Talk:Tin can telephone

Untitled

Mabey you would like a change from the reguliar telephone's mabey try a TIN CAN tele phone?

It might be helpful to mention that most attempts to build and use a tin can telephone fail because the string is not kept tight or the string is in contact with something between the two tin cans. When the string is loose or touches something, the vibrations cannot travel between the two tin cans. Linstrum (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes made to this article

Recently I made an addition to this article which states how to make tin can telephones go around corners. Just yesterday, I noticed that my addition had been deleted leaving no explanation as to why. My assumption is that I didn't cite my sources, but there is a problem with that. I have thoroughly searched the internet for ways to make can phones go around corners but to no avail. Since I couldn't find anything, I was left to figure it out on my own which, after a long time, I finally accomplished. Sadly, since nothing on the internet has any information on how to do this, I have nothing to cite except myself. If you have a way to get around this problem I will gladly listen. I would appreciate a response in this talk page, but, if I don't get one in a reasonable amount of time, I will restore my addition and ask that you read this before deleting anything. Frivolous Consultant (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair Warning

Unless otherwise discussed, I will retype my section the next time I have internet acess (which could be a few days). I will gladly consider any suggestions, but, as of now, there aren't any. Frivolous Consultant (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Keeping My Word

As I have warned earlier, if a reason for the deletion of my section wasn't given, I would restore it. I have now done so. Hopefully, this time it won't get deleted with no reason. If you are thinking about deleting it again, I ask that you discuss it here first. As I have said before, if references are a problem I don't know what to do because the only thing I have to cite is myself; I would appreciate help. If references aren't the main problem, I really want to know what could be the problem. If it's believability, try it yourself, I assure you it works.

If, after all of this, you still just think it's absolutely horrible and needs to be deleted immediately, the least you can do is tell me why and talk with me about it. To tell you in advance, if my section is deleted once again with no explanation, I won't wait at all and immediately put it back.

On a side note, I was thinking about adding a paragraph to "How it Works" (now "How the tin can telephone works" 16 Oct. 2012) saying how the string doesn't have to be pulled very tight at all to have sound be transmitted reliably. It might be nice to talk about that also, but I thought I would win one battle at a time. Once again, I assure you it works that way too, try this stuff if you don't believe me. Frivolous Consultant (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

I have noticed that there was a [by whom?] tag added to the part I have typed much about (now responed to). I'm glad that whoever did that didn't think that it was such a waste of space that it needed to be completely deleted like the last person who revised the page. In response to the [by whom?], I don't know what to do. As I have said in the above, I sadly don't have any thing to source but myself ([by whom?], by me). People I know extremely well could probably tell you the same thing, but I know that isn't any proof. If you have a suggestion, put it on here, and I'll listen. Frivolous Consultant (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your section was not removed without explanation, it was deleted for being "unsourced original research" - if you're not sure why an article has been changed, just click "View history" to see a (hopefully annotated) log of all the changes that have been made to it.

I'm afraid there's no great mystery over the "problem" of how to source something which you've invented yourself - Wikipedia simply does not use the "original research" of its editors, it only relies on published sources. All kudos to you for inventing a way to transmit tin-can telephone messages around corners, but Wikipedia isn't the place to announce this. (If you want to repost it on a blog or something, just browse through "View history" to find your text and paste it elsewhere.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I almost exploded when I saw my section deleted, but I was sure to check here first, and deep down I know you're right. I wouldn't have put it back on if someone had just told me that. I didn't notice at first, but at least you saved a small part of what was cited. Eventually I'll get a source for my other stuff, but it's alright for now. I'm glad you told me this stuff rather than just doing it and hoping I put the pieces together. (I figured out where I recognise your username, you made my talk page, thanks). Frivolous Consultant (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article title renaming to Acoustic telephone

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Tin can telephone → Acoustic telephone – Not all acoustic telephones are made from tin cans. The 'tin can' telephone is only one type of acoustic telephone, and as other forms are included the article's title should properly reflect its broader scope. HarryZilber (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; whatever they're made of, they're still frequently called "tin can telephones". Powers ^T 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – no evidence has been presented that they are commonly called acoustic telephones, or that the term would be more recognizable or precise. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The article discusses using paper cups, and more complex phones are also discussed where they "were marketed commercially as a niche competitor to the electrical telephone". We don't call them tin can phones, but they are acoustic phones. Similarly, although its not in the article acoustic phones were also created around systems of water-filled pipes. These are all valid reasons to rename the article. Tin can phones are non-electrical acoustic telephones, only one of several types. HarryZilber (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the article should be split in two. The tin-can-string telephone, and the more general article on acoustic telephones which would cover modern acoustic telephones such as found on diving bells, etc. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • On diving bells? Connected to a surface ship? I'm not sure that you're referring to a mechanical acoustic telephone; kindly provide some references to those telephones. For clarity I was referring to the non-electrical acoustic phones which transmit sounds mechanically using a vibrating medium, be it a taut wire (or string), water-filled metal pipe or a length of sounding board. The voice-powered emergency telephones found on ships are not acoustic telephones since they use sound energy to convert the speaker's voice to an electrical signal via diaphragms and permanent magnets, and vice versa; signals are then sent along electrical telephone lines, not via a vibrating medium . Best: HarryZilber (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Underwater telephone is not what you're talking about, since it uses water to transmit the sound between the transmitting and receiving units. It is a type of acoustic telephone. So a general article on acoustic telephones should be split from this article, and overview it. (ofcourse, Underwater telephone article itself is POV, since it focuses on a particular model and not the generic)-- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per common name. Apteva (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as various "yell into a pipe" contraptions could qualify as acoustic telephones but aren't the device described here. K7L (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did Hooke invent it or not?

The history section is confusing. The first paragraph seems to claim that Robert Hooke invented the concept. Then the second paragraph states "The highly similar acoustic tin can telephone, or 'lover's phone', has also been known for centuries."

What does "highly similar" mean? Did Hooke invent something new or not? For that matter, what does "for centuries" mean? Centuries before now, starting with Hooke? Or centuries before Hooke?

As it stand the whole history section is pretty much self-defeating. Some attention here from a knowledgeable person could go a long way. InspectorMendel (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I read through the sources given on the second paragraph. One of them clearly gives Hooke the credit and the second is completely silent on the topic. I'll rewrite the section to remove doubt. InspectorMendel (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)