Talk:Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Radio:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Review #Some_Feedback:
  • Disambiguation : Separate content on radio technology/medium from content on EM radiation (new article on radio waves?)
  • Other : There should be some mention of David Sarnoff in all this.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Radio (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Media (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Mass media (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electrical engineering (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Tesla Nonsense[edit]

"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)

Radio amateurs[edit]

Main article: Amateur radio

Radio amateurs are individuals who have undertaken an examination to prove competance in the use of radio transmitters. They are licensed to operate on a number of allocated bands in the Radio frequency spectrum. The power of their equipment is restricted, and they must not cause interference to the reception of authorised broadcsasts. They may not broadcast themselves, or communicate with the public with their equipment. They are only allowed to communicate with other licensed operators. They are issued with a unique identifying call sign which must be sent at intervals during their transmissions. They are regulated by an International body which agrees the allocation of channels available to each individual country or region of the world.

Out of place patent cases[edit]

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)

The point is that Marconi was very, very important in radio, he first commercialised it, he had key patents which swung in the balance and so forth. Without the patent discussion he gets one sentence. I don't buy the 'we have a history of radio' article argument either. This article has to be balanced on its own. If you want to summarise it down that might be acceptable, but simply removing it is ahistorical.GliderMaven (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you reading the same article? Marconi has four paragraphs, not one sentence, including "Marconi's experimental apparatus proved to be the first engineering complete, commercially successful radio transmission system.". The material being removed does not pass WP:RS since it consists of a primary source, a primary source, a patent history (but not a history of radio), an unreliable Indain ham radio website, a "Tesla" source, and a primary source. The last paragraph makes many claims but only has one source. Also the cases in question were not about the "invention" of radio[1], but instead about related patents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I don't think you can entirely remove the patent battles from the article. You seem to be alone in wanting to do that. Given that, I have reverted the article to the consensus position. I don't have a problem with reducing the amount of material on the patent battles, but it's wrong to take it out completely.GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring WP:BURDEN but we will skip that. I will simply move the material that can be matched to reference to context and cleanup the redundant material (there is allot of it). If more can be referenced please add it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Single Sideband[edit]

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)

non-communication radio[edit]

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:

  • Radiocommunication: "Telecommunication by means of radio waves" [pleashttp://www.itu.int/ITU-R/asp/terminology-definition.asp?lang=en&rlink={9909E104-6FAA-4C2B-9DE4-1B37823B6754}]
  • Broadcasting: "A form of unidirectional telecommunication intended for a large number of users having appropriate receiving facilities, and carried out by means of radio or by cable networks. Note - In English, it should be assumed that 'broadcasting by radio waves' is intended where the word 'broadcasting' is used without qualification, unless the context indicates the contrary." [2]

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:

  • Radio: "A general term applied to the use of radio waves. Pertaining to the use of radio waves." [3] ITU-R
  • Radio: "pertaining to the use of radio waves" [4] IEC
Problem noticed here. This article is ill defined as just "Radio" - many things are radio and communication is one of them. Allot of the stuff listed under the History of radio and Invention of radio are actually history of Radio waves. The one biggy that is a stopper to moving this article is WP:COMMONNAME, everybody calls the communication stuff "radio"[5]. So on the fence leaning towards keeping communication at this article title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@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)

I don't see a great reason for splitting or redirecting or for other reasons making this a non article. Yes, in common usage there is a divergence between "radio" in the scientific sense of a particular radiation band (with many technological uses thanks to more than a century of thoughtful engineering), and "radio" in the narrow, pop-culture sense of its use for sound broadcasting. At present the article mostly deals with applications rather than science, and treats each application lightly, with links to detail articles. This method might be carried out more comprehensively and precisely, moving more material to the other articles, but I don't see a reason for an alternative approach. Jim.henderson 16:21, 21 November 2014‎
@Jim.henderson and Fountains of Bryn Mawr: The main current problem is that most incoming links think they're pointing to Radio (pop culture) when in reality the present article has grown into Radio (technology). They serve two different communities. Radio can redirect to Radio broadcasting, the most common usage; but I urge the separation of this WP:Chimera. The bad impact is seen for example in History of radio -- which "radio"? Without a title suffix, people will keep assuming that "everybody knows what a 'radio' is." Fgnievinski (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Still tired from real-life adventure last night, and doing more catching up than serious thinking. Anyway, incoming links can be sent to appropriate places. Several are really about a radio program in which case no automatic method will work and they need correction anyway. Bulking up the existing Radio wave might appeal to those who want a separate article about radio theory and engineering. What definitely does not appeal to me, is making another article without first examining existing ones for possible realignment.

health effects[edit]

shouldn't it be here somewhere? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In the narrow sense, radio is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, and the general topic seems adequately covered at Electromagnetic radiation and health. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)