Talk:History of BBC television idents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject BBC (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Galleries[edit]

Could we please format the images in some form other than galleries? Galleries are rarely an apropriate form for editorial reasons, and are incredibly poor form for non-free content specifically. If the article looks too crowded with the images placed inline, well, I think that says something... Again, for editorial reasons, that is bad enough, but when combined with NFC, it creates a real problem. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wrote at WT:NFC, the use of galleries is something that should sound an alarm. But sometimes, having heard the alarm and taken due consideration, it is appropriate to turn the alarm off.
In this case, this content is the very topic of the article; and the gallery is a good format for showing it, allowing readers to see both evolution but also how some design cues have been retained, by placing the images together so they can be seen at once without scrolling. NFC Galleries are generally to be avoided; but there are exceptions that have been accepted, such as articles on modern art, and coin/banknote series. Jheald (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree about galleries, and have been changing the sections to include thumbnails, but because I have been removing some images these edits have been reverted. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The edits to reinclude the non-free images have made this article the #2 article on Wikipedia by usage of fair use images. This is an extreme use, and requires extreme justification. This article is lightly referenced, with about 40% of the references there are going to the primary source. This usage must go. Reduction of images should be focused strictly on those idents that have received coverage in secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a serious issue. I'll get back to you with a properly comprehensive, thought through and considered response as to what I would consider core and less core, that I hope others will also come in and comment on, within a couple of days; but it needs just a bit more time and focus than I can give it right at this minute. Bear with me, and we'll take this forward. Jheald (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    •  ? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the bump, and my apologies not to have got back to you sooner.
You're right that there is a comparatively large amount of non-free content on this page. On the other hand the BBC's on-screen identification is the very topic of this article. It is an essentially visual subject, it goes right to the heart of reader understanding to be able to see what the idents actually looked like, how particular elements have evolved and others have been preserved or referenced. Showing the most significant images in the development of that identification directly adds to reader understanding of that topic. It is also worth noting that in legal terms the copyright taking here is very slight, given that the images were created for the very purpose of widespread use and visual recognition; our use here is appropriately encyclopedic, and in no way harms the original purpose for which the images were created.
As to the most core part of the article: this (in my view) is the development of the image identities of BBC 1 and BBC 2. There is a national identification in the UK with the BBC as a symbol of the country, and the BBC 1 ident image is its highest profile visual signifier. BBC 2 is the Corporation's other core channel, its second most important identifier, still today one of the country's very few "main" tv channels. Both also show very well how certain design cues have (sometimes) been deliberately retained or developed to preserve an identity, something which can really only be judged by seeing it. I would expect other editors to jump in here and also express their comments, but in my view the key images to show the evolving identity at BBC1 are the original 1950s "batswing" logo; the first globe in the 1960s; the first design of the iconic mirror globe; the computer-originated-world; the Lambie-Nairn globe; the balloon; a rhythm and movement ident, abandoning the globe, but strengthening the association with the colour red; and one of the current series of "circle" idents, though probably "Bikes" as being more characteristic than the special Saturday evening one. On the other hand the second and third versions of the mirror globe can probably go.
As for BBC2, I would certainly see as core the three evolutions of the sans-serif "2", so successful that it has survived for twenty years, which has been credited with marking a "renaissance" for that channel [1], changing how it was perceived [2], changing BBC Two audience percentages "in a positive way, big time" [3]. As for the others, the 1979 "2" is significant as the first live-animated computer ident in the world; the 1986 word logo as the only period in which the channel has not used a number 2. As for the other three being used, I do think it is important in a survey like this to cover the earlier periods, not just to give in to a bias towards recentism. I think these are valuable to keep if we can, and are helpful when reading a paragraph like eg "The Stripes" to answer the question "What on earth did that look like?"
Of the other sections of the page, I think there is particular value in showing how the Children's logo has evolved -- in part, because this is something that may have made a particular impression on people at a formative stage in their lives; and in part because it shows an evolution can be traced which goes back to 1985, and so captures quite well some of the changes that can be seen in the industry since that time.
As for some of the other images, I question whether we need quite such a full treatment of so many of the designs that have been used on the BBC's additional satellite and digital channels. I think this is perhaps an area which could be condensed, into a combined section that gives an overview of the BBC's additional channel branding, rather than such a full treatment of each and every one. But I'd like to hear the views of other editors who have worked on and contributed to this page.
Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that this page already is quite selective -- we show none of the distinctive clocks, for example (not even the one that was so distinctively remembered that the BBC put it on its website [4]; nor any of the extensive special branding for Schools & Colleges programmes, or for the Open University. What we show even for the main channels is far from complete. And it is important to be selective; but it is also important to preserve what we contribute to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So will there be any trimming or no? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for weighing in late but could we agree on a course of action: either remove a selection of images, all of them, or leave them all as they are to do with the very topic of the article? At the very least we need to choose a course of action and stick with it. The present status with a tag for improper use of non-free images doesn't look good. Cloudbound (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever is happening could we please sort something out? At the time of writing half are in galleries and half are loose. To reiterate: The BBC1 and 2 idents can be thinned down if need be because the images are duplicated on their own specific page. However the other channels idents arent duplicated elsewhere, and so cant be thinned down, unless I create a new article for them, such as CBBC idents etc. Rafmarham (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • A given image in a gallery is not going to be more acceptable just because it's moved out of a gallery. That misses the point of whether an image is important to an article or not. The WP:NFG guideline is to point out that images in galleries almost always fail the WP:NFCC inclusion criteria. It isn't meant to be read as direction to remove images from galleries and sprinkle them throughout the article. That fixes nothing. As is, this article has 30 non-free images, making it the 4th highest user of non-free images on the entire project. In other words, 99.999% of articles on the project have less non-free image use than this article. This is extreme high use. Extreme high use begs extreme justification. Breaking this out into sub articles isn't helpful either. The entire article needs to be carefully reviewed with an eye towards eliminating images that can be eliminated without compromising reader's understanding of the overall subject. We don't have to have every single ident ever used by the BBC in order to understand this subject. If there's not sourced commentary supporting discussion about the particular significance of a given ident, the image needs to go. As is, the article is very lightly referenced for the amount of content that is has. Fully one third of the "sources" here are primary sources as well. Not good. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed several images from the article. Could you remove the ones necessary to make the article more acceptable? Cloudbound (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It still contains 30 images. Look at it this way; There are 28 references in the article. 10 of them are to primary sources, leaving 18 non-primary sources. Any image not discussed by those 18 non-primary sources needs to go. That would be a great starting point. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The criterion is whether the images add to user understanding given the topic of the article, not whether they are discussed in particular external sources. That may be of interest, but it is not the test. Jheald (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As for galleries or not galleries, I think it probably does work better to show the images being discussed by the text in galleries, because that lets people compare more easily what continuity there is in visual cues. Jheald (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • JHeald, under your criteria there would be no prohibition to the absolute maximum number of non-free images. This isn't realistic. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's entirely realistic, the evidence that it's realistic is all around us. It's also what policy says. If images are adding to user understanding, they should stay. That's the criterion. Policy expressly does not set a maximum number of non-free images, rather it leaves it for the community to judge on a page-by-page basis what images are and what images are not adding to user understanding. Jheald (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we're talking past each other. You see maximum inclusion as entirely acceptable. I see the inclusion of every ident achieving no notability as expressed in secondary sources as problematic. We have no common ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What matters is the test laid down by policy. I've set out further up my views on which images pass that test and which don't. It's a long way from "maximum" inclusion. Jheald (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What matters if you look at policy and see one thing, and I look at policy and see another. It isn't a long way from maximum at all. What you set out would permit any ident. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've nominated this article for deletion based on all the concerns expressed in this section. I feel the information and images could be arranged more adequately and in keeping with policy in their respective channel articles. Cloudbound (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free overuse[edit]

And some months later, this article is now once again in the top 5 for sheer number of non-free images being used, with 32 images in use. In "support" of these 32 images, are 26 references. Of those, fully one third are primary sources, and another 1/5th are dead links. This article has been tagged with {{non-free}} for more than half a year now. This needs to be fixed. If a specific ident is not referenced by secondary sources, it should be removed from this article. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The question here is: are these images required to give the reader a good understanding of the subject -- would that understanding be damaged if they were excised?
In my view, as expressed above, the choice of image is balanced and well-judged given the nature of the topic, and secondarily the fact that these images by their very nature were created for the widest identification and lodging in public consciousness. There is no commercial conflict here.
That conforms with the test that policy, specifically NFCC #8, sets out. There is no requirement set out in policy that images are only to be used if they are "referenced by secondary sources"; the requirement set out is that they must "add to reader understanding". Jheald (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have removed the CBeebies logo image from that section - it was unnescasairy, didn't add anything to the reader experience as it didn't feature the yellow blobs, only the logo design and that could be accessed easily enough from the CBeebies page. It also reduceds our image total slightly. Rafmarham (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Balloon Idents[edit]

There's no evidence to suggest that the balloon will be returning to screens in 2016, therefore I have removed the last edit. The YouTube video is purely a mock, and the change.org petition has 16 supporters. The grammar 'correction' made no sense either.

Lukes123 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Just had to correct this same issue. As above, there is still no evidence as to the return. If the person who is continually reverting edits is reading this, Wikipedia is a repository of facts not speculation or wishes (see WP:Speculation) so please do not change this again. Aw16 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of BBC television idents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image overuse[edit]

There are 30 non-free images in this article. Out of 5,000,000+ articles on Wikipedia, only two have any more (and they are both about painting). Which of these images could be usefully removed? Certainly the ones in sections which link to other articles where the non-free image is displayed could be. It would be useful for an editor with good knowledge of this to remove them before they are culled in another manner. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of BBC television idents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of BBC television idents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)