Talk:Television ident

It was proposed on the 17th of February 2005 that this page be merged with Station identification. Since there have been no votes for and against this going ahead, the proposal has been removed. Wikiwoohoo 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I would support keeping these pages separate. This page very specifically deals with a term used in relation to television. The Station identification page is largely concerned with discussing a term orignating in and used in the U.S.A. radio industry. While some treatment is given to television (with rules applicable in the U.S.A.) and teletext, having a separate article dedicated to television idents allows a more focused treatment to be made of this subject (useful for those not interested in ploughing through how U.S. radio identifications must be used).

It might also be useful to add information to this article which incorporates some of the material from the television section of the station identification page, but more fully fleshed out with details on TV ident practices from other parts of the world, and not just the U.K., U.S.A. and Australia. I might look into researching this when I have some spare time and if nobody beats me to it! Bezapt 08:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC Four Ident?
I'd like to see a screenshot of the one generated on the fly, because I'm sure most people have seen regular idents, but this is unique. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  15:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a fair-use rational that would allow such a screenshot to be used here. Additionally, a still of the ident wouldn't really illustrate the ident itself very well - the point of the ident being that it moves. A still doesn't. ➨  ЯEDVERS  20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger
There's an article at Frontcaps that is (a) not very good and (b) would largely duplicate what was said here even if it was written correctly. I propose to merge that article into this one, mainly by filleting the other article for anything useful. ➨  Я Є  DVERS  09:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It's not very well put together, the useful information could be put in a couple of lines on the Television ident article.   theKeith    Talk to me    13:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree with this merger. I believe that the unique info will enhance a already-well put together article.  There is no need for articles with duplicate information. --No1lakersfan 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Frontcaps was notionally merged into this article. However, on reviewing that article, I discovered that it was glaringly incorrect in many places, badly written and completely unsourced. So I've been bold and not brought any of the information over into this article. If nothing else, anything brought over would need slapping all over it in about a dozen places. This article, Television ident, does quote sources (and good ones). Nevertheless, it could use some factual expansion. ➨  ЯEDVERS  20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What these are refered to in Canada
This is also refered to in Canada as "Bumpers", or for news programs "Factoid Bumpers" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.112.81.83 (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

The flowchart
The flowchart given in this article is apparently written in UK television jargon and therefore is gibberish to anyone who isn't part of that culture. I mean, I do community access TV in the United States, and virtually none of this has anything to with anything I use on a regular basis. Can someone translate that into less technical language? Haikupoet 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I also find the flowchart unintelligible. Please could the creator provide a more detailed explanation?


 * This whole article is complete and utter TOSH.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)