This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
As far as I know, Telecommunication is just a subset of communication. 10:25, 20 February 2006 User:Githin
Telecommunication is not "just a subset of communication", it is the same thing, but the latter is just shortened by dropping the "Tele" (from Greek tele-, combining form of tele "far off, afar, at or to a distance,"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a very very inaccurate article - it looks like it was written by a technical operative (or not very technical technician) in a telecommunications company who would like to call himself an 'Engineer'. It describes the work of a general operative in a Telecommunications operator, for which there can be very little actual 'Engineering'. Trying to describe a telecommunications engineer as encompassing civil and structural engineering, book-keeping ("being accounting assistant"), and general clerical work ("keeping the records") is just plain wrong. The people described in this article may work on equipment designed by Engineers, but they are not Engineers. Perhaps the confusion may be because it might have been written by someone in Britain, as this is the only country in the world where they (erroneously) refer to technicians & technical operatives as 'Engineers' (this is especially obvious where they write the following: "Outside plant (OSP) engineers also often are called field engineers [sic] as they often spend much time in the field taking notes about the civil environment, aerial, above ground, and below ground" - this clearly describes not the work of an Engineer - as understood around the world - but that of a technical operative, and possibly that of a technician if there is something more intellectually-technically demanding) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this article should be written completely to cover the broad field of modern Communications Engineering as outlined for example in "Communications engineering desk reference" by Dahlman et al. Isheden (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the article is very poor. Note that the "Communications engineering" and "Communication engineering" articles are redirects to this article, which is a pretty bad situation. I suggest to find a serious engineering professor that specializes in Communications Engineering and show them the article – e.g., one of the winners of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal or a leader in the IEEE Communications Society. If you don't get kicked out of their office immediately for showing them such garbage, just write down whatever they happen to say for the next few minutes and completely replace the article with that. It would be a big improvement. —Megalibgwilia (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think this is a good idea. I agree that the article is currently of bad quality, but I found enough evidence to keep the article focused on the profession of telecommunications engineering; while the article telecommunication is focused on the field itself. SchreyP(messages) 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: There's more than enough material to require a separate article for telecom engineering, and squeezing it together with the main article would just do both a disservice. HarryZilber (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)