![]() | Telecommunications was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: Ultimately there is consensus that "telecommunications" is the basic form of the word, often used in singular, so it will be moved. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Telecommunication →
Telecommunications – Telecommunication refers to the action of communicating over a distance, while the wider term covering the technology and industry, which is the scope of this article, almost always appears as telecommunications. Now it's a bit unclear whether this is actually considered a plural form—Merriam-Webster gives the definition as "technology that deals with telecommunication —usually used in plural"
[1], while Lexico (previously Oxford Dictionaries) says, "(telecommunications) [treated as singular] The branch of technology concerned with telecommunication."
[2] But that shouldn't matter, since both show that
Telecommunications should be the preferred title.
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
r from singular}}
if we swapped it? Abstract nouns are often plural in other languages, but not in English.
85.67.32.244 (
talk) 18:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC::
@ 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've removed this recent addition from the 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. Spinning Spark 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 13:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
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)
![]() | Telecommunications was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: Ultimately there is consensus that "telecommunications" is the basic form of the word, often used in singular, so it will be moved. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Telecommunication →
Telecommunications – Telecommunication refers to the action of communicating over a distance, while the wider term covering the technology and industry, which is the scope of this article, almost always appears as telecommunications. Now it's a bit unclear whether this is actually considered a plural form—Merriam-Webster gives the definition as "technology that deals with telecommunication —usually used in plural"
[1], while Lexico (previously Oxford Dictionaries) says, "(telecommunications) [treated as singular] The branch of technology concerned with telecommunication."
[2] But that shouldn't matter, since both show that
Telecommunications should be the preferred title.
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
r from singular}}
if we swapped it? Abstract nouns are often plural in other languages, but not in English.
85.67.32.244 (
talk) 18:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC::
@ 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've removed this recent addition from the 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. Spinning Spark 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 13:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
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)