AVID:Requests for Comment/Print Logo Wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing as failed, with a majority of votes falling under Oppose. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Should we make a dedicated print logo wiki? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support An expanded version of AVID that has better assets than Logopedia and more decent moderation than it ONLY focused on print logos (unlike Logopedia where all logos are dedicated) would be a good plan and would be much more welcome than Logopedia. (lets talks) 17:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Adds competition to Logopedia, as AVID is rapidly expanding. JrStudios (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

   Competition is Flavor. Logopedia has had it too good for too long. We just got our first mention on Defunctland, as Logopedia has had multiple mentions throughout its lifespan. Enough of Mr. I don't wanna start any trouble AVID. We need to do something to reign over logo databases. (lets talks) 18:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

   Actually I have a revision to this. ALLOW print logos in this wiki. JrStudios (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

   It was already tried. · Talk · Edits 23:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

   Ok. JrStudios (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It would be redundant to Logopedia. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is like combining the issues the print logos as well as the Company Bumpers Wiki have together. Sure, Logopedia did them first and we could possibly find ways to make it stand out from said wiki, but that would also mean it being "poorly maintained and fairly inactive, thus creating a breeding ground for socks and vandals who often contribute their antics there after being blocked on CLG/AVID", as mentioned in the rebranding proposals. Case in point, socks like Qamichelemir59, who consistency creates print logo pages, may flock to this wiki. And as I previously mentioned on said page, much of the print logos are already described on the main articles on this site either as in-credit logos or part of the animated ones. A lot of the content may also borrow heavily from Logopedia, considering that site has many print logo pages and that those are needed to create articles on this wiki. Again, if you want print logos, then go to Logopedia instead of a new wiki that is a half-copy of said site. Camenati (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose Kid named Logopedia: (The Third Place) 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose Logopedia clone. And I agree with Camenati. · Talk · Edits 20:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose That's like if Arby's were to start selling hamburgers. It's redundant, and especially troublesome if it's its own dedicated wiki. People would rather read Logopedia for print logos than anything else, so why even bother? 20:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose I was gonna say exactly what Calvin said. (name change coming soon) 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
7. Per above, I will give a Oppose. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
8. Full oppose Compooper 21:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
9. Full oppose That's staying with Logopedia, this wiki is for on-screen logos and more. EsaïeGregoryPrickett (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose For the same reasons mentioned above, however, I think it might be worth considering possibly creating a link template for the corresponding page on LP somewhere on the page. Friendly Mountain12 (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose What's the point of making a print logo wiki? It'll probably end up like the Company Bumpers wiki: barely active. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC) IAmThe789Guy

Abstain

1.  Abstain Meh. --Zdrmonster (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2.  Abstain While I do like the idea of an alternative print logo wiki considering how needlessly and ridiculously authoritarian I've heard Logopedia's moderation is, as Camenati pointed out, it'll likely sadly end up like Company Bumpers Wiki did prior to merging back with us: generally neglected and not active, thus making it a breeding ground for trolls and a viable spot for users who get blocked here to flee to and continue their troublemaking. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)