Talk:History of BBC television idents/Archive 1

Archive 1

The two main sites used to compile the idents on the article page are [1] and [2] Wikiwoohoo 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

About the images

Are they all strictly nessesary? Right now this seems like a "poster child" of WP:NOT "Collections of photographs or media files". To say nothing of Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines and policy. I mean the article is one paragraph (not counting the captions) and 40(!) "fair use" images. Sure it's all "on topic", but does each and every one of them really contribute significantly to the article (such as it is). --Sherool (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This article was requested on the requested article project page. As such, it means that every Wikipedia user now has the chance to add to the images. It is currently in a basic state but will be worked on so that each ident has plenty more information attached to it. This is the reason by the write ups for each ident are sadly lacking in depth currently, they're waiting for users with knowledge about them to work on the article. Wikiwoohoo 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tagging article for cleanup

• I have tagged this article for cleanup. It currently fails to pass the fair use criteria policy. this article needs more textual content regarding history and perspective, like National Broadcasting Company logos. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added lots of textual content, and removed the tag. -- Arwel (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BBC2's 1979 ident

I've read that this was the world's first computer generated ident, not just the BBC's. Any evidence to the contrary? If not, I'll add that. BillyH 20:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Just to make clear, as part of the AfD nomination, it was decided to remove a number of fair use images which were presented as a gallery because they violate WP:FAIR. I also nominated another article which contained nothing but a gallery of fair use idents. However, someone has added the gallery back here. My position is that the article should be reverted back to the minimal use of fair use images as needed. Rather than have a number of editors start an edit war and get this article locked, I have started debate as to what fair use images should be used here, to hopefully bring consensus and not all out war. --tgheretford (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This diff shows the best number of images and which ones in particular to use. I had made sure only the main events in the history of BBC One idents were retained, others were unnecessary. Wikiwoohoo 16:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we revert to that edit, just so the article meets WP:FAIR again. I can understand why some people may want Wikipedia to be a museum for BBC idents and logos, but there are websites better equipped which specialise in maintaining television presentation history and we need to ensure that this article keeps on the right side of fair use policy and laws. --tgheretford (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup: AfD nomination comment reminder

As part of the AfD nomination for this article, the decision was keep and cleanup, but delete if cleanup wasn't taken care of according to the fair use image policy. Wikiwoohoo spent some time to address these concerns on the article (diff), but many (not all) of the additions to the article since then seem to be going against the concerns I raised in the nomination and with the closing decision. I won't nominate for AfD, but this article really needs to be cleaned up before someone else does nominate this article. --tgheretford (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CBBC 2001.jpg

Image:CBBC 2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBC2 ident 2007.JPG

Image:BBC2 ident 2007.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC2 1974

A facelift occurred in time for the channel's tenth anniversary in 1974...

I've read the facelift occured a while later, after Christmas 1974 or possibly in very early 1975, around the same time BBC1 launched the Futura globe. Can anyone clarify this, and possibly change the above excerpt in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.112.181 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBC Three in box.png

Image:BBC Three in box.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BBC Parliament ident.jpg

The image Image:BBC Parliament ident.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:BBCRMMusicVideo.png
• File:BBCCirclesKites.png
• File:20K.jpg
• Image:BBCthreeblobs.jpg
• Image:BBCTwo (2).png
• Image:BBC Two Copper 1991-1999.jpg
• Image:BBC Two 2.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

old bbc3 music

Wasn't that a chunk of De La Soul's early 90s "Magic Number", rather than the faintly suggested in-house sampling? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

>> The history of BBC television idents starts in the early 1950s, when idents were first used by the BBC to differentiate each of their channels and create separate identites for them. <<

Hardly! Throughout the 1950s, let only the early part of that decade, the BBC had only one television channel. -- Picapica (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've amended the opening . :-) Chris 42 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chris. I'd been expecting someone to say "Well, go on: change it, then" -- just that I was a bit otherwise busy at the time! -- Picapica (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Merges should probably be discussed and agreed to first before proposing another move. Aervanath (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I have given this page some thought recently and decided that the content is not going to be expanded and would be better off mered into respective articles. I would recommend therefore that with the excpetion of BBC One, all other sections are moved into their own pages though BBC Two could also have the history section made into an article. This article would then become History of BBC One, although this is only a proposal. Otherwise, all sections including BBC One and Two should be merged into their respective articles. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As far as I can see (I could be wrong), this hasn't been discussed anywhere that it should have been, for example the BBC Wikiproject, or even the article's talkpage. There is no single reason to move this page without first gaining consensus from people interested in these articles, and such consensus cannot possibly be gained without discussing first on the relevant pages (and not this page, which will be missed by most until the move has occured). _TalkIslander 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Copied notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject BBC 199.125.109.19 (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • For the record, I oppose this move - the history of BBC1 idents is hardly the same as the history of BBC1. Nonsensical move. _TalkIslander 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

BBC News Division

I've turned BBC News 24/BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament and BBC World News into sub-headings as these channels come under BBC News Division - you may, or may not agree with this action - so please discuss here.

My reasoning is that an intro needs writing on the history of BBC News idents run at the start of early BBC1 & 2 news bulletins which have led up to these channels, otherwise it just begins in the mid-1990s (like a lot of Internet articles!), and give no history as to why the circular theme is prevalent in the idents - it was a reference to the BBC1 clock and globe. Images could be included in this intro too. For instance:

• 
  BBC Newsreel
• 
  First BBC News electronic titles

All comments welcomed...Zir (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC HD idents

What about a new section for BBC HD's "rhombus" idents, as seen here? - 60.50.243.127 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

I have reverted this edit by [3] by Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs), because it significantly impairs the understanding of the subject readers previously got from the article, in contravention of NFCC #8.

Proposed is to remove altogether the iconic globe-mirror image which symbolised the BBC for sixteen years, from 1969 to 1985, memorably sent up by Monty Python. Also proposed is to remove representative images from both of the most recently used ident series, "rhythm and movement" and "circles"; and it is proposed to also suppress the articles treating those series in more detail. This very actively cuts away from the value of the article to its readers.

WP's policy on NFC is strict. At its core is NFCC #8 and NFCC #1: we don't use images unless they really are relevant to increasing user understanding; and we don't use images if there is any suggestion they might inhibit free images being made.

In this case, there is no suggestion of replaceability; and showing the images is absolutely central to the purpose of the article -- to inform the reader who is interested in finding out more about the history of the article.

The fair use case here is absolutely cast-iron. Compare for example Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley for what has been permitted for a completely commercial money-making company. The fair use case here is even stronger than in the case DK won, because here our article directly relates to the very images themselves.

Our use here squarely passes the test of "no more than justified to achieve the purpose identified": i.e. minimal use, as the courts have defined it. Our (transformative) purpose is to give a thorough account of history of the BBC idents. Showing what the globe-mirror looked like directly furthers that purpose, and by not showing it that purpose is significantly less well advanced. "Minimal use" is a court-created idea, and this is what they mean by minimal use.

There is simply no case for removing this material. Jheald (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree to an extent. There are more non-free uses here than there need to be, but we need to be far more circumspect about removing them, and not removing the historically important ones. For example, all the CBBC logos are duplicated on that channel's own page. Black Kite 20:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I removed several images from each section to try to focus more on the more important changes in idents for each channel. For this reason I had just left the first BBC Television ident, the first globe and the balloon for the BBC One section and similar themes for the BBC Two section. I have also added merge proposal tags suggesting that the BBC One 'Balloon' idents, BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents and BBC One 'Circle' idents articles be merged into the article. Websites including The TV Room and TV Ark are linked to in the external links section and provide many more images. I'm not looking to impair the quality of the article by removing some of the images, but we don't need to have every image included. Many of the images have been uploaded by myself, indeed I created this article, but I have seen that we could do with cutting back on the images and providing more text, particularly for the newer BBC channels. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you suggest that, for example, the gallery of CBBC idents be in that article or this one? Being in both is clearly overuse. My inclination would be to leave them in this article and link it from CBBC. Black Kite 00:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would keep perhaps the first ident, the most recent one, and delete the rest. If there were then only one or two it wouldn't matter as much to keep them in both articles in my opinion. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've removed the non-free gallery from CBBC as it completely fails WP:NFCC since there's no actual comment about the logos themselves - it's just decoration - and have replaced them with a link to the gallery in this article. No information is lost, but a number of non-free usages are saved. I will be looking at other articles shortly. Black Kite 12:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that's a reasonable call. Having done so, I think it makes sense to retain a proper survey here of how the CBBC branding has evolved. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Following my creation of the remaining BBC One idents pages, with far more detailed information that is ever needed or is appropriate for on the main page, it is possible and maybe adviseable that some (NOT ALL) of the images be taken off the main pages. Such examples might be the other mirror globes and idents where not much changed through it's history. It would ease the burden of the non free image content of the page with no information lost. Rafmarham (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger

Would anyone object to merging the BBC One 'Balloon' idents, BBC One 'Rhythm & Movement' idents and BBC One 'Circle' idents into the BBC One section of this article? Much of the content is already within the article and can expand what is already there. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think that's a bad idea. I don't agree that "much of the content is already within the article". What is already in the article is an appropriate summary, per WP:SUMMARY. I think the level of detail currently in the separate articles would be out of place here. But it is useful to keep somewhere in Wikipedia as a whole. In my view the current summary/detail split works well, and nothing would be gained by upsetting it. Jheald (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of non-free uses could certainly reduce though, given that they're duplicated (again) in the sub-articles. Black Kite 05:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I had previously cut back on a number of the images in this article but this was reverted. Would it be acceptable for me to remove the images I had previously removed, thus cutting back on some of the images but keeping the main moments. There are links to The TV Room and other sites in the article which provide a much more specialised depth on the topic. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would merge the articles. They're not notable enough to have their own articles and doing so would fix the non-free abuses. Black Kite 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any non-free abuses.

I'm very wary about relying on external sites, which all too often suddenly disappear without warning and without trace.

Images that are an important part of the "History of BBC television idents" should appear in the article; as they mostly currently do, though BBC 2 could use an image from the recent "window" set -- perhaps the chase through a wood one. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the individual articles have one single non-free image in them, that's not so bad (though I'd still agree a merge is better). Black Kite 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true, there aren't any non-free 'abuses'. All the images have correct fair use rationales as is required for non-free use images. The only issue here is the number of them within the article. In a way it is overkill having so many, and a majority of the images used at the moment were uploaded by myself. I've seen though that we could keep the quality of the article but cut back to the basics of which images are included. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to be bold and carry out the merger. If it is decided that the articles were better the way they were then my actions could be reverted. Can I give it a try? Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted (though I applaud your boldness :) ). I definitely feel that this subject needs more discussion before merging the lot - there are certainly others that would oppose it that haven't commented here, potentially because it hasn't been brought to their attention. I for one feel that each article is a legitimate, notable article (though there are definitely some 'lack of source' issues). _TalkIslander 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to second Islander's actions. Too much valuable information was lost — exactly as I objected to in the #Images thread above. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IFDs

• File:BBC-one-1985.jpg (Computer-originated world)
• File:BBC-one1991.jpg (the Lambie-Nairn 'virtual globe')
• File:BBCparliamentident1998.jpg
• File:BBCworldident1999.jpg
• File:BBCparliamentident1998.jpg

have all been nominated for deletion. (Largely inappropriately, in my view). See the relevant discussions at FFD. Jheald (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1