Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I added the cleanup tag to this article after the nomination of a number of similar articles due to WP:FAIR concerns. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITV Idents and Presentation for more information --tgheretford (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images should be a minimal use, if any, and the presence of per-item fair use in lists such as this are clearly out of bounds with foundation goals and policy, particularly our Non-free content criteria. This article has been listed as needing fair use clean up for months, as noted above, and it's listing on the fair-use overuse list. Do not readd the images. -Mask? 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The image File:BBC Two Copper 1991-1999.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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that this article be condensed and merged into the BBC Two section of History of BBC television idents. What do you think? Cloudbound (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am considering to split the 1991-1997 and 1997-2001 eras up because the article would be too big. I wish for not only idents but also bumpers, stings, etc, where having a seperate article would work better. Presentation sites have the eras in individual pages so why not Wikipedia's?--NGMan62 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This article utterly fails WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Could involved editors please decide which images are necessary to the article, and which are decoration. Otherwise the majority of images will be removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that a screenshot for all of the idents, bumpers etc should be included into articles so that readers would know how they looked like. Since thumbnails are not allowed on on tables, perhaps we could make a gallery of them or something?--Capsoul (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia works would mean that all those images, all non free by their very nature, would attract attention and they would be removed. I'm afraid we can onyl get away with an image so people know which presentational package we mean. Any others would be seen as unnescesairy. Rafmarham (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I very much doubt the sentece "they have become one of the most popular television idents in history" can be verified or conclusively evidenced. No doubt the editor who wrote this article feels very strongly about these logos, as can be seen from the long, long tables about, well, some logos. but that sentence is going a bit too far even allowing for such obvious passion, no? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In September of 2009, this article was tagged as needing additional citations for verification . At the time, it had two references, both of which pointed to tv-ark.org.uk. From that point to January 2011, the number of refs increased to 11. However, 7 of those 11 were to YouTube, and the remaining 4 were to tv-ark.org.uk. I noted this in a posting here on this talk page at the time . As of today, there are now 10 citations. 7 of them remain to YouTube, and 2 to tv-ark.org.uk. Per Wikipedia:External links the use of YouTube as a citation source is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is copyright violation problems. All of the YouTube links appear to be copyright violations, and should be stripped immediately from this article. The 2 citations to tv-ark.org.ul are problematic as this is a fansite and per WP:FANSITE should not be used. The remaining citation of the 10 is to lambie-nairn.com. This is a primary source, and while usable isn't very strong. It's also dead from it's original source. Further, the citation supports a single sentence of the article.
In short, this article is 30 pages worth of printable body text and contains 1...just __1__ usable (albeit weak) citation. This issue has been extant for three years and the contributors of this article have done nothing to improve the situation.
In March of this year, this article was tagged as possibly not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline . Five months later, the tag is still there with nothing being done to address the issue.
I'm posting here to give the contributors to this article another opportunity to improve the article. I'll wait a couple of months, but if nothing is done to improve this situation I will be placing the article for deletion. Thank you for your attention to this matter, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the bold step of removing much some of the unreferenced content from this article - much of it appears to be original research, and the lack of references has probably allowed a certain amount of vandalism to remain undetected too. If reliable sources exist for any of the removed content, anyone can of course put it back as long as they provide references. —SMALLJIM 11:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Setting aside the question of notability, which someone else can take up if they feel it is appropriate, we need to decide which sources can be considered reliable enough to support statements made in the article. Obviously anything from the BBC itself and from Lambie-Nairn is good. I think there's enough evidence to treat tv-ark.org.uk as reliable too (see its about us page). I'm not so sure about http://www.theident.gallery/. It seems to be a one-man effort, like tv-ark, but doesn't appear to have gained the same degree of recognition. The usual concerns apply about YouTube content and unless it's posted from a confirmed account, one has to assume good faith regarding the accuracy of the content. What other sources are there?
To reiterate our policy on original research: if content hasn't been published by a reliable source, we can't include it in our articles. Since the idents themselves have been published (per WP:SOURCE), it's OK to describe them in terms that anyone would agree to, in the same way as describing the plot of a fictional work (see WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM). However, other details such as the name of the ident, the dates it was broadcast, the feelings it is intended to evoke, etc. are not evident from the idents themselves, and so require a separate reliable source for inclusion. The descriptions in the tables abound in this sort of detail for which no sources are apparent: this unreferenced material should be removed. —SMALLJIM 15:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we include on this article that some adverts for Weetabix actually referenced some BBC2 idents? Visokor (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to BBC Two '1991–2001' idents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
BBC Two the '1991-2001' idents 109.255.226.253 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Has BBC2 in England have followed the suit yet to show other idents (including Shadow), but I'm sure that the people in England were real pres fans as well. Are you going to tweet BBC Two and they will planned to follow the suit. I hope Network will be the leader of all the idents than NI, Tell me when its done :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.253.26 (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The idents are continuing to be very popular viewing on BBC2 TV and need to be updated so the article should be moved to 1991-2015. QuentinUK (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that BBC Two will getting a new look, despite remaining the '1991-2001' idents, but the box will remove from the text (just like NI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.149.244 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to BBC Two '1991–2001' idents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
BBC Two 1991-2001 and 2014-present New Idents 5.157.103.227 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to BBC Two '1991–2001' idents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There will be new idents that I can make as soon as I've confirmed 5.71.128.120 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to BBC Two '1991–2001' idents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
BBC Two The 1991 2's Brand New Idents 2015 2016 89.101.224.214 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Bazj (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to BBC Two '1991–2001' idents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
79.16.179.159 (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.