AVID:Requests for Comment/Music/Sounds section revamp

i have got two proposals for revamps of the Music/Sounds section:

Rename "Music/Sounds" to "Audio"
as the title would imply, i am proposing the rename of the "Music/Sounds" section to just "Audio". reasons being:
 * to me, the Music/Sounds name sounds very clunky, and the use of the word Sounds makes me think that whoever named that forgot about the word Audio
 * in a similar manner to the FX rename to Technique, Audio is more concise than Music/Sounds
 * accounts for other audio in logos. e.g. voiceovers
 * ties in with the wiki name

Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Oh. Yes. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) It makes sense with a simpler term like "Audio" and I can really see your points regarding this section's new direction... Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , particularly for consistency across the wiki with this specific section. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I voiced my concerns on the Discord server about why "Music/Sounds" was a weak name. Again with the voiceovers point, "Audio" is much more inclusive of all types of cues that could happen during a logo's soundtrack. Compooper (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I can definitely see this far simpler term being more inclusive. VenusandMars77 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Yes. One billion percent yes. Charlie signature AVID.png (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) The "Music/Sounds" name has run its course. --AUnnamedDragon 9:02 PM, October 4, 2023 (CET)
 * 5) definitely fits in more and is much simpler. Logoarto (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose
So... What will be the answer to this? TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 02:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems like a good idea, but unfortunately I need to oppose it because I don't want a rename, I just find it annoying that the Wiki is doing more and more unnecessary rebrands. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please try and provide a proper reason as to why it's a bad idea, beyond just "I don't like change". Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It's because the name "Audio" sounds like for sound effect and voice. Not the music and sound effect. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Quite a few logos incorporate voiceovers. I don't think "Audio" can be construed as just sound effects and voiceovers by many users. Plus, how are the rebrands "unnecessary"? T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I think the rebrands are fine honestly. Charlie signature AVID.png (• USER TALK! •) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Apologies for the delay,it's because thanks to today's rebrands, things that had in the wiki were replaced or removed just because it was "irrelevant" or "well americanizing" and other reasons there, like the removal of tiers, nicknames, etc. This makes the Wiki much simpler and duller. I know it was because of that infamous 9/9 and other things, but I know that all those things stayed on the Wiki for 15 years, they were the best thing the wiki had, but because of the changes, we need to stick with these rather than the others. And to finish speaking, my quote "Are changes good? No.", I'm sorry, but I prefer to oppose this RfC, is the only reasoning I had to do. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 01:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We had to do this to adopt a more professional stance. The tiers, the nicknames, the opinions, they had to go. Just because they were there a long time doesn't mean they fit what AVID is about. We're a logo documentation site, first and foremost. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 02:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1: So that means that all this time was to make the Wiki "professional"? 2:I already know this is a logo documentation site the first time I discovered the wiki, didn't need to say that. Some time ago I had a secret, I wanted to criticize this year's changes a lot, but I wasn't going to do it because I was afraid of causing drama, controversies, etc. Or even get me banned. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 02:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We had to do that to evolve. I mean, the CLG already had a bad name for years; 9/9 was the final straw. I said "we're a logo documentation site first and foremost" because we're getting rid of the things that detract from that goal. For one, almost none of the nicknames were even used; you don't hear anyone say "Ultra Majestic Mountain" to refer to the 1986 Paramount logo. The tiers were pretty subjective, too, and very Americentric; logos were thought to be rare simply because they didn't show up in American media. TL,DR: change isn't inherently bad. As for your other point on wanting to criticize the wiki's changes, we aren't the BoD; you're welcome to explain why you think we would've benefitted from keeping things as they were. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 03:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh I think you're right, after I read the text you wrote, it made me almost cry reading it, it just reminds me of my bad behaviors that I did in my childhood, the bad behaviors that I did it on the discord server twice, and because I was banned on servers that just because followed the rules of the AVID server, Recently I've been having a pretty bad life this year, I don't want to talk about what happened for personal reasons, since I discovered the wiki I wanted to make my dreams come true, and at 13 years old I'm making my dreams come true on the Wiki, after that behavior on the server, I'm managing to improve my behavior, someday or year I might be unbanned from the server if I improve my performance a lot. Trevor, I'm really sorry for my opposition, since I said it you're right, if everyone want to make these changes, you can! Because now I will follow the changes. I will make the supports that should improve the future of the Wiki and the opposites for some that are unnecessary for the Wiki. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 03:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Section absent in case of no audio
Again, Like the title says, if a logo doesn't have audio, the section is not there instead of just saying None.

Diberhaze (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Again, yes. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Same reason as above. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) ...however, I don't agree with removing it if it has no songs or sound effects. That is like saying we should remove the Technique section if it is a still logo, which is necessary if people want to know if a logo is animated or has accompanying audio. It can also provide more detail to logos that don't have video captures available or those that are dead. Camenati (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Good reason to oppose. TPatKB (AKA Mr Vadimon) (this is my talk page) 00:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) yeah, i must say that is definerly something i didn't take into account when thinking of this proposal. i'll gladly take the L Diberhaze (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Camenati. Eternity Media Group (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Camenati's concerns are valid. When describing a logo without audio, if a video capture is not available, a text description would be very much helpful. Compooper (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) per Camenati. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Charlie signature AVID.png (• USER TALK! •) 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) On this part of the proposal...I'm out. Camenati's concerns are very valid as pointed out. --AUnnamedDragon 9:06 PM, October 4, 2023 (CET)