AVID:Requests for Comment/Is it time to remove the FX/SFX Section?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as failed for initially-suggested and since-waived proposal, passed for Snowflake's alternative suggestion due to marked support. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
UPDATE: I would like to waive this proposal in favour in favour of SnowflakesOmega's idea of renaming the section to "Technique".
Support
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)
- See my reply to Snowflake's comment under Abstain
(The Third Place) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Support These sections have outlived their usefulness. Just feel like redundant filler now.--Shakla (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose I would rather prefer a rename per SnowflakesOmega. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose Why would you want to go and do something like that that? That section has been around since this wiki's inception. It seems…drastic, is all. Badjazz98 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I put my argument in full at the beginning of this RFC, and you've somewhat proved my point about why it needs to change. This section has been around since the beginning of the Wiki, but the Wiki has changed a lot since. FX/SFX was in dire need of either streamlining or an update as a lot of it had become filler or was mentioned in other sections, and an editor on the Discord told me he had removed incorrect content from upwards of 100 FX/SFX sections in the last week, which he really shouldn't be needing to do. I think Snowflake has come up with the perfect compromise for a section that keeps with the essence of what FX/SFX is designed for nowadays while not outright removing the section. Luke2505 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer Snowflakes' idea. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Personally, as long as the section is used as intended, I think it's fine like that. Doctorine Dark (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Snowflakes. I will prefer just a rename. Timpbskid23 12:48, 5 December 2022
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)
- As the OP of this RFC, I think this is an excellent compromise as not only is it more clear what the section is for and would allow for a clear up of the filler-y content, but it also means the section can be saved, something that users have been expressing their concern over on the Discord. I do have some questions though: What would you do if the animation technique was unknown (i.e. you are unsure if a logo was animated using scanimate or CGI), and would you have a Technique section for still logos? (I'd lean towards yes for still logos only for accessibility purposes, as people who may be visually impaired may read this site). Either way, full support on this. Luke2505 (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think "SFX" is supposed to mean "special effects" (The Third Place) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Colorband suggested renaming it to simply "Effects" on the Discord server. I do think it'd be a good name but "Technique" is still my preference.
· Talk · Edits 13:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Per Snowflakes -Compooper 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Per Snowflakes too. · Talk · Edits 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Abstain You might want to sit down for this one, it's a shocker: per Snowflakes. 
(name change coming soon) 05:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- I think that we are being too cautious with what sections are acceptable, because some logos may warrant unique sections depending on the context. For example, it would be hard to justify using "FX/SFX" for a completely static logo. Meanwhile, some logos may benefit from "Revision history" if there is a clear history of revisions to said logo. I think we should consider switching to a more flexible system where the default sections are recommendations but may be omitted if other sections make them repetitive, and we only list unacceptable kinds of sections (e.g. POV sections like "Scare factor" and "Cheesy factor"). --Pingu (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
