AVID:Requests for Comment/Is it time to remove the FX/SFX Section?

Is it time to remove the FX/SFX Section?
Please read my argument in full before commenting. This RfC comes after seeing another RfC on the "Summarization" section. It made me think about how often the FX/SFX section is misused because there is often a lack of known information that warrants its usage.

To start with, according to the Tutorial Guide, the FX/SFX section is a section where you would "State what kind of effects that are being used in the logo, such as if it is CGI, stop-motion, Scanimate, or simply live-action". Users are also encouraged to "also state who created the animation and/or where it was done" if the information is known. These are both interesting bits of information that should absolutely be included in the Wiki if they are known, and I am not advocating the removal of this knowledge in the slightest. After all, the knowledge of Tonal Sound and Elias Associates being behind the Disney Channel theme allowed Defunctland to track down the theme's composer as the late Alex Lasarenko, solving a mystery that had taken a long time and several dead ends to solve. However there is an issue that often, this information is not known, and thus many logos have no credible information to put in the FX/SFX section.

So that begs the question - is the FX/SFX really needed as a separate section? I feel like there are other existing sections that could very easily take on the information. For example, at the end of the "Logo" section, a sentence could be added saying "This logo was animated using [Method]" or "This logo features live action", and information regarding the designer of a logo or composer of a soundtrack could be added to the "Trivia" section. Descriptions of the logo/sound, as the FX/SFX section is often used for, can go in the relevant "Logo" and "Music/Sounds" section as intended. I believe this would help to streamline the Wiki and keeps it clear and concise.

Support
The section personally never made any sense too me. FX could just go into logos, while SFX can go into Sounds (which is what the S stands for in SFX) (• USER TALK! •) 17:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

These sections have outlived their usefulness. Just feel like redundant filler now.--Shakla (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
I would rather prefer a rename per SnowflakesOmega. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I like Snowflakes' idea more. To add on this, yes, that section is necessary, particularly to describe still logos and as a more organized way for readers to find out if the logo has animation (or what kind of technique) or not. Yes, the Logo section is used to describe what is happening in the logo, but even saying something like "This logo was animated using [Method]" sounds less concise and more filler-y than what the FX/SFX typically holds, not to mention the remnants of said section will stick out a lot, especially when those techniques are often mentioned throughout the article, and adding it into the logo description will be tough when considering the flow of it. For example, it feels off ending the logo description with what technique is used rather than the last sequence in it. The latter sounds more rational, particularly when we know that is when the logo ends. Camenati (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * I would prefer to keep somewhere we could mention on how a logo was made and its animation style. Maybe we could rename the FX/SFX section to "Technique" or something, since the name is the most confusing part of that. We didn't really mention sound effects on them at all cause they got their own section, so why the mention of "SFX"? SnowflakesOmega (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Technique definitely is more fitting  Logohub   (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Same here, we changed Editor's Notes to Legacy, we can change FX/SFX to Technique, too. ★ Nova (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Snowflakes - Compooper 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)