![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Just leaving a note that the chronology of this section is just all over the place and is generally quite a mess. Manys ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Radio communication system talks entirely about ...radio. The subject of this article. Perhaps, if it's all right with you, we should merge these two articles so as not to waste the reader's time skipping about trying to piece together a coherent overview of the subject. Of course, giving due copyright attribution where legally required...-- Wtshymanski ( talk) 07:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Radio is the transmission of signals through free space by modulation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies below those of visible light."
So a radio set can use signals using infra red radiation just below visible light? I would like to see an example. In fact I will tag the claim as 'dubious' and unless an example is provided, a more modest claim will be added. 109.153.242.10 ( talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My 1990 car's radio only goes to 1620AM. Were there improvements after that which allowed AM frequencies to go up to 1700? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.127.87 ( talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is even a discussion around the paternity of the radio invention that is worldwide recognized as belonging to Guglielmo Marconi. This is one more example of how twisted is the information found on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.67 ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Magnagr stop discrediting tesla i see that you are trying same thing on tesla page,please stop doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.3.146 ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In Tesla article I just remembered Galileo Ferraris, the real induction motor inventor???? Do you now anything about tesla? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.14.165 ( talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
a week ago there was a B&W .gif that I felt far better illustrated the "feel" of the difference between fm & am. Although it was a 25-frame (or whatever) .gif it was much more organic than the animation up now (Friday 7-19-13 4:15pm EDT). I am writing a manual on RF and wanted to include a link to this wiki page but now don't feel like it's as obvious as it was before. I like the fact that color within the image now discerns the difference between am & fm, but the increased resolution actually decreases the impact of the idea... in my opinion of course...
Thanks, Andy Smart andy.smart@livestream.com
This document substantiates the belief that Bell copied Meucci's invention. It is difficult to give to Bell the paternity of the invention.
http://www.chezbasilio.org/immagini/meucci-bell.pdf -- Magnagr ( talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
rv'ed this restoration of material. The minutiae of court cases about patents 40-45 years after the fact are out of place in a short timeline. If we need more material about Marconi please integrate the material into the Marconi section (as I did here diff). The material in question contains primary sources, biased sources, or no source at all so please do not add it back in without fulfilling WP:BURDEN first. We have a well developed Invention of radio sub-article that covers this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a handbook "Radio Communication Its History and Development" by W.T. O'Dea, dated 1934, published by the Science Museum, London (H.M.S.O.). On page 54 "Single Sideband Transmission" it cites..
a) A.T. & T Corporation and International Western Electric as demonstrating an SSB speech transmision from New York to London in 1922. b) The British Post Office opened a public trans-Atlantic telephone service on this system in 1927 at their Rugby station with a transmitter installed by Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd which radiated on 5130 metres.
Consequently, I think the claim in the article, that radio amateurs invented SSB in the 1930s, is incorrect. RadioCheck ( talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Radio communication redirects here. This indeed seems to be the main focus. But there's a creep up of non-communication uses of radio: Navigation, Heating, Radar, etc. So I propose moving these elsewhere (e.g., radio waves, radio spectrum#application, etc.) and requesting the article to be renamed to its redirect. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Some ITU Terms and Definitions:
So radio communication is understood to include one-way radio broadcast and two-way radio communication.
Specific proposals:
If I don't hear anything, I'll proceed with the moves above. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are two definitions from authoritative sources demonstrating how "radio" alone, as in the present article's title, is not supposed to mean anything specific:
@ Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Well, even "radio communication" doesn't necessarily mean radio-intervened human communication. So we have two main concepts, Radio communication and Radio science and technology:
Radio could redirect to radio broadcasting, as this is the most common usage. Radio communication shall become a disambiguation page. The current version of radio would be renamed to radio science and technology. Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
shouldn't it be here somewhere? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Per this edit and this edit, Wikipedia is based on current historical research, not interpretations of 1899 sources or 19th or early 20th century observations/conclusions reached by participants in some discovery. Also supporting source supplied here (History of Wireless) clearly states Hughes work was "similar to Edison's", that both were radio, and does not support the wording "others' claims are disputed". Current historical consensus that Edison, Hughes, and even Thomson/Houston were detecting electromagnetic waves (radio) is quite clear. Besides the "ieeeghn.org, IEEE Global History Network, Etheric Force" source supplied see:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim that the link I originally provided and which you reference here implies that Edison was the first to investigate radio waves. 'Similar to' can mean any number of things, and it's pretty clearly stated earlier in that same book that Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson (who later accredited Hughes with the discovery of radio waves) 'proved the same year that the sparks were actually oscillatory high-frequency electric currents'. Also, none of those books with the exception of the one I originally linked to are scientific textbooks or were written by scientists. But all of this is beside the point anyway, as according to this source here [6] on page 829 Edison wasn't even the first to notice the spark, and it had commonly been observed by telegraph operators for decades before. Plus, I have another source [7] which agrees with me that 'Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct' hence why I described Edison's claim as 'disputed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Who is 'most'? I can barely find any references to Edison and his work with regards to radio or his 'etheric force' outside of that IEEE article you linked to. I hardly think this qualifies as a consensus. I suggest you find an expert to verify your claims that Edison was transmitting electromagnetic waves (I've already made posts on several forums asking for an expert to weigh in on this debate). SQMeaner ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I found a link written by a Michael E. Gorman here [8] and here [9] which also backs up my claim that Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves. He is also a university professor with a phD, so it still basically comes down to your word against mine. Furthermore, I did a bit of digging and found another useful link called 'Observations of electromagnetic waves before Hertz' [10] by Charles Susskind, who was, of course, a professor of electrical engineering at UC Berkeley. It goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, and apparently Luigi Galvani was the first to notice a spark caused by an electromagnetic wave in 1780. You should probably update the radio page to reflect this. Also, before you bring it up, I did notice Edison was mentioned in the article and I would like to draw your attention to the statement that E. Thomson did refute Edison on page 36. Furthermore, I seem to have found another link from the same site you originally based your edit on here [11] which states that Edison's hypothesis was 'was in 1876 experimentally disproved by Eli Thompson'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The article cites magnetic induction as a type of radio heating, but magnetic induction has nothing to do with radio waves. It's a magnetic field that crosses the boundaries, not radio waves - DesmondW ( talk) 14:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Esta es la historia de dos estupidos que solo se quieren para tener sexo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolchica ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The definition in the introduction seems to be limited to radio communication, sending information across space from a transmitter to a receiver (although I think its a very good introduction to communication). However the article includes other uses of radio besides communication: radiolocation, radio navigation beacons, GPS, radar. I think the introduction should be expanded to mention these other uses. -- Chetvorno TALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Also I think the short Heating section should be deleted. RF heating is not called "radio". -- Chetvorno TALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Completely rewrote article. Changes I made:
Will be adding more sources in future. These are big changes; I'd like to hear what you all think. -- Chetvorno TALK 03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Notices the Etymology section is currently an essay based on observation of primary sources. Needs some cleanup. Noaccountaccount ( talk) 13:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The recent unsourced to the introduction, saying Nikola Tesla "invented" radio, is an erroneous reading of history promoted by Tesla fan websites. The reliable sources linked below give the true story:
The first Morse code radio communication system was invented by Marconi in 1894; it didn't use Tesla's circuit and had nothing to do with Tesla. [16] While Tesla did invent the resonant transformer (Tesla coil) which was used in the first long distance radio transmitters and receivers, [17] the famous "four circuit" system, and used it in some radio wave transmission experiments, he was mainly interested in wireless power and never developed a radio communication system. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Oliver Lodge, [23] John Stone Stone, [24] and Karl Ferdinand Braun [25] applied this circuit to radio. [26] [27] The 1943 US Supreme Court decision did not "award the patent" to Tesla, it just invalidated Marconi's patent, mostly due to Lodge's and Stone's prior patents. [28] [29] No one person "invented" radio; it was a collaborative achievement. [30] A detailed, thoroughly sourced explanation of the contribution of these people to radio is at Spark-gap transmitter#Inductive coupling. -- Chetvorno TALK 17:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
List of these audiovisual materials Geesoul ( talk) 19:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"It's interesting to note that Marconi's first successful test was using a Tesla coil".
This is nonsense. Marconi's early tests used a simple induction coil known as a Ruhmkorff coil. Nothing remotely to do with Tesla. I have removed this spurious claim Gutta Percha ( talk)
Audiovisual materials
Geesoul ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
B93 Birthday Bash. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#B93 Birthday Bash until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Hörfunk. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Hörfunk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Regular Radio. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Regular Radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Am fm radio. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Am fm radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Large parts of this article seem to be in list form. Should it be converted more towards prose? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
He is not mentioned Moribundum ( talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with others that it's preferable to work on sourcing the live article text. If the content was obvious nonsense, fringe, erroneous, etc. I would not contest the mass deletions. But in this case, the content is quite uncontroversial and largely accurate - it just needs sources added. I started to add citations to the "Radio communication" section the other day, but was thwarted due to edit conflicts by others working on the same section. I suggest we let each other know which sections we're working on to avoid edit conflicts. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I was able to make some progress adding sources, but only at the rate of a few paragraphs per day. I could not go any faster, most will agree this type of work takes time. But now with these mass deletions of uncited text from the article, it's needlessly made more difficult to add needed cites while keeping track of duplicate citations. I'm certainly not a "serial policy violator" and it's sad to see other editors disparaged this way. Sorry, but I won't be working on the article again until the situation is resolved and the disruption ends. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have fixed one little designy stylie issue: the article had been out of any photos of household radios. Also, there was neither modern 5G smarties nor 1990's cellies with good ol' antennas (even though there was an Apple smartphone... with some picture on its screen, oh my copyrighties!) Профессор кислых щей ( talk) 10:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Just leaving a note that the chronology of this section is just all over the place and is generally quite a mess. Manys ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Radio communication system talks entirely about ...radio. The subject of this article. Perhaps, if it's all right with you, we should merge these two articles so as not to waste the reader's time skipping about trying to piece together a coherent overview of the subject. Of course, giving due copyright attribution where legally required...-- Wtshymanski ( talk) 07:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Radio is the transmission of signals through free space by modulation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies below those of visible light."
So a radio set can use signals using infra red radiation just below visible light? I would like to see an example. In fact I will tag the claim as 'dubious' and unless an example is provided, a more modest claim will be added. 109.153.242.10 ( talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My 1990 car's radio only goes to 1620AM. Were there improvements after that which allowed AM frequencies to go up to 1700? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.127.87 ( talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is even a discussion around the paternity of the radio invention that is worldwide recognized as belonging to Guglielmo Marconi. This is one more example of how twisted is the information found on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.67 ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Magnagr stop discrediting tesla i see that you are trying same thing on tesla page,please stop doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.3.146 ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In Tesla article I just remembered Galileo Ferraris, the real induction motor inventor???? Do you now anything about tesla? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.14.165 ( talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
a week ago there was a B&W .gif that I felt far better illustrated the "feel" of the difference between fm & am. Although it was a 25-frame (or whatever) .gif it was much more organic than the animation up now (Friday 7-19-13 4:15pm EDT). I am writing a manual on RF and wanted to include a link to this wiki page but now don't feel like it's as obvious as it was before. I like the fact that color within the image now discerns the difference between am & fm, but the increased resolution actually decreases the impact of the idea... in my opinion of course...
Thanks, Andy Smart andy.smart@livestream.com
This document substantiates the belief that Bell copied Meucci's invention. It is difficult to give to Bell the paternity of the invention.
http://www.chezbasilio.org/immagini/meucci-bell.pdf -- Magnagr ( talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
rv'ed this restoration of material. The minutiae of court cases about patents 40-45 years after the fact are out of place in a short timeline. If we need more material about Marconi please integrate the material into the Marconi section (as I did here diff). The material in question contains primary sources, biased sources, or no source at all so please do not add it back in without fulfilling WP:BURDEN first. We have a well developed Invention of radio sub-article that covers this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a handbook "Radio Communication Its History and Development" by W.T. O'Dea, dated 1934, published by the Science Museum, London (H.M.S.O.). On page 54 "Single Sideband Transmission" it cites..
a) A.T. & T Corporation and International Western Electric as demonstrating an SSB speech transmision from New York to London in 1922. b) The British Post Office opened a public trans-Atlantic telephone service on this system in 1927 at their Rugby station with a transmitter installed by Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd which radiated on 5130 metres.
Consequently, I think the claim in the article, that radio amateurs invented SSB in the 1930s, is incorrect. RadioCheck ( talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Radio communication redirects here. This indeed seems to be the main focus. But there's a creep up of non-communication uses of radio: Navigation, Heating, Radar, etc. So I propose moving these elsewhere (e.g., radio waves, radio spectrum#application, etc.) and requesting the article to be renamed to its redirect. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Some ITU Terms and Definitions:
So radio communication is understood to include one-way radio broadcast and two-way radio communication.
Specific proposals:
If I don't hear anything, I'll proceed with the moves above. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are two definitions from authoritative sources demonstrating how "radio" alone, as in the present article's title, is not supposed to mean anything specific:
@ Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Well, even "radio communication" doesn't necessarily mean radio-intervened human communication. So we have two main concepts, Radio communication and Radio science and technology:
Radio could redirect to radio broadcasting, as this is the most common usage. Radio communication shall become a disambiguation page. The current version of radio would be renamed to radio science and technology. Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
shouldn't it be here somewhere? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Per this edit and this edit, Wikipedia is based on current historical research, not interpretations of 1899 sources or 19th or early 20th century observations/conclusions reached by participants in some discovery. Also supporting source supplied here (History of Wireless) clearly states Hughes work was "similar to Edison's", that both were radio, and does not support the wording "others' claims are disputed". Current historical consensus that Edison, Hughes, and even Thomson/Houston were detecting electromagnetic waves (radio) is quite clear. Besides the "ieeeghn.org, IEEE Global History Network, Etheric Force" source supplied see:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim that the link I originally provided and which you reference here implies that Edison was the first to investigate radio waves. 'Similar to' can mean any number of things, and it's pretty clearly stated earlier in that same book that Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson (who later accredited Hughes with the discovery of radio waves) 'proved the same year that the sparks were actually oscillatory high-frequency electric currents'. Also, none of those books with the exception of the one I originally linked to are scientific textbooks or were written by scientists. But all of this is beside the point anyway, as according to this source here [6] on page 829 Edison wasn't even the first to notice the spark, and it had commonly been observed by telegraph operators for decades before. Plus, I have another source [7] which agrees with me that 'Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct' hence why I described Edison's claim as 'disputed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Who is 'most'? I can barely find any references to Edison and his work with regards to radio or his 'etheric force' outside of that IEEE article you linked to. I hardly think this qualifies as a consensus. I suggest you find an expert to verify your claims that Edison was transmitting electromagnetic waves (I've already made posts on several forums asking for an expert to weigh in on this debate). SQMeaner ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I found a link written by a Michael E. Gorman here [8] and here [9] which also backs up my claim that Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves. He is also a university professor with a phD, so it still basically comes down to your word against mine. Furthermore, I did a bit of digging and found another useful link called 'Observations of electromagnetic waves before Hertz' [10] by Charles Susskind, who was, of course, a professor of electrical engineering at UC Berkeley. It goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, and apparently Luigi Galvani was the first to notice a spark caused by an electromagnetic wave in 1780. You should probably update the radio page to reflect this. Also, before you bring it up, I did notice Edison was mentioned in the article and I would like to draw your attention to the statement that E. Thomson did refute Edison on page 36. Furthermore, I seem to have found another link from the same site you originally based your edit on here [11] which states that Edison's hypothesis was 'was in 1876 experimentally disproved by Eli Thompson'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The article cites magnetic induction as a type of radio heating, but magnetic induction has nothing to do with radio waves. It's a magnetic field that crosses the boundaries, not radio waves - DesmondW ( talk) 14:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Esta es la historia de dos estupidos que solo se quieren para tener sexo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolchica ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The definition in the introduction seems to be limited to radio communication, sending information across space from a transmitter to a receiver (although I think its a very good introduction to communication). However the article includes other uses of radio besides communication: radiolocation, radio navigation beacons, GPS, radar. I think the introduction should be expanded to mention these other uses. -- Chetvorno TALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Also I think the short Heating section should be deleted. RF heating is not called "radio". -- Chetvorno TALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Completely rewrote article. Changes I made:
Will be adding more sources in future. These are big changes; I'd like to hear what you all think. -- Chetvorno TALK 03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Notices the Etymology section is currently an essay based on observation of primary sources. Needs some cleanup. Noaccountaccount ( talk) 13:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The recent unsourced to the introduction, saying Nikola Tesla "invented" radio, is an erroneous reading of history promoted by Tesla fan websites. The reliable sources linked below give the true story:
The first Morse code radio communication system was invented by Marconi in 1894; it didn't use Tesla's circuit and had nothing to do with Tesla. [16] While Tesla did invent the resonant transformer (Tesla coil) which was used in the first long distance radio transmitters and receivers, [17] the famous "four circuit" system, and used it in some radio wave transmission experiments, he was mainly interested in wireless power and never developed a radio communication system. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Oliver Lodge, [23] John Stone Stone, [24] and Karl Ferdinand Braun [25] applied this circuit to radio. [26] [27] The 1943 US Supreme Court decision did not "award the patent" to Tesla, it just invalidated Marconi's patent, mostly due to Lodge's and Stone's prior patents. [28] [29] No one person "invented" radio; it was a collaborative achievement. [30] A detailed, thoroughly sourced explanation of the contribution of these people to radio is at Spark-gap transmitter#Inductive coupling. -- Chetvorno TALK 17:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
List of these audiovisual materials Geesoul ( talk) 19:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"It's interesting to note that Marconi's first successful test was using a Tesla coil".
This is nonsense. Marconi's early tests used a simple induction coil known as a Ruhmkorff coil. Nothing remotely to do with Tesla. I have removed this spurious claim Gutta Percha ( talk)
Audiovisual materials
Geesoul ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
B93 Birthday Bash. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#B93 Birthday Bash until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Hörfunk. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Hörfunk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Regular Radio. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Regular Radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Am fm radio. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Am fm radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Large parts of this article seem to be in list form. Should it be converted more towards prose? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
He is not mentioned Moribundum ( talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with others that it's preferable to work on sourcing the live article text. If the content was obvious nonsense, fringe, erroneous, etc. I would not contest the mass deletions. But in this case, the content is quite uncontroversial and largely accurate - it just needs sources added. I started to add citations to the "Radio communication" section the other day, but was thwarted due to edit conflicts by others working on the same section. I suggest we let each other know which sections we're working on to avoid edit conflicts. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I was able to make some progress adding sources, but only at the rate of a few paragraphs per day. I could not go any faster, most will agree this type of work takes time. But now with these mass deletions of uncited text from the article, it's needlessly made more difficult to add needed cites while keeping track of duplicate citations. I'm certainly not a "serial policy violator" and it's sad to see other editors disparaged this way. Sorry, but I won't be working on the article again until the situation is resolved and the disruption ends. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have fixed one little designy stylie issue: the article had been out of any photos of household radios. Also, there was neither modern 5G smarties nor 1990's cellies with good ol' antennas (even though there was an Apple smartphone... with some picture on its screen, oh my copyrighties!) Профессор кислых щей ( talk) 10:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)