Forum:Print logos and in credit logos
| Report post
|
Honestly, I think the print logos removal was too unnecessary as we weren't stealing anything much from logopedia. Logopedia has a page about the logos of AVID (formally CLG Wiki) so I don't think they mind too much.
|
| Report post
|
Honestly, I think the print logos removal was too unnecessary as we weren't stealing anything much from logopedia. Logopedia has a page about the logos of AVID (formally CLG Wiki) so I don't think they mind too much. I don't think the removal of print logos was because we were stealing. I think everyone realized that they were already doing that sort of thing and it wouldn't be in our best interests to do something similar when they've already got in under control. And I don't get why we removed in credit logos as in credit logos are "Audiovisual Identity" because some are on the end credits and you can see the logos. They're really not. The ones that have a logomark I think are fine to keep but those that are just text and nothing more shouldn't really be considered a logo. |
| Report post
|
I honestly have to heartily disagree with the removal of in-credit logos, though I do appreciate the ones with visual elements sticking around. But there are still other edge cases I would have liked to see preserved (e.g. Goodson-Todman never had a true "logo," but the announcer spiel is unforgettable -- at least some captures are still up). They did go away during the Wetpaint days but eventually returned - if past is prologue, hopefully they will return here someday. |
| Report post
|
Say, if the CLG Wiki/Audiovisual Identity Database is going to remove all in-credit logos from this site and prohibit them going forward, I wonder where else in the Internet are we supposed to compile the descriptions for such logos? |
| Report post
|
They did go away during the Wetpaint days but eventually returned - if past is prologue, hopefully they will return here someday. I don't think they will ever come back in any way, shape, or form. |
