Talk:Numbers station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Power numbers.[edit]

The article mentions somthing about being able to spot the cooling facilities of the transmitting stations on satelite photos. I strongly think that this is not the case.

A standard truck has a diesel engine producing some 200kW of output power at 30% efficiency. It has to dissipate some 500kW of power, and does so in the size of a big truck's motor.

"Big cooling tower" is something associated with a powerplant, working in the 500 to 1000 MW range. We're talking 0.5 MW for the transmitter, requiring 0.2MW of cooling power. -- Roger Wolff, april 16th, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.26.61 (talkcontribs) 07:38, 16 April 2007‎

Deleting Some Unsourced Content[edit]

Citing recordings of jamming and interference is original research, so it doesn't qualify as a source. I've deleted that, as is the usual policy for unsourced content. Note that the entire article needs better sourcing: personal websites, email newsletters, and self-published sources don't count. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the jammming statements sounded like original research, I will disagree with the comment on sources. In this topic the personal websites, email newsletters, and self-published sources are the best. Books on the topic are even less clearly sourced than the hobbyist authored stuff. Accademic literature ignores this, and much else will be classified and unavailable. However archives may be declassified as the years go by, eg the Czech station above where the declassified document talks about the transmitter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've listened to these as well and I feel that most of the conclusions that hobbyists have come to about these stations seems fairly reasonable. But the issue of reliable sourcing is a central tenet of Wikipedia and it applies universally to every article. I don't think we can make exceptions to them, if that were possible then everyone would do it and the quality of WP articles project-wide would go into the ditch. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have often seen "reliable sources" used to perpetuate systematic bias on Wikipedia. What we should do is use the best sources possible. Where we can determine where the writer got their information from and can trust what they say, then that source can be reliable. It does not matter if it is self published, a blog, or in a preserved email. It does not have to be written by an accademic as a review in an accademic journal, even if that is better. In the case of topics of interest to hobbyists, (or life at home for that matter) there is little accademic material and it is not a good source for the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are pretty clearly defined. When there's a question about whether a source is appropriate, there's a noticeboard for that. DonIago (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with DonIago. If the best (or only) reliable sources on this topic are personal websites or old usenet group chats, then wikipedia must, unfortunately remain silent on the issue. WP has strict rules about what counts as a reliable source. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Ashmoo (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article comments[edit]

I don't think I want to do a GA review, but I will comment that the page is not yet illustrated enough. I would expect some photos of known numbers stations. There could be a map of where transmitters are/were. There could be a timeline to show history. There could be a bigger text sample of numbers so our readers get the idea of size. Also I am not convinced that the References in mass media section is completely stable. It looks to be better referenced than many earlier instances of the section though. And lastly the see also section should disappear, being replaced by mentions of the links in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; this article is nowhere near the standard expected of GA quality and so I have failed it as such. --Errant (chat!) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Film disambig / top line redirect[edit]

There appears to be a film with the same name, so I included a top line redirect. I don't know why this is contentious. If there's an issue, let's please discuss this. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)