Talk:Signal (disambiguation)

This is supposed to be a disambiguation page, so I moved this from article to Talk:

Signal is a term variously used depending on contexts, but essentially associates the notion of information or more specifically message with the necessary physical support for it. For example the message "it is 8 o'clock" can be imbedded in black ink patterns on white paper, magnetic patterns on a tape, sound waves, etc. which correspond here respectively to optical, magnetic, or acoustic signals.

This is already the meaning assigned in sense #1 listed, and defined in signal (information theory), the information above should be merged to that article. --Lexor 12:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Economics and bridge

Smack discussed a recent edit to this page in a comment on Wikipedia:Reference desk#Microeconomics question:

I've removed the following text from Signal, for ignorance of what else to do with it.

(in a partnership card game) a player's choice of card to play at a particular time, which gives information to a partner, in a partnership card game (see signal (bridge)).

First I wanted to create a page entitled signal (cards), then I realized that it's more general than that, and signal (games) would be more appropriate, and then I decided that it relates somehow to signaling (economics). Could some economist figure out a way to work this in? --Smack (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response: "Signal" generally refers to the conveying of information, especially with regard to suggesting a desired action, but the uses in economics and card games are significantly different contexts. The result of your edit is that the Signaling (economics) stub is linked to twice, while the much longer and more informative article about Signal (bridge) isn't linked to at all. As for creating Signal (cards), I think there were some conventions about signals in Whist when it was popular, so there presumably still are today, but the usage in bridge is now much more important than all other card game uses combined. I'm restoring that link. As I mentioned on the Reference Desk, though, I have nothing against your suggestion that an economist should work in any available information about relationships between the two meanings (presumably adding it to one or both articles, not to this dab page). JamesMLane 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I asked that question and forgot about it. I don't think that the volume and quantity of information that has been written on the wiki about any particular subject should serve as a guide as to its prominence. Signaling is possible in any game, provided that it requires or encourages cooperation in any way (whether or not it establishes fixed teams), and that it restricts explicit communication; though it may not be as developed as it is in bridge. I can think of three examples off the top of my head.

In the trump-making phase of euchre, if you and I are on a team, and my turn to order up comes before yours, I can signal to you about the relative strength of my hand by deciding more or less quickly, grunting and making general gestures of displeasure, etc.
In the card-passing phase of hearts, the cards I pass to you naturally signal my intentions. If I pass low cards, that means I'm going to try to shoot the moon. If I pass the queen of spades, it also means something, but I'm not enough of a strategist to know what.
The Internet-facilitated version of correspondence Diplomacy allows games to be played with no communication between players. However, since all orders are made public at the end of each turn, players can signal to each other by issuing spurious orders to armies that would otherwise remain idle.

In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Signaling exists in games all over the place, whether or not people have bothered to write about it. --Smack (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of information could certainly go in an article on Signal (games). The material on bridge signals is much more detailed, however, so I think it should remain as a separate article, with a link to it from a Signal (games) article. By the way, in your example of hearts, I wouldn't regard the selection of cards to pass as a signal. The purpose is not conveying information to the recipient. The recipient can draw inferences from the selection of cards passed, as from any other play that's made in the game. I'm pretty much clueless about the economics aspect, though. JamesMLane 21:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I've come across two forms of spelling of the word "signalling" and "signaling". Its causing me headaches when trying to link to other pages! Wiktionary reckons it should have 2 ll's - so do I. Its probably a fair bit of housekeeping, but would be worthwhile standardising on one of these formats (I propose 2 ll's) and updating the pages/content/links to match.

Neither is incorrect. It's a difference between American English and Commonwealth English. The general rule is that a consonant ending a stressed syllable is doubled when the -ed or -ing suffix is added, but a consonant ending an unstressed syllable is not doubled; thus, occurred/occurring but offered/offering. Commonwealth English, however, makes an exception: "Commonwealth English generally doubles final -l when adding suffixes that begin with a vowel if -l is preceded by a single vowel . . . ." (from American and British English spelling differences#Common suffixes) Any attempt to standardize (or standardise) either spelling on Wikipedia will provoke bloodshed. Some of us are still bitter about the way the article on Yogurt was moved to Yoghurt in violation of Wikipedia policy. A quick glance at Talk:Yoghurt should give you a clear signal to avoid such battles. JamesMLane 10:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signals: Rush album, obscure band and plural of "Signal"

Right now Signals is about an obscure band and Signals (album) by Rush isn't here on the disambig. The Rush album is certainly more notable than the band. If Signal is going to be a disambig that includes some plurals then "Signals" should redirect here instead of returning some little band's vanity page. I may make these changes myself. Discuss if you agree, disagree or have other ideas. --Howdybob 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job fixing it. Dicklyon 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added entries

This page is a disambiguation page, intended to distinguish things that might be described simply as signal or signalling; it is not intended to be an index of all terms which merely include the word signal (such as signal to noise ratio). See MOS:DABENTRY and WP:PTM for detailed guidance. Also there is some duplication: signal (circuit theory) and signal (electrical engineering) have the same target page. --catslash (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also per MOS:DAB the entries should be concise sentence fragments, enough so the reader can find the article (which if the article is sensibly named often means only the name is needed). Not sentences. There should be very few or no redirects, for the same reason: see WP:DABREDIR for the very few exceptions. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an edit or two before noticing the recent inflationary period. So instead I just took it back to before the Brews additions. I'm sure there are a few good things in there, and he can try again after reviewing MOS:DAB. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for that. You can feel free to go back and reinstate the useful ones that you have dumped without review of any kind. Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "I'm sure" I was being generous. I can't say that I noticed any. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

If we order by alphabet (ie randomly) importannt articles get buried under unimportant ones, hence my putting the science articles first, generally more important than communication and music. Names should go below other themes. I couldntnfind an important article, buried under a load of less important articles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Well, Ctrl+F usually helps in such situations. :) IMHO, having sections alphabetized is much better for visual navigation, but I'll accept the reordering as some kind of a compromise. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl F only helps when you know the exact name of the article but if I had known that I would have gone straight to the article. Wikipedia search brought up this page. Its looking much better now. I am not fond of ordering by alphabet generally on wikipedia, not just here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]