AVID:Requests for Comment/Redefine usage of Technique on still logos

Compooper (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Keep as it is currently)
Do nothing with these sections.

Proposal 2 (Remove all blank Technique sections)
Remove every instance of "Technique: None." as they are considered redundant.

Oppose

 * , because because by that point, why describe the software used to make the logo? On top of that, some logo descriptions would ONLY have a "Logo" and "Availability" section, which would just feel empty. This particular proposal destroys the point of Technique as a section. VPJHuk (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) per VPJ. EMG/Roxie (She/They) (Let's Chat!) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the above comments. Fiddlesticks logo.png (• USER TALK! •) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) I for the same reason as VPJ. The wiki does need some logic, you know... TVB-12-3-2023.png | (lets play football) 14:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Per all. Gilby1385 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) This will definitely make things more vague in the wiki. Yuuko2K (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Keep all sections, but replace "None" with the method used to create the still image)
My personal pick. Even still images can have methods of animation or production attached to it. I've already tested this out on a few pages but it seems it didn't really get attention. Notably: Draft:GEICO. These factors have to be considered while writing these descriptions. A logo can't just be made out of thin air. How was it made? I see the current "None" phrase as an artifact of the FX/SFX era where we had to describe the moving objects in the logo. Makes sense, because still logos had no movement. But that's not how the section works anymore. And I feel the current "None" phrase to be out of place when you consider the proper Technique usage.

This is my third proposal. What do you think?

Support

 * , because the points mentioned here are simply well explained. VPJHuk (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Could do, I guess. Gilby1385 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) easy winner here. EMG/Roxie (She/They) (Let's Chat!) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Fiddlesticks logo.png (• USER TALK! •) 13:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Logoarto (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) It's true that a logo can't be made out of thin air. TVB-12-3-2023.png | (lets play football) 14:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) per others. Camenati (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) per others. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) since this will improve these descriptions. Yuuko2K (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  This fixes the above problem, though it would be hard to know what software someone used for making still logos (unless we type Technique: Freeze Frame for the still movie logos). Example: The 2001-2004 Nelvana logo. It'd be hard to tell what software was used to create that logo. Fiddlesticks logo.png (• USER TALK! •) 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not need to specifically say the software. All you have to state for 2001 Nelvana is "Computerized graphic" That's all. Compooper (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, I just realized that after seeing the Geico page. Fiddlesticks logo.png (• USER TALK! •) 13:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)