Talk:Television ident

It was proposed on the 17th of February 2005 that this page be merged with

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)[reply]

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. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

• Support It's not very well put together, the useful information could be put in a couple of lines on the
  Television ident article.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk to me   13:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]