AVID:Requests for Comment/Replace "practical effect" with something else

Explanation
Recently I saw that the use of "Practical Effect" was being used in some things that has nothing to do. For example, some Indian logos have a live action model in it, but instead of saying "live action model" has "practical effect" in it, this was obviously the lack of knowledge that the editor was putting in the "Technique" section.

Another example is the Toho logo that used "practical effect" in it, but thanks to a rare behind-the-scenes photo, it was made with two layers of glass, this would obviously not be considered "practical effect" but rather a kind of real-time cel animation, then i replace it with "Effect using glass layers" (Now effect using two glass layers one for the logo istelf and one for the lights, proofread done by Trevor.)

Yes, I know that this was used when we don't know what the logo was made of, but it is important to know how to pay attention to the details that the logo has, thus putting in the "Technique" what the logo actually has made.

If you are confused how to replace it, an edition of mine at Gaumont for the 1971-1980 logo, I put "live action chroma key model, cel animation, and color change in light", If you didn't want the section to be replaced, we could improve it to "Practical effect: (the effects on the logo)", or if you don't know what the logo is actually made of, for now the "Practical Effect" can be kept.

Then? Reading all this do you think this is a good idea? What is with me in it? If you have a question, comment in the comments, and I'll get back to you. Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 20:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Practical effects are still valid special effect techniques, so I don't exactly see what else is wrong here. The examples provided are not exactly the term's fault; they are either mismatches or simply expanding the details of a logo's technique. Also, if this proposal suggests the term can be kept if the editor is unsure what specific effect is used here, despite this proposal being in favor of the term's replacement, then frankly this change will very easily be ignored. Camenati (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Are you going to say that Indian logos that have a live action model are still practical effects? Maybe I think you need read the proposal a little again and then see the logos that perhaps use "practical effects" and see whether or not this should be a logo made using this technique. Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 20:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not exactly say that, but technically they are. Live-action models (or scale models) are used as miniature effects, which in turn are part of the practical effects category. I do agree that it better to be detailed in some cases, but your examples didn't point out what is exactly wrong with using the term "practical effects". If you are saying using the term "practical effects" is lazy or unspecific, then that is like saying using the term CGI is lazy, when a simple description of the animation technique is valid. If anything, this page needs to be prioritized more by editors if they are having trouble defining the technique used in a logo. Camenati (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I get it, but maybe an improvise on it might work now? Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) per Cam. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 20:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) This is stupid ForcedExcess26 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) per above. EMG/Roxie (She/They) (Let's Chat!) 23:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Phbsignature.png (話す/hanasu) -  you only live once... or nine times. - bob  00:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Much of the reasoning here can be applied to Techniques written as "CGI" or "2D computer animation." It is a general term to embody all types of these respective categories, and should not be considered "lazy." Compooper (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm obviously out per everyone. Camenati and Compooper each made good points. --AUnnamedDragon 3:16 AM, January 27, 2024 (CET)
 * 7) The term does qualify as a technique, sooo... TVB-12-3-2023.png | (lets play football) 12:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Second proposal (improve it)
My second proposal will now be an idea that I changed, we may not be able to replace it there, but rather improvise it, now, we must improvise it to "Practical effect: (the techniques in the logo)" without replacing or anything like that, it's just improvising. This improvisation can make it easier to describe what the logo has, as I said, for example the fourth Gaumont logo, it will be "Practical effects: live action chroma key model, cel animation, and color change in light."

Will this second proposal be better? Who is with me now? Tortuga Tonta Prods. (AKA Mr. Vadimon) (Formerly TPatKB) (this is my, yes, MY talk page) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Aside from how this is no better (you either say "practical effects" or describe the technique in detail, but not both), I think you meant "improve", not "improvise". T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) per Trevor. EMG/Roxie (She/They) (Let's Chat!) 23:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Can't really see what this would achieve. Sure, more detail would be nice, but I think this would make the section feel more cluttered. Go with Trevor's idea of using one or the other. Not both. Compooper (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Again, I'm out per everyone. Trevor in particular made a good point on how this proposal is no better than the other one. Also, "improvise" means creating or performing something spontaneously and making things up overtime, rather than "improving" things. --AUnnamedDragon 3:22 AM, January 27, 2024 (CET)
 * 5) I agree with Trevor here. TVB-12-3-2023.png | (lets play football) 12:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)