Jump to content

User talk:Leoscot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect infor for Scottish television

[edit]

Morning

I have revised your additional information to Scottish Television page, unfortunately the date are wrong. The 1989 ident was still in use in 1992 mainly used for news, while the seasonally ident were of course used most of the time

Also the slik ident was 1993 when it first appeared and the second ident from 96 was dropped in early 2000. With the addition pics, we tried to have these pics included first time around, however It's unclear if they can be kept. We had a battle about wiki page not having too much pics, which is a shame. Its unclear if they can stay.

I Can I say it nice to finally found out the name of the company who created the Scottish Television presentation during the 90s, along with the presentation used by Border and grampian aswell, If your are on twitter, you should post some of your great work as there would be demand for it.

--Crazyseiko (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crazyseiko,

Thanks for your message. Not sure if this is how I reply to you as I'm new to Wikipedia - hope it is.

I've looked at the links [thanks] and I'm surprised. Of course, it's clear that the second video clip has the end credit edited on in a fashion that isn't inline with the original programme. It depends whether you put faith in YouTubers - personally, I'd seriously question the accuracy of the dates on both links. To the best of my recollection, that particular ident was created by IVP in Edinburgh using Symbolics [1] in the late eighties. IVP became a client and collaborator of Liquid Image, in fact we created an animated brand ident for them.

Anyway, it's a long time ago now and I do not have a diary of specific dates. That said, I know that the main STV ident on 90/91+ was this one https://www.dropbox.com/s/t50r7e8kd0gmx5i/STVident90-91.jpg?dl=0 because its one of the STV idents that I haven't released, which was created and produced by NM & me while we were at Scott Stern [part of WPP Group]. I left Scott Stern to set up Liquid Image mid-1991 [with NM joining in 1992], and this logo was still the main STV ident at the time. To be clear the ident you're referring to precedes the one on the Dropbox link, so for what it's worth, I broadly stand by my original dates ...but to be honest I'm not going to lose sleep over Wikipedia displaying the wrong info/dates on STV branding.

Just out of interest, over the weekend Wikipedia asked me to send evidence, so I gave them ten links including these three:

Liquid Image showreel from around 1997: https://vimeo.com/172866371 this video includes animations of some of the still images that I have uploaded.

'The Herald' article with picture showing DB and BBC 'Curling' ident on screen: see https://www.dropbox.com/s/3lbog1dkbge0og9/Herald-DB-Liquid-BBC-96small.jpg?dl=0

'BBC Barrel of Laughs' set photo from 1994 with DB on left & JR on the right: see https://www.dropbox.com/s/87cxxjhi0b7m5jp/BBC-BarrelOfLaughsShoot1994.jpg?dl=0.

I've been thinking about my nineties stuff for a while, and if i don't make the content available now, it will probably be lost forever. I am on Twitter [2], but that account's focussed on one of my current projects, and isn't really compatible with my nineties stuff.

Best wishes!

DBscot (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

Hi again Crazyseiko,

I've had a look at the updated page, including copy changes. Putting the dates to one side, there is one thing that's definitely technically wrong now and that's: "Glasgow-based animation company Liquid Image working with the Scottish Television in-house design department, created the two station's presentation package during the nineties, ..."

Factually, there were much more than two [double figures], but excluding 'night time' and other variants, I remember four distinct Liquid Image for STV 90's idents.

The way I recall the 90's ident order is:

Scott Stern [x 1]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t50r7e8kd0gmx5i/STVident90-91.jpg?dl=0

Liquid Image [x 4, exc variants like 'night time']

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:STV_main_idents_circa_92-94-ish.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scottish_Television_ident_1994-1996.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/op4yjgt9p2lrvsq/STV-Jaggy01.jpg?dl=0

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scottish_Television_ident_1996-2001.jpg

The jaggy ident didn't last long [I didn't particularly like it, but it was STV's call].

With the above information now available to you, how would you feel about changing the count from two to four to be more accurate?

DBscot (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evening

Thank you for the reply.

I can fully understand why you are so hesitant, however please be rested assured there has been extensive investigations in to the correct dates of all idents used by Scottish television, and many other ITV companies.  

This is been done via a few TV presentation website and numerous other people. The two youtuber which uploaded the clips have a very proven track recorded for having the correct dates for their clips. In the clip from Benriggers: Scottish Broadcast "The heavenly body" on Sunday 8th Dec 1991 and is the only time it comes up around this period. Poab now Scottish TV gold also has a good track record. I can fully understand why there is some confussion over certain idents etc especially when you're good self have pointed out Scottish had a number of seasonally idents thrown in for good measure.

As far as Wiki and TV presentation website go by, the rule of thumb is to go by each main presentation package change over point ( the clue tends to be for the endcap) IE its Umbrella brand for the packages. Wiki doesnt like the information to be overly detailed but im sure the TV pres site would like to hear more information.

Thus:

  • Jan 1989 - Dec 1992 - Tiddlywinks
  • Jan 1993 - Oct 1996 - Silk
  • Oct 1996 - Feb 2000 - Sky one
  • Feb 2000 - Jan 2003 - Blue Square.


As you rightly say there are other idents thrown into the mix:

With this one, https://www.dropbox.com/s/t50r7e8kd0gmx5i/STVident90-91.jpg?dl=0 most people have only ever seen it with promos, however if you have an clip of it as an ident alot of people would love to see it.

I'm happy to try and come to a middle ground about the wording etc however the dates on the page and most TV pres website are correct, of course that doesn't change the fact the information you have provided is correct, it's just there is a lot of ident overlapping.

How about the following:

The thistle logo was modified on 2 January 1989 to create a 2D identity often called "Tiddywinks". In 1990 Scott Stern [part of WPP Group] created addition idents and promos styles to complement the 1989 package. The branding changed again in January 1993 (Slik look) and October 1996 ( cloudy sky look), both were created by Glasgow-based animation company Liquid Image working with the Scottish Television in-house design department. Each package contained numerous variations to the main ident, including night time, films etc.[ https://www.tvark.org/?page=1087]  


If you do want to wish to get more of your clips out into the public domain there are a few Twitter accounts that would users would be happy to promote any clips your past over

--Crazyseiko (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Crazyseiko, this is more complicated than I expected. I’m happy to compromise, but since we're doing this, I also feel obliged to be accurate and factual.


The four Liquid Image (STV) idents and the single Scott Stern (STV) ident that I listed above were all definitely (without a shadow of a doubt) main STV channel idents, not seasonal or niche idents.


With the exception of the ‘jaggy’ one, they all ran as the main channel ident for years (the jaggy one lasted about a year or so). I know this to be factual as my company physically made them, and I live in Scotland, so I obviously noticed our work on-air all day, every day. Because this is factual, I hope you can understand that I can’t really agree to anything else …because it wouldn’t be true.


For example, this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQjjmc8nzxM …is a Liquid Image produced night version of the main ‘sky’ ident from 95/96 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scottish_Television_ident_1996-2001.jpg), but I’m counting the night time variant as part of the ‘sky’ ident.


Please believe me that I’m not trying to be difficult, but I don’t know how else to say that your current list below unfortunately isn’t factually right or accurate. It excludes two main channel idents, the Scott Stern one that I sent you a link via Dropbox, and this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:STV_main_idents_circa_92-94-ish.jpg Both of these were main STV channel idents (not seasonal, or niche) in the timeframe below.


- - -

Your current list (referenced in above):

• Jan 1989 - Dec 1992 - Tiddlywinks

• Jan 1993 - Oct 1996 - Silk

• Oct 1996 - Feb 2000 - Sky one

• Feb 2000 - Jan 2003 - Blue Square.

- - -


I’d bow to contradictory information from Mr. G. McGh--, Mr. D. Emsl--, or the STV in-house design team, but failing that there’s not likely to be too many others who can dispute the first-hand provenance of actually producing the idents to meet a STV brief. And that’s the point; I’m not trying to piece together a patchwork of disparate sources years later: I personally was given the briefs. I personally produced the briefs. I personally delivered the idents. I personally invoiced the idents. I personally saw the idents on-air at the time.


What I’ll try to do is dig out some further imagery (for reference). I have lots of stuff on various VHS tapes; to the best of my knowledge all the Betacam/Digital Betacam copies are MIA. I’m pretty sure I don’t have the Scott Stern ident on tape, but I might have a better still frame on film somewhere in the bottom of a box.


Please be aware that this might take quite a long time, as I need to extract stuff out of the attic including finding a working VHS player, and I’m pretty busy with my day job.


All the very best!


DBscot (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the reply

It must be noted Wiki does NOT allow original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research etc etc however if you were to publish your details via Twitter or website that would allow the information to be ref. cheers

- - - - - -

Thanks Crazyseiko ...I didn't know that. You can probably tell that I'm a Wikipedia newbie.

I'll see what I can dig-up, figure out how I can get it from VHS, then take a look at the options available.

Cheers

DBscot (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - -

Update

Hi Crazyseiko,

I can now see why this is proving difficult. I've been on a few Twitter accounts and TVark.org ...and there seems to me to be some pretty obvious errors and omissions. TVark.org has quite a lot of my/our idents [STV, Border, Grampian, UK Gold], I didn't release those to TVark - feasibly the channels did, but technically copyright belongs to the creator unless it's signed over. Anyway, with so many errors and omissions in the source/references, I now understand why this has become problematic.

I'll think about this. I'm pretty busy, and I'm not sure I have the time or energy to start correcting all of the sources/references ...but that's where the errors and omissions are.

Yay!

DBscot (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egobots (January 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, DBscot! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SL93 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Egobots

[edit]

Information icon Hello, DBscot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Egobots, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Egobots

[edit]

Hello, DBscot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Egobots".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoscot&oldid=1090592036"