Talk:BBC Studios Home Entertainment/Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on 2 Entertain. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=715823133 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2entertain.co.uk/documents/pressrelease.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of this highly trivial and per definition subjective elaborations?

It seems that a description of the logos in so much detail would be better kept on a website about Logo-design and comparative video-intro-analysis, having several pages / screens full of verbal descriptions of a moving company symbol inside an informative, encyclopedic article looks pretty suspect and if it adds Original Research like the examples from the section header title it's in conflict with the Guidelines for WP articles too.

Would it be acceptable to keep something like a timeline for these intro-icons or should better the whole long treatise go and the article get streamlined to the relevant parts? --178.203.29.150 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)