also ironic. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  I never got the whole idea anyways, plus what Trevor807 said (I believe Miraheze uses British servers). Dominicmgm (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments (8.1)

 * 1)  I wonder when such a policy was introduced? --Pingu (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 8.2 (Add "(United States)" to the page titles of US logos)
An alternative suggestion is instead to put "United States" into the titles of US logos.

Support (8.2)

 * 1)  on the condition that big multinationals like Disney, Paramount, UNiversal, etc. are exempted. sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 23:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Here's another thing that I always was questioning why it wasn't happening. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 4 October 2022

Oppose (8.2)

 * 1)  You serious? LurkingManiac (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Are you high? CalvinWilkerson (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Nonsensical, since we haven't doing "Walt Disney Pictures (United States)" since the Wikifoundry era. LMgamer36 (2020, 2022-present).webp (Visit my talk page!) 09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  why would you think it would be a good option lmaooooooooo Mr. Gann (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Absolutely not. This is just stupid. ★ Nova (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  What was the one who suggested this idea on? You would better not know. PM pinter (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I like this idea, but for some reason it doesn't feel right to me. Jecken (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Too many US-based logos here. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * agree tho. Cattotlebofficial (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments (8.2)
Why the heck would we put "United States" into the titles of US logos?

Proposal 9 (Revive and rebrand CLG Live)
CLG Live was a livestream of logos and logo showcases that used to be embedded on the main page, but has gone off-air for while now. Now under AVID, this livestream can potentially be brought back under a new name and branding.

Support (9)

 * 1)  I saw the AVID YouTube channel already (rebranded from LDA), which I see a huge potential in. I've never seen CLG Live on the other hand, so I can start with clean cards; yes, a livestream has a huge potential. PM pinter (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  honestly, i really want to have a livestream channel with less neglect and much better care by putting it in a hugely more accessible place like youtube or twitch, while having better varieties of logo based content rather than watching the same 100 captures over and over again like original series and/or movies, new captures and finds, etc, and maybe we can also have newer bumpers that reflects our evolution like a bbc, pbs, channel 4, or canal+ types (modern but not without effort) rather than the logicsmash and worldwide brotherhood entertainment (stephen, mayfield, shadoot) types too. Mr. Gann (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't Shadeed and Camenati the same person? LMgamer36 (2020, 2022-present).webp (Visit my talk page!) 10:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what? no. Mr. Gann (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  That could work. Trevor807 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  It puts use to the used, like new, AVID YouTube channel, and it can show newer members what CLG Live was all about. ★ Nova (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  A logo livestream channel sounds like a great idea, plus it'd give an opportunity to showcase the AVID channel. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (9)

 * 1)  I don't think this is necessary, given there are many logo showcases out there I can watch freely and find a certain logo I want to see again. Not to mention CLG Live has very low viewership, often even no viewers at all. This may seem like a personal opinion, but I just don't care about livestreams. Camenati (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 10 (Merge the rules and policy page)
Both pages essentially contain the same rules, so it would be logical for them to be merged into one page.

Support (10)

 * 1)  It's obvious, isn't it? PM pinter (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  The description kinda writes itself. Trevor807 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  i mean, what else is there to say? Mr. Gann (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  The policy page is completely redundant, not to mention people are more likely to listen to "Rules" than "Policies". Dominicmgm (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 11 (Remove in-credit text)
In-credit text, such as the first T.A.T. Communications Company logo, are not considered logos, and unless they are consistent in appearance and/or animation (such as the 1979 DLT Entertainment Limited logo), they should not be included on this wiki.

Support (11)

 * 1)  Logos are symbols to identify their respective companies. Does basic text tell or describe what a company is? It is possible they have a logo in real life while still appearing within the end credits. Many other problematic reasons include some articles counting other company's names into the description (DLT Entertainment's in-credit "logos" also include "The NRW Company" for some reason) and how half of the Pakistani pages are just text either still or swiping into view. What else is not helping is how some of the notable in-credit text sections of various articles are such a mess; they are either hardly updated (Nelvana Enterprises) or are very inconsistent and confusing to follow (the 2nd Hanna Barbera "logo" appears to comprise of more than 3 distinct appearances. There is also the ABC Television Network notices where some are actually logos). Not to mention if the Walt Disney Pictures article have in-credit indicators included, then why not the other major Hollywood studios? However, if their logo does appear within the opening or end credits, then they count because they at least identify the company in some way and is consistent in appearance. Otherwise, spending a lot of time researching a non-logo honestly feels like a waste in comparison to a real one. Camenati (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I definitely agree with this. I have never understood why in-credit texts were ever considered logos when they are really just the company's name in the same font as the rest of the credits. It just doesn't make sense. I can accept in-credit print logos, but not notices or credits that are in a custom font that is the same as the rest of the credits. It's starting to get out of hand. --Axel (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Same reasons and thoughts as Axel. Anything that actually has a logo to it (eg IATSE) can stay, but all "logos" that are just plain text in the credits should leave. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 5 October 2022

Abstain (11)
I'm really divided here. On one hand, I agree with what Camenati is saying, on the other, in-credit text is technically audiovisual identity as well and ideally should be included. CalvinWilkerson (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Same as Calvin, for now at least. Trevor807 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 12 (Separate out unused logos)
Some companies have unused prototype logos which were never officially adopted or used on any official works, and because they were never used, such logos would not be considered as part of a company's "official" chronology. My proposal is to move any unused logos (such as the unused Warner Animation Group rebrand, or the 2nd and 4th Reliance Entertainmnent logos) to a separate section, and either place them at the end of the page or as a different tab.

Support (12)

 * , specifically the different tab option. Unused logos stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of official logos. CalvinWilkerson (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : Same as Calvin. Trevor807 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Unused logos should be removed unless there are screen captures or video examples (and I do not mean the fake ones made up in something like GoAnimate or something). Otherwise they should be moved to a separate tab. --Pingu (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 13.1 (Remove availability section from station ID pages)
The Availability sections are irrelevant to the station idents since those are only used to identify a TV channel, not to be used after TV programs, and they aren't used to accompany a TV program. I think the availability section should only be used for station idents that are completely extinct or where the logo can be seen on TV programs (like the KUHT 1957 logo on a 2021 episode of a documentary called 100 Years of Houston: KUHT (1947-1957). Tanawat2002 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Support (13.1)

 * 1)  While I'm not entirely sure on this, I agree that Availability should be optional as station IDs tend to always go extinct when no longer in use, with few exceptions (eg the Nick Jr. ones preserved on old Blues Clues DVDs). AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 5 October 2022

Proposal 13.2 (Related to above)
The availability header should probably also be removed from any subheading on pages designated under Portal:Cinema with the exception of the current trailer they use as some of the trailers from the early 2010s and earlier have been discontinued for newer trailers. Friendly Mountain12 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 14 (Article layout refresh)
I've been working on a few ideas to improve the layout of articles. The demonstration for my ideas is here. My sandbox does incorporate the infoboxes (proposal 5) as well as a few other things. Talk ·&#32;Edits

Starting from the top and working downwards:

Proposal 14.1 (ImageTOC)
My first idea is to use the ImageTOC like we use in the print logos section (and like Logopedia uses) on our description pages. it's a much better utilization of screen space than the standard TOC.

Support (14.1)

 * : Much better than what we have right now. Trevor807 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Trevor on this one. . CalvinWilkerson (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : I think this is one of the greatest ideas, it'll make page navigation a lot easier. Jet Dzhet (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  You know, it does look nice on the articles. I'm in for this one...except if a certain section has no images. It may not work for some articles, but effective on those where images are present for every section. Camenati (talk)

Abstain (14.1)

 * 1)  as whole,  for Table of Contents. I like a lot of the sandbox, but I'm not a big fan of tabbing everything except the main description for the logos. I do really like the table of contents and tabbed pictures/videos. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 6 October 2022

Proposal 14.2 (Tabbing of images and videos)
By this I mean having a tab for images and one for videos. This might reduce leading time on bigger articles by ensuring the YT widgets aren't all trying to load at once.

Support (14.2)

 * : Great idea. Trevor807 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  See above. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 6 October 2022
 * : This will definitely come in handy for low-end PC's and phones. Jet Dzhet (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  More balanced, organized, and reduces lag. I can see this working with no issues. Camenati (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 14.3 (Tabbing of description sections)
I think it looks pretty nice. Plus, combined with 14.2, I believe it would make things tidier and cut down on scrolling, a win for ease of reading and probably mobile optimization as well.

Support (14.3)

 * : I agree with that. Trevor807 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : Strongly agree with this one too, these tabbed sections can make reading long pages a lot less tedious. Jet Dzhet (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (14.3)

 * 1)  See above. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) I don't know UTC 6 October 2022
 * 2)  Not everything needs to be tabbed as AlmightyKingPrawn said. I think the problem here is how the bulleted sections of the description can be unorganized and should be broken down into specific variants. And it may be just me, but this gives me a feeling certain sections of the article are blank with no descriptions when they are actually not. Seriously, I find this site dubious for those thousands of incomplete articles. Camenati (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)