![]() | 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 |
{{dablink|''Telegraph'' and ''telegram'' redirect here. For other senses of those words, please see [[telegraph (disambiguation)]] and [[telegram (disambiguation)]].}}
I have no idea why the above appears in bold. Can anyone (1) tell me, and (2) fix this? Michael Hardy 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says that the Great Western Railway telegraph "came into operation on 9 April 1839", and that Samuel Morse sent the "world's first telegram" on 24 May 1844. Surely the Railway telegraph wasn't silent for the 5-year interim. I'm guessing that the Railway communication was not considered "telegrams" per se. Could someone acquainted with this history clarify the text for those of us who aren't? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course Morse and the Washington-Baltimore telegraph did not send the "world's first telegram", a word not invented until over 10 years later, but Morse was quite possibly the world's greatest publicist. (Neil Barton)
I agree. It seems to be a part of a national propaganda without any technical background inside. For instance, some American history books tell nothing about Sputnik but very well depict US Moon programme. (Thomas Reinshaw)
I agree that Electrical telegraph could easily be moved here - I've already removed the expand tag from that article. Any objection to merging it? -- Wtshymanski 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
In Radiotelegraphy section the article currently says : Alexander Stepanovich Popov demonstrated to the public his receiver of wireless signals, also used as a lightning detector, on the 7 of May, 1895. This is in comparison to Tesla, who was able to detect signals from the transmissions of his New York lab at West Point (a distance of 50 miles) in the beginning of 1895. [1]
AFAIK, Popov demostrated his receiver to community of scientists on May, 7th of 1895.The same year the fact of demonstration of this lightning detector was described in scientific newspapers - Kronshtadtsky Vestnik printed May,12ve of 1895 and in Journal of Russian Physics-Chemistry Society. Therefore, there are written evidences of A.S. Popov's work. What about Tesla *in comparison*? Are there similar articles about "his ability to detect signals from the transmission etc" in any newspapers or scientific journals printed in 1895? What about technical details of Tesla's apparatus? Sea diver 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Could some one put in info on Alexander Bain's automatic telegraph. 204.56.7.1
Done. - Sea diver 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If, as stated in the article, "The word telegraph alone generally refers to an electrical telegraph" then shouldn't "telegraph" redirect to electrical telegraph and not telegraphy? pACMANx 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Would a telegraphy historian please check the Telluric current article and correct as needed the statement on first use of an earth battery for telegraphy.
You might also add some additional information on this subject to the Earth battery article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.226.118 ( talk) 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
If I'm mistaken feel free to undo my change, but I don't think telegraphs helped napoleon dynamite much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.25.77 ( talk) 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
The article says modems and point-and-click interfaces led to personal email in 1992. I'm pretty sure the first email (even personal) systems existed long before point-and-click interfaces, and probably also before 1992. But I'm no computer science historian, so could someone knowledgeable correct that statement? -- Kimiko 21:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)
E-mail was first invented for Multics in the late 1960s. However it was limited to a single computer until the internet connected them around 1968. Various private networks (UUNET, the Well, GENIE, DECNET) had e-mail from the 1970s, but subscriptions were quite expensive for an individual- $25 to $50 a month, just for e-mail. Internet use was then pretty much limited to government, academia and other government contractors until the net was opened to commercial use around 1989[?]. Individual e-mail accounts were not widely available until local ISPs were in place, funded by people's desire for web access. This was about 1992. User:Ray Van De Walker
Before the internet came in, computer bulletin boards were popular. This was in the late 1980s. These would have a bank of modems that people could dial into from their home computers. You could send messages using a network called Fidonet, where the bulletin boards could call each other overnight and forward on messages. GB 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
why does telex link point to teleprinter if they talk more about it in telegraphy?
A mention of [Cybersyn] , a system of Telex co-ordinated economic planning, might not be remiss in the Telex section of this entry.
I am more than happy to edit and rewrite the whole telegraphy entry but this will have to wait until the end of the year after my dissertation on the telegraph has been submitted. (Neil Barton)
this article needs to tell more history of the telegraph (just ot let you know)- im not the one to od it either 68.18.162.3 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Somebody asked a good question on the RefDesk: why was the word "stop" used in telegrams rather than a period? (Or at least that's how it's depicted in movies.) The answer, sourced to an AP article [2] was that punctuation cost extra while the four-letter word was free. If that is true then it should go in the Wikipedia article telegraphy but I am skeptical. Was there not a charge for every word? Why should the word "stop" have been gratis? -- Mathew5000 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No references, but I believe the codes used only contained alphabetic and numeric symbols. There was no way to send punctuation. Rojomoke 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a section discussing the sort of telegraphs used on Victorian/Edwardian era ships to signal the engine room from the bridge. The sort that consisted of a dial and a handle for ordering the speed the engines should be run at.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.57.92 ( talk) 22:07, 28 June 2007
This article focuses on Wireless Morse Code which is fine when referring to a Wireless service, but the code used on Wired telegraph (a.k.a. Landline Telegraph) which was different not only did many of the characters differ but also the character spacing. The code that should be used in this example is American Morse code. The article should also be edited to express the differences between the two. As of now it compares the two as nearly identical which is not the case. The 'Morse Code" as we know it today would have simply been too hard to communicate accurately using the older telegraph systems. With the advent of radio and the use of a BFO to make the .(dits) and -(dahs) audible it made copying easier so the characters could become more complex. -- Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I recall at my father's office in the late 50s they had a "3-row" TWX machine, and it had a normal phone number (216-486-something). During the transitional period when the 4-row ASCII machines, model 33ASR, came into use, they had the special "area codes" 510, 610, 710, 810, 910 and if you called from one type to another the system did the code conversion for you. Eventually they dropped the special area codes and the conversion service and went to normal phone numbers, but you couldn't call a TWX machine from a computer with a modem because they had reversed the modem tones in some fashion. ;Bear 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The TWX section heading and the first paragraph of the TWX section are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.221.43 ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have, or can get, usable photos or diagrams of the early telegraph units (especially the five-needle and four-needle ones). This one is CC but noncommercial, so it's excluded :-( http://flickr.com/photos/tharpo/370614554/ -- 206.79.158.100 ( talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of the statistics in this article seem quite out of date. To wit: Germany was listed as having 400,000 telex lines in daily operation. According to the German Wikipedia article and my own recollection, there were only a few dozen lines left in by early 2007. The service was discontinued entirely on 31 December 2007. – I am deleting that reference but suggest more research and editing; I don't have the data. Polartysken ( talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of the web shows that there still seem to be several companies offering an interface between TELEX and EMail. -- jmb 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
can someone help me about telegraph transmission system.. how it works and what are the peripherals used for example the printers transmitter and receivers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.191.215 ( talk) 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's lots of good background on telexes, including the current implementation using email, at this Economist article. I hope someone can incorporate some of this material. Earthlyreason ( talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to shortchange Wheatstone and, in its section on the Wheatstone telegraph contradicts Wikipedia's Wheatstone article on early British railway telegraphy.
Also, the graphic of Morse's message 'What hath God wrought?' overlaps the text. I don't know how to fix such things. -- APW ( talk) 07:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is an "airgram"? Bastie ( talk) 09:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly is the handpiece called? Because I don't think anybody calls it a "telekey" or a "key". -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is too wide ranging to be useful, In my opinion. Focus on telegraphy, or the history of Telex/TWX, or the arcania of the hardware, but not all in one article.
216.68.101.35 ( talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (ralphw)
Support splitting TELEX from article This article is clearly too long. Why doesn't the Telex article have its own longer article? I'm sure it used to, and whoever merged it probably had good intentions, but it doesn't work! ~Encise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.218.20 ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that TELEX should be split into it's own article. As it is, the telex article is very U.S. centric, and there is a LOT more than could and should be written about the telex services. Funny also that "Telex II" has it's own article but Telex does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFM784 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree telex article should be split and confusing interchangeability btw telegram and telex service cleaned up -- telex service implied a telepriter and subscrition, and was mostly for business use, while telegram could be sent by anyone and delivered as a print out to any address. The article makes it all the same in a confusing way. -- BBird ( talk) 12:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This whole merged jumbled confusing "telegraphy" article sucks. You need a clear cut easy to understand article on the telegaphy, an article on the telex machine, and so on and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.201.164 ( talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
can anyone perform a spell check for me on the last sentences? I'm Dutch speaking. For those who understand Dutch, please read following article out of De Standaard newspaper:
also wasn't it samuel morse not samuel thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.187.7 ( talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We versturen jaarlijks nog 120.000 telegrammen
BRUSSEL - Elk jaar worden er in ons land nog 120.000 telegrammen verstuurd. België is daarmee een uitzondering. In ons land is het bijvoorbeeld nog wettelijk verplicht om telegrammen te sturen naar mensen die dijken bewaken als er storm dreigt.
In Groot-Brittannië, Duitsland, Frankrijk en Nederland is het telegram al afgevoerd, omdat het helemaal verdrongen werd door telefoon, e-mail en sms.
In de jaren '60 werden jaarlijks enkele miljoenen telegrammen verstuurd in ons land. Die gouden periode is voorbij, maar toch houdt het telegram opmerkelijk goed stand. Er worden nog 120.000 stuks per jaar verstuurd, of zo'n 300 per dag.
Er worden ook nog veel telegrammen naar en uit het buitenland verwerkt. En rond 15 augustus arriveren er duizenden telegrammen uit Italië, waar moederdag uitvoerig gevierd wordt.
In de meeste buurlanden is het telegram al afgeschaft. Omdat het bij ons nog succes heeft, denkt Belgacom daar niet aan. -- fredo1983
"The Third Reich invented the first wide-coverage telex system, and used it to coordinate their bureaucracy. It was a true triumph of German efficiency."
Isn't putting true triumph of efficiency and IIIrd Reich in the same sentence borderline apologetic of the IIIrd Reich ? Isn't "German efficiency" itself borderline racist, as racist as "French anarchy" ?
This is one of the rights given by the EU to air passengers in the case of certain delays.
How does the telex element of this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmh ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've long known that Wikipedia reflects the biases and backgrounds of its editors, but even I was flabbergasted to discover that there are not separate articles for Telex and Telegram. Weren't any other Wikipedia editors alive in the 1970s? Anyway, I've tried to rectify this by creating Telex (network) (the Telex namespace is taken, another wrong call IMHO), and will delete the Telex section from this article in a few days unless there are compelling reasons not to. I might do the same with Telegram too. Adpete ( talk) 07:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A section of several paragraphs on the history of e-mail has little to no relevancy here. Couldn't this entire section be replaced with one sentence and pointed to the e-mail article? Fkumbila ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The definition of telegraphy used elsewhere in the article seems to include any form of long-distance syntactic communications. By this definition, email is telegraphy and could not meaningfully replace it. However, I think this broad definition should be mentioned early in the article, and either split or outright removed thereafter, preferring more restricted definitions focussing on telegram/TELEX/optical telegraph systems etc. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the "arrival of the internet" section which seems to be a random smattering of some (and not even the most significant) minor milestones in modern digital telecommunications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjo ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Cablegram article isn't any more than a definition and some information which should probably be part of this article. ~ Booya Bazooka 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
u ckdykltudoc tt67 j, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.123.102 ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This whole section is vague and of questionable importance.
"all but very small amounts of information could be moved" - Only very small amounts could originally be transmitted by telegraphy.
"only as fast as physical transportation (historically, human or animal) could travel: only a few miles per hour." - But not faster than the metaphysical transportation. Couldn't all this be said more succinctly: It was faster.
"telegraph freed communication from the constraints of geography." - What does this even mean? Why is it important? Moreover, if the first transatlantic cable was severed, that hardly seems to qualify for being freed from geography.
"It isolated the message (information) from the physical movement of objects or the process." - Very post-modernist. Now can anyone explain how this is different from being 'freed from the constraints of geography'?
Telegraphy allowed organizations to actively controlling physical processes at a distance (for example: railroad signaling and switching of rolling stock), multiplying the effectiveness and functions of communication. "...Once space was, in the phrase of the day, annihilated, once everyone was in the same place for the purposes of trade, time as a new region of experience, uncertainty, speculation, and exploration was opened up to the forces of commerce." - This is just horrendous. It's abstract, confusing and poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yefi ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (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.
I propose that Victorian Internet be merged into Telegraphy. In the end the 'Victorian Internet' is not an actual concept; its really just a device used to inform digital-savvy readers about 19th century telegraphy. From the article, it seems to be a term is used primarily in connection with Sandage's book.
It would be more appropriate if the idea of the 'Victorian Internet' were mentioned in the telegraphy article. A brief statement should suffice, written along the lines o,f "the 19th century telegraph has sometimes been considered today as a sort of 'Victorian Internet', which [did...] in a way similar to the modern Internet. This analogy has particuarly been espoused by writers such as Tom Sandage, and [etc]". theBOBbobato ( talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose You missed the whole point of the Victorian Internet article. While it is true that "Victorian Internet" is synonomous with "Telegraph", the focus of the Victorian article is and should be on the many things that were similar, and not on the fact that a new technology replaced an older technology. The Victorian Internet article should be expanded to include how the telegraph was successfully used in warfare and the Internet was originally developed by the US Dept of Defense for use by the military in warfare. And the telegraph spawned the telephone just as the original DARPANET spawned the World Wide Web. And the telegraph made it possible to make "wire transfers" of money, just as the Internet made it possible to pay for products ordered over the Internet. These and several other comparisons will make the Victorian Internet stub a full size article that would lose focus if merged. Greensburger ( talk) 02:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A stub article should not be deleted merely because it has not yet been expanded into a full article. Other books have made additional comparisons. For example, on the use of the telegraph for military messages, such as the book "Mr. Lincoln's T-mails" (T meaning telegraph). This stub has potential, so give it time to grow. Greensburger ( talk) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The article represents a valid historical perspective on a stage in the shift of global historic communications which has been noted in other texts as well as the one mainly cited. The article could easily be expanded under its current subject matter as a branch of communications development. It would have clear referential value in other articles as well. -- CKJ ( talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Amazing! Surely everyone knows that "The Victorian Internet" article is a just blatent piece of advertising for Tim Sandwich's book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.124.172 ( talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
' Around 1960[?], some nations began to use the "figures" Baudot codes to perform "Type B" Telex routing. ' Looks very encyclopedic; doesn't it? 71.254.117.52 ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I made a mistake; I thought the whole section had been replaced by (sx and rx). So I take back the edit summary comment of "sweeping changes", but I feel that the revert is justified anyway; these terms would require more explanation for a lay reader. Nczempin ( talk) 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The article indicates a whole lot of progress in the area of 1995-2000. If these dates were 1895-1900, I'd find it plausible. Wireless telegraphy was dying between 1995 and 2000, not being invented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.0.1 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is the inventor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitri2009 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following was removed from the article as "inaccurate" by an anon user, so I'm leaving it here for those who know more than me:
BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The transfer of letters and numbers without human interface/interpretation is not a facsimile. The transfer of such lettered and numerical data, is however a dramatic breakthrough. Homebuilding ( talk) 20:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The opening pic of "Optical Telegraf of Claude Chappe" is quite confusing, due to the modern atenna on the top. If this photo is going to be used, it should be cropped to the roof line. *** The article is missing all of the basic images one would expect: a morse code keyer, a typical printed telegram from the early 1900s, telegraph wires strung from pole to pole in the countryside. They should be added, and would be more appropriate images to start the article with.- 69.87.200.22 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In the story the Count bribes a telegraph operator to alter a message to the Count's advantage = is this an early example of hacking in fiction? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. When this machine received a telegraph signal did an operator have to interpet Morse code or did the machine do it automatically and print it? -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I must stress that this is an exclamation, and not a question, as any look at Numbers 23:23 will confirm. It's there in the King James & other translations. "What hath God wrought!" - Samuel Morse was a Calvinist, and was probably marvelling at the possibilities the telegraph would bring to the world. -ginkgobiloba- ( talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of papers are reporting that India is the last country with a telegraph service, but that doesn't seem to be correct, as you can still send telegrams in Hungary. It would be nice to get a source citation for this. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
False rumor which was originally reported here: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2013/0614/India-to-send-world-s-last-telegram.-Stop Fkumbila ( talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, The article didn't focus on the fundamental developments and had an excessive level of detail for things like Telex and its method of operation. Noodleki ( talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Electrical telegraph which concerns this article. Spinning Spark 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I was reviewing the Teleprinters section, realizing that there is a separate article on this subject, and noted that the current paragraphs contain some interesting, but disjoint, information about teleprinters. It's my opinion that this part of the Telegraphy article should be high level, with the details in the separate article on the subject of teleprinters. I will take a stab at this effort while moving any teleprinter details that are found in this section over to the main article, if I find them missing. Any help that you may wish to offer is appreciated. Wa3frp ( talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This is wrong. There was an overland telegraph route to India in 1866. You can see this in newspapers of the period as they have reports "by overland telegraph". I don't have any better sources than the British Newspaper Archive - surely someone has written a book about this?? Best that I have is Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Saturday 15 December 1866, page 7 column 4 which gives some description of the route and the time taken for transmission. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
А не проще русским пользователям Википедии перевести эту страницу? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Максим Грибанов ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Telegraphy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
See this diff. The US and UK spellings of marvelous/marvellous may not matter much, if the quote is wrong to begin with. According to the Marconi Society, Lord Samuel, Postmaster General at the time, stated: "Those who have been saved have been saved through one man, Mr. Marconi and his wonderful invention." Other sources may be found using marvelous and marvellous. Not married to any one of them... Just plain Bill ( talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
User: Fkumbila please actually look at the sources (and lack of sources you restored in this dif. The itelegram source does not say "Western Union's telegram service was acquired by iTelegram," - it says it didn't acquire it. In addition that is not an independent source and is just spammy. The rest of that section is unsourced. That is what I mentioned in my edit nore here. Be more careful about labelling others' edits as "vandalism". Jytdog ( talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following statement, because it is factually incorrect: "PARS and IPARS (the airline reservation systems) still (2002) use Baudot code, because it requires only 7.5 bits per character. A bit saved is a penny earned." In fact, IPARS uses a 6-bit shifted code, not 5-bit Baudot. -- Ortonmc 03:58, 11 November 2003 (UTC)
Can someone please find a ( GNU FDL'd) image for this article. Noldoaran 17:56, 5 December 2003 (UTC)
Removed from the article, as this does not seem immediately relevant to telegraphy, and I'm not sure that the data-efficiency arguments given are relevant in the current WDM bandwidth glut world:
The Internet was designed with nearly grotesque economies. It is commonplace for internet packets to use less than 1% of their bits for overhead. This cheapness combines synergistically with the Internet's ability to live on other media. A typical cycle occurs when the internet encounters another network, like telex, fidonet, ATM, or (as we are seeing with cable-modem based internet phones) the public switched telephone network:
- First, Internet protocols are tunneled through the other network, as a convenience, usually for some specialized or office application.
- Second, users come to expect the reliable global interconnectivity of the Internet, often for e-mail, or nowadays, for web access. Just because it's old and well debugged, the Internet can seduce a user with a young, poorly behaved proprietary network.
- Third, native applications of the competing network are deprecated, often because "nonproprietary" Internet versions of similar services become available.
- Fourth, an alternative cheaper or higher-speed Internet-compatible medium becomes available, and the organization begins to install it.
- Fifth, the proprietary network is rationalized out of existence as a cost-cutting maneuver, often because the Internet protocols have such low percentages of overhead (i.e. wasted) data.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 June 2004 (UTC)
In the article, it says: "Before fax machines came into general use, wire picture or wire photo was a newspaper picture that was sent from a remote location by a facsimile telegraph. This is why many fax machines have a photo option even today.". I don't get this justification. Why is fax machines having a photo option relevant to telegraphs? -- Stain 14:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ampere, in a a presentation to the Academy of Sciences on October 2, 1820 which can be found in the Annales de Chimie et de Physique Series II Vol. 15, p.59, 1820, Ampere says that he is following up on an experiment suggested by Marquis de Laplace which is forming the first electromagnetic telegraph. It appears he does not actually make it but it is conceived there. Emstone 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
the opening paragraph states that the original media of transmission was by wire ... later in the article it talks of optical telegraphs and indeed there is an image of an optical telegraph tower. In my view there are several types of telegraph distinguished by their transmission media .... 1] acoustic (discussed in Victorian Internet) 2] optical 3] pnematic (once agn in Victorian Internet) 4] ship's telegraph - media is chain or cable WIRE
maybe this is what was meant by originally by wire :-) :--) might also be debated on one's view of distance
5] wire as in Morse/Wheatstone telegraphs 6] wireless (aka radio) as a newbie to wiki (in fact this is first edit) i do not feel i have experience or credentials to touch main article but hope someone else sees my point and touches it up. Also would like feedback on my viewpoint. tnx! JOHN RUSSELL VE3LL@RAC.CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.65.84 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has become more or less a fork of the electric telegraph page (literally so, some parts have been copy pasted from other articles). I propose to junk most of it in favour of summary style and main article links. The page can then be expanded with non-electric forms of telegraphy. The article as it stands has little point in existing and might as well be merged with the electric telegraph page. We should not have two pages on the same topic per WP:CFORK. I propose to start this process in a week or two if there are no objections. Spinning Spark 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Telegram_(messaging_service) page should be a default redirect of Telegram. 220.71.101.103 ( talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Although this article was started more recently than the Electrical telegraph article, it can be argued that much of the content of "Electrical telegraph" belongs under this more generic heading. What is surely not appropriate is for vast swathes of content to be duplicated in the two articles. What do others think? -- TedColes ( talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the hatnote "This article is about general methods of telegraphy. For electrical telegraphy, see Electric telegraph." because it is unnecessary. Actually Electric telegraph is a redirect to Electrical telegraph. This article mentions "electrical telegraphy" in the lead, and has a section "Electrical telegraphs" with a main article hatnote to Electrical telegraph. A reader looking for information about "electrical telegraph(y)" but just searches for "telegraph(y)" has not landed on the wrong page. The hatnote is not only unnecessary, it "separates the reader from the content they are looking for" ( WP:ONESHORTHAT). Per WP:HATNOTE, "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Even though it fits the official definition in dictionaries, it seems ridiculous and WP:OFFTOPIC to me to have sections on modern communication methods like internet and e-mail. As far as I can tell, the word telegraphy is never used for these. I don't mind a brief mention that modern text communication methods fall under the definition of the word, but there probably should be a caveot that this is not modern usage. -- Chetvorno TALK 06:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the repositioning of the heliograph section is mistaken if the order is to be roughly historical. Heliograph did not become a usable system until after the electric telegraph and Morse code had been developed. Its purpose was to extend telegraph into regions where the electric telegraph (or later, telephone lines) had not been established. Spinning Spark 16:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't we get to a consensus that ship's engine-order telegraph does not belong under this subject? It is not a form of long-distance telegraphy being intrinsically limited to local communication. Spinning Spark 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks to TedColes and particularly Spinningspark for an excellent rewrite. The article is much more consistent now. Due to the conversion to chronological WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, moving of excessive electrical telegraph material to Electrical telegraph, the clarification of the scope of the term telegraphy and removal of nontelegraph sections like internet and email, we now have a decent article. Congrats! -- Chetvorno TALK 18:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
I left flag semaphore out of the rewrite on the grounds that it is so short range that it does not really come under the heading of "distant writing". I've since discovered that the wig wag system was widely used in the American civil war. Some enormous signalling towers were built, some hundreds of feet high to get the distance. See here for instance. So maybe it should be included after all. I don't have a handle on how extensive the network was, or if it could be described as a network at all. Is anyone knowledgeable about this? Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, the flag semaphore article implies, without citation, that flag semaphore was developed as a mobile version of the fixed optical telegraph. Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I left flag semaphore out of the rewrite on the grounds that it is so short range that it does not really come under the heading of "distant writing". I've since discovered that the wig wag system was widely used in the American civil war. Some enormous signalling towers were built, some hundreds of feet high to get the distance. See here for instance. So maybe it should be included after all. I don't have a handle on how extensive the network was, or if it could be described as a network at all. Is anyone knowledgeable about this? Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, the flag semaphore article implies, without citation, that flag semaphore was developed as a mobile version of the fixed optical telegraph. Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Spinningspark: If Repeater (disambiguation) does not really belong in Telegraphy#See also then you could have put it at the beginning of the article as a hat note as there are many kinds of relays. Peter Horn User talk 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Telegram (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by
WikiProject Wikipedia and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:27, 2 January 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 |
{{dablink|''Telegraph'' and ''telegram'' redirect here. For other senses of those words, please see [[telegraph (disambiguation)]] and [[telegram (disambiguation)]].}}
I have no idea why the above appears in bold. Can anyone (1) tell me, and (2) fix this? Michael Hardy 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says that the Great Western Railway telegraph "came into operation on 9 April 1839", and that Samuel Morse sent the "world's first telegram" on 24 May 1844. Surely the Railway telegraph wasn't silent for the 5-year interim. I'm guessing that the Railway communication was not considered "telegrams" per se. Could someone acquainted with this history clarify the text for those of us who aren't? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course Morse and the Washington-Baltimore telegraph did not send the "world's first telegram", a word not invented until over 10 years later, but Morse was quite possibly the world's greatest publicist. (Neil Barton)
I agree. It seems to be a part of a national propaganda without any technical background inside. For instance, some American history books tell nothing about Sputnik but very well depict US Moon programme. (Thomas Reinshaw)
I agree that Electrical telegraph could easily be moved here - I've already removed the expand tag from that article. Any objection to merging it? -- Wtshymanski 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
In Radiotelegraphy section the article currently says : Alexander Stepanovich Popov demonstrated to the public his receiver of wireless signals, also used as a lightning detector, on the 7 of May, 1895. This is in comparison to Tesla, who was able to detect signals from the transmissions of his New York lab at West Point (a distance of 50 miles) in the beginning of 1895. [1]
AFAIK, Popov demostrated his receiver to community of scientists on May, 7th of 1895.The same year the fact of demonstration of this lightning detector was described in scientific newspapers - Kronshtadtsky Vestnik printed May,12ve of 1895 and in Journal of Russian Physics-Chemistry Society. Therefore, there are written evidences of A.S. Popov's work. What about Tesla *in comparison*? Are there similar articles about "his ability to detect signals from the transmission etc" in any newspapers or scientific journals printed in 1895? What about technical details of Tesla's apparatus? Sea diver 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Could some one put in info on Alexander Bain's automatic telegraph. 204.56.7.1
Done. - Sea diver 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If, as stated in the article, "The word telegraph alone generally refers to an electrical telegraph" then shouldn't "telegraph" redirect to electrical telegraph and not telegraphy? pACMANx 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Would a telegraphy historian please check the Telluric current article and correct as needed the statement on first use of an earth battery for telegraphy.
You might also add some additional information on this subject to the Earth battery article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.226.118 ( talk) 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
If I'm mistaken feel free to undo my change, but I don't think telegraphs helped napoleon dynamite much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.25.77 ( talk) 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
The article says modems and point-and-click interfaces led to personal email in 1992. I'm pretty sure the first email (even personal) systems existed long before point-and-click interfaces, and probably also before 1992. But I'm no computer science historian, so could someone knowledgeable correct that statement? -- Kimiko 21:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)
E-mail was first invented for Multics in the late 1960s. However it was limited to a single computer until the internet connected them around 1968. Various private networks (UUNET, the Well, GENIE, DECNET) had e-mail from the 1970s, but subscriptions were quite expensive for an individual- $25 to $50 a month, just for e-mail. Internet use was then pretty much limited to government, academia and other government contractors until the net was opened to commercial use around 1989[?]. Individual e-mail accounts were not widely available until local ISPs were in place, funded by people's desire for web access. This was about 1992. User:Ray Van De Walker
Before the internet came in, computer bulletin boards were popular. This was in the late 1980s. These would have a bank of modems that people could dial into from their home computers. You could send messages using a network called Fidonet, where the bulletin boards could call each other overnight and forward on messages. GB 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
why does telex link point to teleprinter if they talk more about it in telegraphy?
A mention of [Cybersyn] , a system of Telex co-ordinated economic planning, might not be remiss in the Telex section of this entry.
I am more than happy to edit and rewrite the whole telegraphy entry but this will have to wait until the end of the year after my dissertation on the telegraph has been submitted. (Neil Barton)
this article needs to tell more history of the telegraph (just ot let you know)- im not the one to od it either 68.18.162.3 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Somebody asked a good question on the RefDesk: why was the word "stop" used in telegrams rather than a period? (Or at least that's how it's depicted in movies.) The answer, sourced to an AP article [2] was that punctuation cost extra while the four-letter word was free. If that is true then it should go in the Wikipedia article telegraphy but I am skeptical. Was there not a charge for every word? Why should the word "stop" have been gratis? -- Mathew5000 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No references, but I believe the codes used only contained alphabetic and numeric symbols. There was no way to send punctuation. Rojomoke 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a section discussing the sort of telegraphs used on Victorian/Edwardian era ships to signal the engine room from the bridge. The sort that consisted of a dial and a handle for ordering the speed the engines should be run at.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.57.92 ( talk) 22:07, 28 June 2007
This article focuses on Wireless Morse Code which is fine when referring to a Wireless service, but the code used on Wired telegraph (a.k.a. Landline Telegraph) which was different not only did many of the characters differ but also the character spacing. The code that should be used in this example is American Morse code. The article should also be edited to express the differences between the two. As of now it compares the two as nearly identical which is not the case. The 'Morse Code" as we know it today would have simply been too hard to communicate accurately using the older telegraph systems. With the advent of radio and the use of a BFO to make the .(dits) and -(dahs) audible it made copying easier so the characters could become more complex. -- Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I recall at my father's office in the late 50s they had a "3-row" TWX machine, and it had a normal phone number (216-486-something). During the transitional period when the 4-row ASCII machines, model 33ASR, came into use, they had the special "area codes" 510, 610, 710, 810, 910 and if you called from one type to another the system did the code conversion for you. Eventually they dropped the special area codes and the conversion service and went to normal phone numbers, but you couldn't call a TWX machine from a computer with a modem because they had reversed the modem tones in some fashion. ;Bear 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The TWX section heading and the first paragraph of the TWX section are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.221.43 ( talk) 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have, or can get, usable photos or diagrams of the early telegraph units (especially the five-needle and four-needle ones). This one is CC but noncommercial, so it's excluded :-( http://flickr.com/photos/tharpo/370614554/ -- 206.79.158.100 ( talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of the statistics in this article seem quite out of date. To wit: Germany was listed as having 400,000 telex lines in daily operation. According to the German Wikipedia article and my own recollection, there were only a few dozen lines left in by early 2007. The service was discontinued entirely on 31 December 2007. – I am deleting that reference but suggest more research and editing; I don't have the data. Polartysken ( talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of the web shows that there still seem to be several companies offering an interface between TELEX and EMail. -- jmb 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
can someone help me about telegraph transmission system.. how it works and what are the peripherals used for example the printers transmitter and receivers.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.191.215 ( talk) 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's lots of good background on telexes, including the current implementation using email, at this Economist article. I hope someone can incorporate some of this material. Earthlyreason ( talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to shortchange Wheatstone and, in its section on the Wheatstone telegraph contradicts Wikipedia's Wheatstone article on early British railway telegraphy.
Also, the graphic of Morse's message 'What hath God wrought?' overlaps the text. I don't know how to fix such things. -- APW ( talk) 07:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What is an "airgram"? Bastie ( talk) 09:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly is the handpiece called? Because I don't think anybody calls it a "telekey" or a "key". -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is too wide ranging to be useful, In my opinion. Focus on telegraphy, or the history of Telex/TWX, or the arcania of the hardware, but not all in one article.
216.68.101.35 ( talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (ralphw)
Support splitting TELEX from article This article is clearly too long. Why doesn't the Telex article have its own longer article? I'm sure it used to, and whoever merged it probably had good intentions, but it doesn't work! ~Encise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.218.20 ( talk) 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that TELEX should be split into it's own article. As it is, the telex article is very U.S. centric, and there is a LOT more than could and should be written about the telex services. Funny also that "Telex II" has it's own article but Telex does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFM784 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree telex article should be split and confusing interchangeability btw telegram and telex service cleaned up -- telex service implied a telepriter and subscrition, and was mostly for business use, while telegram could be sent by anyone and delivered as a print out to any address. The article makes it all the same in a confusing way. -- BBird ( talk) 12:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This whole merged jumbled confusing "telegraphy" article sucks. You need a clear cut easy to understand article on the telegaphy, an article on the telex machine, and so on and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.201.164 ( talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
can anyone perform a spell check for me on the last sentences? I'm Dutch speaking. For those who understand Dutch, please read following article out of De Standaard newspaper:
also wasn't it samuel morse not samuel thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.187.7 ( talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We versturen jaarlijks nog 120.000 telegrammen
BRUSSEL - Elk jaar worden er in ons land nog 120.000 telegrammen verstuurd. België is daarmee een uitzondering. In ons land is het bijvoorbeeld nog wettelijk verplicht om telegrammen te sturen naar mensen die dijken bewaken als er storm dreigt.
In Groot-Brittannië, Duitsland, Frankrijk en Nederland is het telegram al afgevoerd, omdat het helemaal verdrongen werd door telefoon, e-mail en sms.
In de jaren '60 werden jaarlijks enkele miljoenen telegrammen verstuurd in ons land. Die gouden periode is voorbij, maar toch houdt het telegram opmerkelijk goed stand. Er worden nog 120.000 stuks per jaar verstuurd, of zo'n 300 per dag.
Er worden ook nog veel telegrammen naar en uit het buitenland verwerkt. En rond 15 augustus arriveren er duizenden telegrammen uit Italië, waar moederdag uitvoerig gevierd wordt.
In de meeste buurlanden is het telegram al afgeschaft. Omdat het bij ons nog succes heeft, denkt Belgacom daar niet aan. -- fredo1983
"The Third Reich invented the first wide-coverage telex system, and used it to coordinate their bureaucracy. It was a true triumph of German efficiency."
Isn't putting true triumph of efficiency and IIIrd Reich in the same sentence borderline apologetic of the IIIrd Reich ? Isn't "German efficiency" itself borderline racist, as racist as "French anarchy" ?
This is one of the rights given by the EU to air passengers in the case of certain delays.
How does the telex element of this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmh ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've long known that Wikipedia reflects the biases and backgrounds of its editors, but even I was flabbergasted to discover that there are not separate articles for Telex and Telegram. Weren't any other Wikipedia editors alive in the 1970s? Anyway, I've tried to rectify this by creating Telex (network) (the Telex namespace is taken, another wrong call IMHO), and will delete the Telex section from this article in a few days unless there are compelling reasons not to. I might do the same with Telegram too. Adpete ( talk) 07:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A section of several paragraphs on the history of e-mail has little to no relevancy here. Couldn't this entire section be replaced with one sentence and pointed to the e-mail article? Fkumbila ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The definition of telegraphy used elsewhere in the article seems to include any form of long-distance syntactic communications. By this definition, email is telegraphy and could not meaningfully replace it. However, I think this broad definition should be mentioned early in the article, and either split or outright removed thereafter, preferring more restricted definitions focussing on telegram/TELEX/optical telegraph systems etc. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the "arrival of the internet" section which seems to be a random smattering of some (and not even the most significant) minor milestones in modern digital telecommunications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjo ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Cablegram article isn't any more than a definition and some information which should probably be part of this article. ~ Booya Bazooka 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
u ckdykltudoc tt67 j, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.123.102 ( talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This whole section is vague and of questionable importance.
"all but very small amounts of information could be moved" - Only very small amounts could originally be transmitted by telegraphy.
"only as fast as physical transportation (historically, human or animal) could travel: only a few miles per hour." - But not faster than the metaphysical transportation. Couldn't all this be said more succinctly: It was faster.
"telegraph freed communication from the constraints of geography." - What does this even mean? Why is it important? Moreover, if the first transatlantic cable was severed, that hardly seems to qualify for being freed from geography.
"It isolated the message (information) from the physical movement of objects or the process." - Very post-modernist. Now can anyone explain how this is different from being 'freed from the constraints of geography'?
Telegraphy allowed organizations to actively controlling physical processes at a distance (for example: railroad signaling and switching of rolling stock), multiplying the effectiveness and functions of communication. "...Once space was, in the phrase of the day, annihilated, once everyone was in the same place for the purposes of trade, time as a new region of experience, uncertainty, speculation, and exploration was opened up to the forces of commerce." - This is just horrendous. It's abstract, confusing and poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yefi ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (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.
I propose that Victorian Internet be merged into Telegraphy. In the end the 'Victorian Internet' is not an actual concept; its really just a device used to inform digital-savvy readers about 19th century telegraphy. From the article, it seems to be a term is used primarily in connection with Sandage's book.
It would be more appropriate if the idea of the 'Victorian Internet' were mentioned in the telegraphy article. A brief statement should suffice, written along the lines o,f "the 19th century telegraph has sometimes been considered today as a sort of 'Victorian Internet', which [did...] in a way similar to the modern Internet. This analogy has particuarly been espoused by writers such as Tom Sandage, and [etc]". theBOBbobato ( talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose You missed the whole point of the Victorian Internet article. While it is true that "Victorian Internet" is synonomous with "Telegraph", the focus of the Victorian article is and should be on the many things that were similar, and not on the fact that a new technology replaced an older technology. The Victorian Internet article should be expanded to include how the telegraph was successfully used in warfare and the Internet was originally developed by the US Dept of Defense for use by the military in warfare. And the telegraph spawned the telephone just as the original DARPANET spawned the World Wide Web. And the telegraph made it possible to make "wire transfers" of money, just as the Internet made it possible to pay for products ordered over the Internet. These and several other comparisons will make the Victorian Internet stub a full size article that would lose focus if merged. Greensburger ( talk) 02:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A stub article should not be deleted merely because it has not yet been expanded into a full article. Other books have made additional comparisons. For example, on the use of the telegraph for military messages, such as the book "Mr. Lincoln's T-mails" (T meaning telegraph). This stub has potential, so give it time to grow. Greensburger ( talk) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The article represents a valid historical perspective on a stage in the shift of global historic communications which has been noted in other texts as well as the one mainly cited. The article could easily be expanded under its current subject matter as a branch of communications development. It would have clear referential value in other articles as well. -- CKJ ( talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Amazing! Surely everyone knows that "The Victorian Internet" article is a just blatent piece of advertising for Tim Sandwich's book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.124.172 ( talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
' Around 1960[?], some nations began to use the "figures" Baudot codes to perform "Type B" Telex routing. ' Looks very encyclopedic; doesn't it? 71.254.117.52 ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I made a mistake; I thought the whole section had been replaced by (sx and rx). So I take back the edit summary comment of "sweeping changes", but I feel that the revert is justified anyway; these terms would require more explanation for a lay reader. Nczempin ( talk) 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The article indicates a whole lot of progress in the area of 1995-2000. If these dates were 1895-1900, I'd find it plausible. Wireless telegraphy was dying between 1995 and 2000, not being invented! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.0.1 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is the inventor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitri2009 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following was removed from the article as "inaccurate" by an anon user, so I'm leaving it here for those who know more than me:
BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The transfer of letters and numbers without human interface/interpretation is not a facsimile. The transfer of such lettered and numerical data, is however a dramatic breakthrough. Homebuilding ( talk) 20:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The opening pic of "Optical Telegraf of Claude Chappe" is quite confusing, due to the modern atenna on the top. If this photo is going to be used, it should be cropped to the roof line. *** The article is missing all of the basic images one would expect: a morse code keyer, a typical printed telegram from the early 1900s, telegraph wires strung from pole to pole in the countryside. They should be added, and would be more appropriate images to start the article with.- 69.87.200.22 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In the story the Count bribes a telegraph operator to alter a message to the Count's advantage = is this an early example of hacking in fiction? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. When this machine received a telegraph signal did an operator have to interpet Morse code or did the machine do it automatically and print it? -- 98.232.180.37 ( talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I must stress that this is an exclamation, and not a question, as any look at Numbers 23:23 will confirm. It's there in the King James & other translations. "What hath God wrought!" - Samuel Morse was a Calvinist, and was probably marvelling at the possibilities the telegraph would bring to the world. -ginkgobiloba- ( talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of papers are reporting that India is the last country with a telegraph service, but that doesn't seem to be correct, as you can still send telegrams in Hungary. It would be nice to get a source citation for this. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
False rumor which was originally reported here: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2013/0614/India-to-send-world-s-last-telegram.-Stop Fkumbila ( talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, The article didn't focus on the fundamental developments and had an excessive level of detail for things like Telex and its method of operation. Noodleki ( talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Electrical telegraph which concerns this article. Spinning Spark 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I was reviewing the Teleprinters section, realizing that there is a separate article on this subject, and noted that the current paragraphs contain some interesting, but disjoint, information about teleprinters. It's my opinion that this part of the Telegraphy article should be high level, with the details in the separate article on the subject of teleprinters. I will take a stab at this effort while moving any teleprinter details that are found in this section over to the main article, if I find them missing. Any help that you may wish to offer is appreciated. Wa3frp ( talk) 15:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This is wrong. There was an overland telegraph route to India in 1866. You can see this in newspapers of the period as they have reports "by overland telegraph". I don't have any better sources than the British Newspaper Archive - surely someone has written a book about this?? Best that I have is Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Saturday 15 December 1866, page 7 column 4 which gives some description of the route and the time taken for transmission. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
А не проще русским пользователям Википедии перевести эту страницу? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Максим Грибанов ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Telegraphy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
See this diff. The US and UK spellings of marvelous/marvellous may not matter much, if the quote is wrong to begin with. According to the Marconi Society, Lord Samuel, Postmaster General at the time, stated: "Those who have been saved have been saved through one man, Mr. Marconi and his wonderful invention." Other sources may be found using marvelous and marvellous. Not married to any one of them... Just plain Bill ( talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
User: Fkumbila please actually look at the sources (and lack of sources you restored in this dif. The itelegram source does not say "Western Union's telegram service was acquired by iTelegram," - it says it didn't acquire it. In addition that is not an independent source and is just spammy. The rest of that section is unsourced. That is what I mentioned in my edit nore here. Be more careful about labelling others' edits as "vandalism". Jytdog ( talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following statement, because it is factually incorrect: "PARS and IPARS (the airline reservation systems) still (2002) use Baudot code, because it requires only 7.5 bits per character. A bit saved is a penny earned." In fact, IPARS uses a 6-bit shifted code, not 5-bit Baudot. -- Ortonmc 03:58, 11 November 2003 (UTC)
Can someone please find a ( GNU FDL'd) image for this article. Noldoaran 17:56, 5 December 2003 (UTC)
Removed from the article, as this does not seem immediately relevant to telegraphy, and I'm not sure that the data-efficiency arguments given are relevant in the current WDM bandwidth glut world:
The Internet was designed with nearly grotesque economies. It is commonplace for internet packets to use less than 1% of their bits for overhead. This cheapness combines synergistically with the Internet's ability to live on other media. A typical cycle occurs when the internet encounters another network, like telex, fidonet, ATM, or (as we are seeing with cable-modem based internet phones) the public switched telephone network:
- First, Internet protocols are tunneled through the other network, as a convenience, usually for some specialized or office application.
- Second, users come to expect the reliable global interconnectivity of the Internet, often for e-mail, or nowadays, for web access. Just because it's old and well debugged, the Internet can seduce a user with a young, poorly behaved proprietary network.
- Third, native applications of the competing network are deprecated, often because "nonproprietary" Internet versions of similar services become available.
- Fourth, an alternative cheaper or higher-speed Internet-compatible medium becomes available, and the organization begins to install it.
- Fifth, the proprietary network is rationalized out of existence as a cost-cutting maneuver, often because the Internet protocols have such low percentages of overhead (i.e. wasted) data.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 3 June 2004 (UTC)
In the article, it says: "Before fax machines came into general use, wire picture or wire photo was a newspaper picture that was sent from a remote location by a facsimile telegraph. This is why many fax machines have a photo option even today.". I don't get this justification. Why is fax machines having a photo option relevant to telegraphs? -- Stain 14:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ampere, in a a presentation to the Academy of Sciences on October 2, 1820 which can be found in the Annales de Chimie et de Physique Series II Vol. 15, p.59, 1820, Ampere says that he is following up on an experiment suggested by Marquis de Laplace which is forming the first electromagnetic telegraph. It appears he does not actually make it but it is conceived there. Emstone 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
the opening paragraph states that the original media of transmission was by wire ... later in the article it talks of optical telegraphs and indeed there is an image of an optical telegraph tower. In my view there are several types of telegraph distinguished by their transmission media .... 1] acoustic (discussed in Victorian Internet) 2] optical 3] pnematic (once agn in Victorian Internet) 4] ship's telegraph - media is chain or cable WIRE
maybe this is what was meant by originally by wire :-) :--) might also be debated on one's view of distance
5] wire as in Morse/Wheatstone telegraphs 6] wireless (aka radio) as a newbie to wiki (in fact this is first edit) i do not feel i have experience or credentials to touch main article but hope someone else sees my point and touches it up. Also would like feedback on my viewpoint. tnx! JOHN RUSSELL VE3LL@RAC.CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.65.84 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has become more or less a fork of the electric telegraph page (literally so, some parts have been copy pasted from other articles). I propose to junk most of it in favour of summary style and main article links. The page can then be expanded with non-electric forms of telegraphy. The article as it stands has little point in existing and might as well be merged with the electric telegraph page. We should not have two pages on the same topic per WP:CFORK. I propose to start this process in a week or two if there are no objections. Spinning Spark 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Telegram_(messaging_service) page should be a default redirect of Telegram. 220.71.101.103 ( talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Although this article was started more recently than the Electrical telegraph article, it can be argued that much of the content of "Electrical telegraph" belongs under this more generic heading. What is surely not appropriate is for vast swathes of content to be duplicated in the two articles. What do others think? -- TedColes ( talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the hatnote "This article is about general methods of telegraphy. For electrical telegraphy, see Electric telegraph." because it is unnecessary. Actually Electric telegraph is a redirect to Electrical telegraph. This article mentions "electrical telegraphy" in the lead, and has a section "Electrical telegraphs" with a main article hatnote to Electrical telegraph. A reader looking for information about "electrical telegraph(y)" but just searches for "telegraph(y)" has not landed on the wrong page. The hatnote is not only unnecessary, it "separates the reader from the content they are looking for" ( WP:ONESHORTHAT). Per WP:HATNOTE, "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Even though it fits the official definition in dictionaries, it seems ridiculous and WP:OFFTOPIC to me to have sections on modern communication methods like internet and e-mail. As far as I can tell, the word telegraphy is never used for these. I don't mind a brief mention that modern text communication methods fall under the definition of the word, but there probably should be a caveot that this is not modern usage. -- Chetvorno TALK 06:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the repositioning of the heliograph section is mistaken if the order is to be roughly historical. Heliograph did not become a usable system until after the electric telegraph and Morse code had been developed. Its purpose was to extend telegraph into regions where the electric telegraph (or later, telephone lines) had not been established. Spinning Spark 16:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't we get to a consensus that ship's engine-order telegraph does not belong under this subject? It is not a form of long-distance telegraphy being intrinsically limited to local communication. Spinning Spark 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks to TedColes and particularly Spinningspark for an excellent rewrite. The article is much more consistent now. Due to the conversion to chronological WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, moving of excessive electrical telegraph material to Electrical telegraph, the clarification of the scope of the term telegraphy and removal of nontelegraph sections like internet and email, we now have a decent article. Congrats! -- Chetvorno TALK 18:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
I left flag semaphore out of the rewrite on the grounds that it is so short range that it does not really come under the heading of "distant writing". I've since discovered that the wig wag system was widely used in the American civil war. Some enormous signalling towers were built, some hundreds of feet high to get the distance. See here for instance. So maybe it should be included after all. I don't have a handle on how extensive the network was, or if it could be described as a network at all. Is anyone knowledgeable about this? Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, the flag semaphore article implies, without citation, that flag semaphore was developed as a mobile version of the fixed optical telegraph. Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I left flag semaphore out of the rewrite on the grounds that it is so short range that it does not really come under the heading of "distant writing". I've since discovered that the wig wag system was widely used in the American civil war. Some enormous signalling towers were built, some hundreds of feet high to get the distance. See here for instance. So maybe it should be included after all. I don't have a handle on how extensive the network was, or if it could be described as a network at all. Is anyone knowledgeable about this? Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, the flag semaphore article implies, without citation, that flag semaphore was developed as a mobile version of the fixed optical telegraph. Spinning Spark 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Spinningspark: If Repeater (disambiguation) does not really belong in Telegraphy#See also then you could have put it at the beginning of the article as a hat note as there are many kinds of relays. Peter Horn User talk 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Telegram (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by
WikiProject Wikipedia and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)