AVID:Requests for Comment/Removing Nicknames Section and Reconstructing Availability section

First thing I want to mention is the nicknames section. As I can tell, there are people that have different views on what nicknames are notable or not. As seen on the MGM Cartoons page, I made a nickname that I think would fit the 7th logo, but then some troll came in and removed most the more notable nicknames. The nicknames section is just the scare and cheesy factors all over again, even with the limitations now, that is not helping much.

As for the availability section, I would only suggest using the scale if notable enough to the sources its found on and not personal preferences. Walt Disney Pictures and Paramount Pictures are examples of this, as their scales on their logos (2nd logo for Walt Disney and 3rd logo from Paramount) would change constantly. The scale should still be in use but I want some limitations with it.

So yeah, I just wanted this to be a more reliable place even if a wiki, and by removing the nicknames section and remodifying the availability section, there should be less edit wars. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * Agree with everything you said. For one, many of the nicknames here are made up (who uses "V-iA-COM" for the first Viacom logo, for example?). Official nicknames could go under "Trivia", and notable nicknames like "S from Hell" or "V of Doom" could fall under "Legacy". And yes, "Availability" needs an overhaul here. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 07:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * for the Availability part. We need to rewrite the scale in a way that makes sense and that people can agree on if a logo is "rare" or not. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per everyone else CalvinWilkerson (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * for the nicknames part: This is what I have been thinking about in the previous Nicknames RfC: too many of the nicknames appear to be made up on the spot, to a point where they have become useless. Genuine ones such, as the "S from Hell" and "V of Doom", should be noted in context instead. --Pingu (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't lie, I'll kind of miss the Nicknames section if we get rid of it, but it's honestly been misused for way too long and, at this rate, should probably be put out of its misery. So much of its usage from other editors has largely only been to do stuff like trying to insert snarky comments about certain logos, make comparisons to other logos that are either very trivial or most other people won't know or care about, were made solely to praise, bash, or insert other biased opinions on logos, or were completely made up by a random user on the spot, which completely defeats the intended purpose of the section. And don't even get me started on the abomination that is the majority of nicknames on our Southeast Asian logo pages... As for the Availability section, I definitely agree with the proposed idea for the Scale. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * in regards to both. To be real, I always thought the nicknames were childish. Also, cleaning up the availability section might help remove the constant "Don't expect this to appear on [X]" comments because another user said the line was unnecessary. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC) IAmThe789Guy
 * There could be cases where a company that produces for a show, its logo may not appear. While we could remove the constant "Don't expect this to appear on [X]" comments, we could also reword them as well. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtually all nicknames are fan generated and not used in any frequency. Make the pages look informal. The availability scale could go, given how nearly all logos can be seen on-demand. --Shakla (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There could be a replacement for the scale in the future but for now I want it still in use. I probably recommend making a follow-up after this passes. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * for the nickname removal. for the availability reconstruction. While I support the removal of nicknames that are redundant (i.e. Rotating Silver V) and nicknames that appear to have been made up on the spot (i.e. That V, Where's the [X]?, and every nickname with "Boring" in them), I don't see this doing well for logos with genuine nicknames (i.e. V of Doom) or official nicknames (i.e. Broadway, Stand Alone, City), although with genuine nicknames, I do see them fitting in the Legacy section. For the case of the Availability section, it needs an upgrade, we could do without the scale, since that is pretty much inline with the old scare factors. Another big problem is the "Don't expect this to be seen on [X], despite the company producing it." copypasta, as they usually don't give explanation to why the logo doesn't appear (i.e. Klasky-Csupo and Film Roman having only animated The Simpsons and have not produced it, hence the lack of their respective logos). Overall, I do hope to see the result and aftermath of this RfC. ★ Nova (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe once this RFC is over, you can discuss a replacement of the availability table. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I figure that the official names of sound system trailers should replace the "Xth Logo" on the ordinal, similarly to certain station ID pages (i.e. Cartoon Network).
 * Kind of like this:
 * Broadway (Late 1983-October 24, 2006, March 19, 2010-September 17, 2012) ★ Nova (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that too, though I imagined like this:
 * 2nd Logo (V of Doom) (June 1976-September 13, 1986)
 * Some logos do not have official or notable nicknames. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is also a good idea, the only problem I have with it is regarding logos with community given nicknames, I was proposing this idea for sound system trailers, which usually have official names. ★ Nova (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The V of Doom is a common nickname that was given to the second Viacom logo, and that is a very notable nickname. Again, the nicknames section now is only for official or notable nicknames. Maybe we can use both of our ideas, your idea would only be for pages that have all of its logos with official or notable nicknames, while my idea would be applied to pages where its logos only partially have official or notable nicknames. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

for both parts - especially with the availability proposal. I have seen reasonably common logos just not seen in a little while getting bumped to "uncommon" or "rare" just because they're old (like old home entertainment logos from the 80s and 90s), or logos that only show up on one or two films or shows (but still appear on recent or even semi-recent prints) also getting dumped into the "rare" category. I feel these only make the availability tiers muddy, especially for collectors - and let's not forget TAT's logo only is well known for being rare. By eliminating the scale entirely, it defuses irrational actions like the Sony-TAT incident from happening again - as well as further ridding unnecessary subjective commentary some articles were plagued with prior to 9/9. Solarstrike (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFC is not about removing the scale, but instead using it in a more notable manner. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel that revamping the scale isn't going to be enough - eventually similar people will try to come back and do the same behavior and justify it with the new rules. A full removal, as I said - will prevent any incidents of this happening ever again; at least in theory. Solarstrike (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

for the availability section | nickname part - I like to see the availability sections of pages get reconstructed but I like to keep the nicknames. Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. You still want to insert personal information huh? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sickminecraft45 So what is your rationale for keeping the nicknames? T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 02:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I like the nicknames! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bruh CalvinWilkerson-transformed.png(The Third Place) 03:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Massive bruh moment if I've even seen one MinistrycraftEntertainment (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Abstain
for the Nicknames part. I'd like to see Trevor's idea get implemented, but for now I have no preference. See my comment about the nickname issue below. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC) I don't really care about RfCs anyway. As such, I'll let everyone else decide. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
for the Nicknames part The reason why most of the edit wars go around nicknames is because of children. Kids are losers. They have all the time in the land for nicknames. I say we should just make more nickname rules but not ditch them. But yet again, I see where you are going with this. CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just kids do this you know, but also adults too. If it were 2007, the adults on the site would be immature because it was new at the time. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about only creators of a page make nicknames, and nobody else. CharlieFiddlesticks (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? That's still gonna make things in a personal view! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't personal view nice Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png (lets talks) 00:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * that's literally what we've been weeding out. That's been made very clear throughout the entire process of redeveloping the site. MinistrycraftEntertainment (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Only ditch nicknames that were NOT professional. THX's trailer names were created by the company, sans a few. JrStudios (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but we don't want more unofficial and unotable from trolls either. If a logo has more than one official or notable nickname, it would probably be trivia. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments
I removed the nicknames in MGM Cartoons. The nickname in question was "Tanner's Return", which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems like a nickname thought of on the spot, with the way you said "I thought would fit the logo". I go by the saying "if I haven't heard of the nickname to describe a logo, it's not well-known or notable." So, please don't call me a "troll" when I am simply doing what I believed was best for the page. This has been an issue on most pages.

To add to my comment I also remove nicknames that don't really make sense and just describe the elements of the logo (take "Gold MGM", "Blue Ribboning", "Leo Cardboard" or "Gene Deitch Lion" on MGM Cartoons, and "Disney Script" or "Smiling Mickey" in The Walt Disney Company for example). The point of nicknames (at least from my view) is to ONLY document the well-known nicknames of the logo, fan or official, and leave the nonsensical ones out.

Please feel free to check out AVID:Tutorial Guide for more information on this, where I wrote pretty much all of the new guidelines among some other people (including Nicknames). Thank you for reading, and please understand my view. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have interesting points on this issue, but I really don't want more edit wars and drama occurring. Removing the nicknames table might be the best option at this point. Besides, most nicknames are made by people, some are official but others are not. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)