Talk:Telecommunications

Hatnote

@Picard's Facepalm: if by "there is no risk of that" you mean that telecommunications is unlikely to be confused with [[Telecommunication (song)}]], you are of course correct. But that is not the purpose of the hatnote and why {{confuse}} was not used. The purpose is to aid the reader to locate the article they were looking for when they typed its name in the search bar. We don't make readers jump through hoops by making them guess the disambiguator or where to find a link to the article they were looking for. All the reader needs to know is the name of the topic and hatnotes will take care of the rest. This hatnote should be restored per WP:SIMILAR/WP:AMBIGTERM. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's a valid disambiguation per WP:DAB. Personally, I'd like to see it on a dab page rather than here, but that is not a solution in this case because of WP:ONEOTHER. But even with a dab page in existence, a hatnote would still be needed here to point to it. SpinningSpark 18:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've returned the hatnote. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Barker code

I've removed this recent addition from the article;

In the early 1950's digital transmissions were of great interest eg for space telemetry, radar, encryption and for computer technology. Like analog communication, data transmissions also suffered from noise causing the data to get out of sync. Various attempts were made to resolve the issue using digital codes. In 1953 RH Barker published a paper demonstrating how to synchronise the data in transmissions. It is known world wide as Barker code. The process is “Group Synchronisation of Binary Digital Systems” When used in data transmissions the receiver can read the data error free. The application at the time was of great interest and is now used in many digital applications mentioned in this article.

References

Barker codes have very little to do with noise immunity, although agreed noise might cause loss of sync in framed data. The main purpose of Barker codes is to achieve synchronisation in the first place and avoid false synchronisation with a sequence of data bits. Neither of these is a noise issue. For noise immunity per se minimum distance codes like Hamming codes are much more relevant. There are other ways to achieve synchronisation other than framing such as Manchester code, and in asynchronous communication synchronisation is not an issue at all. In short, even if this para was corrected, I think it is getting too far down into the weeds for an overview article. SpinningSpark 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Agreed that there are more efficient ways to achieve synchronisation since Barker code was discovered. An great deal of work has been done over the decades to find and use alternatives, however in many digital applications it is still used. Barker code forms part of the evolution of telecommunications in digital format and as such ought to be mentioned in this article. It is difficult to see under the present headings where it should be inserted. Perhaps adding something to the paragraphs on 'Wireless communications' or 'Digital media' might be more appropriate in which case my references to noise can be omitted. Please reconsider and let me know if you still don't agree. Windswept (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This definitely doesn't belong in the analog v. digital section. Barker code does not represent an advantage of digital over analog. If it is really an important "part of the evolution of telecommunications" then it belongs in the history section. But frankly, I think there are many more important advances in digital telecoms than this that are not currently in the article. For instance, the automated asynchronous sending of digital data began in the telegraph era, for which the Baudot code was the key advance, along with automated punched tape readers. Our article currently has digital telecommunications starting in the semiconductor era. Certainly that gave a great boost to it, but not only did it not start in the semiconductor era, it predates the thermionic valve era; it actually starts in the relay era. So if you have a source saying that Barker code was an important advance for telecommunications I'll support it going in the history section. Otherwise I'm not convinced. SpinningSpark 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Beacons and pigeons" sub-section

We're defining telecommunications as being electromagnetic communication. I don't think pigeons can be described as electromagnetic by any stretch of the imagination. It can't even be counted as tele- if we mean by that remote communication without physical transfer of the medium. Beacons might be counted being as they use visible light but it's a bit of a stretch. If we want to talk about early forms of communication, we should first of all make it clear that these are not telecommunications as defined, and secondly we should include the much more common communication service of mounted messengers. The section is misnamed in any case as it talks about far more than fires and pigeons. SpinningSpark 13:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Telecommunications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Huge amounts of uncited material fail GA criterion 2b) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. there looks to be significant unsourced material in the article that has to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Braun and Reis

So why cant I add one line each about their work for the radio and telephone? BauhausFan89 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because you keep spamming/pushing them across articles out of context with the same unreliable sources. Reis has actual been added back in context. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you for that. but it was never out of context, always in the paragraphs where it was about the radio and the telephone. Braun SHARED the nobel prize for his work on the radio. doesnt that deserve a mention? simple put. and Reis deserves one in the section about the telephone as someone Edison called the first inventor of the telephone. Im talking about a line each. is that not ok? BauhausFan89 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia article content is not based on "add our guy". Its based on reliable sourcing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)