Talk:Prosigns for Morse code

How prosign BT is written

I think this page is doing a disservice by saying that BT is "often written as the equals sign ("=")". I'm sure this is true for some subset of folks who learned Morse on an ASCII Morse keyboard, but that's a tiny tiny fraction of the total ham Morse users, and using the "=" sign is far from preferred. BT or BT with a bar over it is the accepted and far more commonly used way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.121.14.12 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references, but it should. The Morse code article cites this document, which refers to -...- as a "double hyphen" and represents it graphically as "=". I think it would be good if we could find a reliable source to cite alternative ways that it is written. Saying "often written" in passive voice does make it very vague who writes it this way and exactly how common it is. I would support changing the wording to be more specific if we can find some evidence to back it up. CosineKitty (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's room for improvement. Be WP:BOLD, make a start, and I'll try and help if I can. --Nigelj (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

uMMM iN tHE cHART fOR SN (...-.) oR uNDERSTOOD... iS sHO' nUFF aCTUALLY cORRECT iN tHE mNEMONIC cOLUM?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.95.13 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some prosigns NOT run together

I learned (back in the 1960s) that the prosigns "KN" (go ahead specific station only), "CL" (closing down), and "BK" (quick break, go ahead) were not to be run together. In current work on 30m CW with stations worldwide, I find that these three prosigns are in fact mostly used as separate characters, just as I was taught many years ago. Billvanalstyne (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that CL not runs together for sure, but BK and KN (the same as open bracket '(' ) schould runs together. Article is written very shallow , from ham point of view, but there was a lot of professional users of CW, marine, military and there was liitle differencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.160.60 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Morse or International Telegraph Code

[RANT]Why do we continue to refer to "International Telegraph Code" as "Morse Code." Morse Code is actually American Land Line Telegraph code. It is very rarely used in radio communications. If my question seems pedantic please advise how we will keep the two telegraph codes separate. During WW2 coastal station operators in the United States had to master both telegraph codes in order to be able to get messages between merchant ships, Navy stations and vessels, and Army Air Corps units. The whole reason that there are two telegraph codes; both of which were in use until a few decades ago; is that Morse Code proved inadequate to express languages other than English and that, since Morse Code depended on spaces between sounds as well as the sounds themselves for intelligibility, it proved unsuitable for radio communication in any language. If the distinction is lost so will a lot of history and along with that history some of the educational value of Wikipedia. [/RANT]Hornetd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornetd (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not lose any sleep. Morse Code or ITC, it's as obsolete as buggy whips and blanco'd spats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.105 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because ITU-R M.1677-1 recommendation calls it the "International Morse code"? Cyrusdreams (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification of citations

The opening statement cites M.1667 (International Morse Code Standard) as a reference for the existence of prosigns. However, M.1667 makes no mention of prosigns, nor does it define any of the special sequences listed in this article. In general, as far as International Morse Code goes, this entire article appears bunk. --JCipriani (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I object your statement: compare the cited ITU recommendation M.1677-1. In chapter 1.1.3 most of the prosigns are listed as "misc. signs" and you can indeed deconstruct them into the individual letters. Marking the SOS sign as "citation needed" is unnecessary, because the Wikipedia article "SOS" is cited right at the spot. I suggest reverting the changes made. Cyrusdreams (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)