AVID:Requests for Comment/Separate name changes into their own pages and connect them with Chronology template
Solarstrike brought up that pages have become very bloated and slow to load and I think it's true. Especially pages like Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. I think this is partly because we merged all name changes into one page. Now with the Chronology template available, I think we should separate name changes into their own pages and connect them with this template. This should make pages smaller, so no more browser crashes on mobile. It's also much easier for people who wanted to look up logos for a company under an old name, e.g. Walt Disney Productions.
For demonstration:
What do you think? Logohub (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Support
Support Logopedia does this to great effect, I think it could work here as well. 
(Lets chat!) 07:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)- Support one step closer to a partnership with logopedia
(The Third Place) 07:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC) - Support per everyone else.
· Talk · Edits 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC) - Support I hereby ratify this. ∞~𝙄𝙣𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮-𝙍𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙨~∞ (꧁𝙏𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚꧂) | (꧁𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙨꧂) 19:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support I say this is a good idea. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support. As the person who brought up the concerns of page size and bloat, I believe this is one of the best ways to deal with this subject! Solarstrike (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
Abstain
I genuinely don't know what to say about this.
Yes, this is a great way to reduce clutter, but something about this just feels wrong, especially if a company has several logos under one name, but only one under another name, like 20th Century Studios.
Nova (talk) (Logo not final) 01:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we have plenty of pages where there's only one logo, so I don't see why we shouldn't do it with 20th Century Studios. We also have many pages where the description is "Same as the X logo, except..." Logohub (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose This is going to be the worst idea ever. Maybe, minor name changes were good. --RSX-798 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Comment: What about minor name changes such as "X Films" to "X Productions" or "X Movies"? Camenati (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- My personal thoughts are that in that situation it stays on the same page. 20th Century Fox/Studios was a bad choice as an example, as literally the entire brabding is the same except for one word. (Lets chat!) 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Per EMG. However we could split it in case 20th Century Studios gets more logos Logohub (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)- I feel like its going to make the page splits inconsistent, I mean we have some articles where the description is "same as x logo, except x..." so why not 20th century studios. besides the chronology template will connect them anyway. Logohub (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose no just noAnticritic12 (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- What is your rationale? And you put your oppose in the wrong place. · Talk · Edits 21:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- imagine if a logo just swaps words during the renameAnticritic12 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- What is your rationale? And you put your oppose in the wrong place.
