![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The phrase "Aircraft use the landing lights at airports to land safely" is a bit silly. "Landing lights" are mounted on Aircraft, not on the ground. It should read "Aircraft use Runway lights at airports to land safely". Also I doubt this has much to do with communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutta Percha ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if an expert could give a plain-English basic example or description of how fiber optic communication works. This is very heavy reading, and almost indecipherable for somebody without extensive knowledge on a whole host of related topics.
I think this page needs to be merged with
optical telegraph.
--
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Optical fibers are quite different from semaphones, which are the major focus of
optical telegraph.
Dilbert
17:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The point that the chirp induced pulse broadening is a main degradation in directly modulated laser systems is ambigous, since is it the chirp that limits the transmission distance or the tolerable input power to the fiber.
When humans interact with each other face-to-face, they are said to 'communicate', while when they do so from a distance using technical means (even smoke), they are using 'telecommunication'. This should be clarified in the article's title, which should properly read "Optical telecommunication". I believe other similar articles on Wikipedia have been changed from 'communication' to 'telecommunication'.
If this is uncontroversial to editors and there is no need to post this to the formal Move notice board, then the article can be retitled by a simple 'move' command, with an associated redirect page created for people using the old title. Comments? Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Optical communication, reverting undiscussed move Mike Cline ( talk) 22:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Optical telecommunication →
Optical communication – As shown immediately above, this article was recently moved from "Optical communication" to "Optical telecommunication" with no discussion (but with fair warning—no fault on the process). I propose to move it back. As discussed immediately above, "telecommunication" refers to communication by means of electronic transmission of impulses. This article covers topics which include smoke signals, beacon fires, hydraulic telegraphs, ship flags and semaphore lines, none of which involves electronic impulses. The topic of this article is too broad for the current title; it needs to be moved back to its original title.
Srleffler (
talk)
02:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose : for several reasons. My earlier definition provided to Srleffler earlier was unfortunately incomplete due to a bit of shoveling that was overdue (literally typed it up quickly while on the way out).
In summary, this article, Optical telecommunication, includes and is meant to include multiple electrical forms of optical telecommunication, and the various definitions and etymology of 'telecommunication' support non-electrical forms of telecommunications. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 07:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about the definition of a word here. Logic and etymology are mostly irrelevant. The dictionaries mostly disagree with you. From the website you used above, I find the following dictionary definitions of "telecommunication":
These are the first ten definitions on the list; the rest just copy these. One of the ten is a duplicate. Excluding the duplicate and Wiktionary, there are eight definitions, six of which explicitly limit the definition to communication by technological means. The remaining two define it as communication at a distance "as by" telephone, etc. Note, though, that one of those two limits it to communication over great distances, which would exclude many of the older forms of communication covered in this article.
None of the sources provides strong support for your position. Even the Merriam-Webster one can be read as implying that communication at a distance that is not somehow similar to communication by telephone (like smoke signals) should not be considered to be "telecommunication". The article should not have been moved based on your idiosyncratic, uncommon use of the term. It needs to be moved back.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC) PS. I have adjusted the Wiktionary definition to bring it into accord with the majority of the available sources.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I note the concerns you expressed regarding the side by side photos at Optical_communication:
Please limit the number of photos in this article as too many create a cluttered appearance; as well side-by-side images create pinched text on low-aspect ratio displays. There are already two photos of naval signalers.
The two photos of naval signalers lack diversity not only in the user and application, but in the method employed. I would like the article to include a photo of a naval signal lamp. Naval signal lamps have been used for over 140 years, from the 1860s to the present day. There are many naval signal lamp photos from the last ten years here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_signalling_lamps . I could simply replace the first (b & w ) naval signaler flag photo with the color US naval shutter-lamp picture that you removed. I think this addresses the issues you raise - Would this be acceptable? If you have any issues with the specific photo, I could select another from the wikimedia page I cite above. Macchess ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Only a few days wait? ;-) Actually I got tied up with the Russian meteor explosion article plus some some cranky electronics at home that took a bit of trouble shooting. The new heliograph and signal lamp photos are fine, but the boy scout GIF file is, i.m.h.o., too distracting (and I was a boy scout so I'm not an anti-BS'er). Additionally the size mismatch does not blend well with the other photos, so I'll go ahead and make it somewhat larger. However the German semaphore image is of far greater historical value and much easier on the eyes as well, and I believe the article will benefit if we return to that one.
A further suggestion would be to keep lengthening this article by adding new sections from the ledes of related forms of optical telecommunictions. Really not very hard to do since it's basically just copy and paste, and adding in some of the cites, as was done with the photophone section. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Optical wireless communications be merged here. I think we should consider whether it might make more sense to merge that article with Visible light communication and Free-space optical communication and leave it distinct from Optical communication, which is much broader than any of these other articles.-- Srleffler ( talk) 17:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The phrase "Aircraft use the landing lights at airports to land safely" is a bit silly. "Landing lights" are mounted on Aircraft, not on the ground. It should read "Aircraft use Runway lights at airports to land safely". Also I doubt this has much to do with communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutta Percha ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if an expert could give a plain-English basic example or description of how fiber optic communication works. This is very heavy reading, and almost indecipherable for somebody without extensive knowledge on a whole host of related topics.
I think this page needs to be merged with
optical telegraph.
--
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Optical fibers are quite different from semaphones, which are the major focus of
optical telegraph.
Dilbert
17:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The point that the chirp induced pulse broadening is a main degradation in directly modulated laser systems is ambigous, since is it the chirp that limits the transmission distance or the tolerable input power to the fiber.
When humans interact with each other face-to-face, they are said to 'communicate', while when they do so from a distance using technical means (even smoke), they are using 'telecommunication'. This should be clarified in the article's title, which should properly read "Optical telecommunication". I believe other similar articles on Wikipedia have been changed from 'communication' to 'telecommunication'.
If this is uncontroversial to editors and there is no need to post this to the formal Move notice board, then the article can be retitled by a simple 'move' command, with an associated redirect page created for people using the old title. Comments? Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Optical communication, reverting undiscussed move Mike Cline ( talk) 22:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Optical telecommunication →
Optical communication – As shown immediately above, this article was recently moved from "Optical communication" to "Optical telecommunication" with no discussion (but with fair warning—no fault on the process). I propose to move it back. As discussed immediately above, "telecommunication" refers to communication by means of electronic transmission of impulses. This article covers topics which include smoke signals, beacon fires, hydraulic telegraphs, ship flags and semaphore lines, none of which involves electronic impulses. The topic of this article is too broad for the current title; it needs to be moved back to its original title.
Srleffler (
talk)
02:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose : for several reasons. My earlier definition provided to Srleffler earlier was unfortunately incomplete due to a bit of shoveling that was overdue (literally typed it up quickly while on the way out).
In summary, this article, Optical telecommunication, includes and is meant to include multiple electrical forms of optical telecommunication, and the various definitions and etymology of 'telecommunication' support non-electrical forms of telecommunications. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 07:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
We're talking about the definition of a word here. Logic and etymology are mostly irrelevant. The dictionaries mostly disagree with you. From the website you used above, I find the following dictionary definitions of "telecommunication":
These are the first ten definitions on the list; the rest just copy these. One of the ten is a duplicate. Excluding the duplicate and Wiktionary, there are eight definitions, six of which explicitly limit the definition to communication by technological means. The remaining two define it as communication at a distance "as by" telephone, etc. Note, though, that one of those two limits it to communication over great distances, which would exclude many of the older forms of communication covered in this article.
None of the sources provides strong support for your position. Even the Merriam-Webster one can be read as implying that communication at a distance that is not somehow similar to communication by telephone (like smoke signals) should not be considered to be "telecommunication". The article should not have been moved based on your idiosyncratic, uncommon use of the term. It needs to be moved back.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC) PS. I have adjusted the Wiktionary definition to bring it into accord with the majority of the available sources.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I note the concerns you expressed regarding the side by side photos at Optical_communication:
Please limit the number of photos in this article as too many create a cluttered appearance; as well side-by-side images create pinched text on low-aspect ratio displays. There are already two photos of naval signalers.
The two photos of naval signalers lack diversity not only in the user and application, but in the method employed. I would like the article to include a photo of a naval signal lamp. Naval signal lamps have been used for over 140 years, from the 1860s to the present day. There are many naval signal lamp photos from the last ten years here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_signalling_lamps . I could simply replace the first (b & w ) naval signaler flag photo with the color US naval shutter-lamp picture that you removed. I think this addresses the issues you raise - Would this be acceptable? If you have any issues with the specific photo, I could select another from the wikimedia page I cite above. Macchess ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Only a few days wait? ;-) Actually I got tied up with the Russian meteor explosion article plus some some cranky electronics at home that took a bit of trouble shooting. The new heliograph and signal lamp photos are fine, but the boy scout GIF file is, i.m.h.o., too distracting (and I was a boy scout so I'm not an anti-BS'er). Additionally the size mismatch does not blend well with the other photos, so I'll go ahead and make it somewhat larger. However the German semaphore image is of far greater historical value and much easier on the eyes as well, and I believe the article will benefit if we return to that one.
A further suggestion would be to keep lengthening this article by adding new sections from the ledes of related forms of optical telecommunictions. Really not very hard to do since it's basically just copy and paste, and adding in some of the cites, as was done with the photophone section. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Optical wireless communications be merged here. I think we should consider whether it might make more sense to merge that article with Visible light communication and Free-space optical communication and leave it distinct from Optical communication, which is much broader than any of these other articles.-- Srleffler ( talk) 17:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)