Talk:Text messaging

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This article was formed from parts of the Short message service article, as per the consensus at Talk:Short message service#Split suggestion. There is still some commonality between the 2 articles, but all the social aspects have been (or are about to be) removed from that article. Carre 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Technology: IRC[edit]

There is no mention of "IRC", the pc-to-pc text messaging service that was popular via interenet during the early 1990s. That one had NOTHING to do with SMS. Different technology, but same idea. Can someone add this? Or perhaps add a reference to another article? "Internet Relay Chat" perhaps. --Thomasfromriverside (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Driving while texting[edit]

Sources: fun ways to use texting like lol wich means laf out loud of ttyl talk to you later. many funthings 8) which means i wear galsses

AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Section[edit]

Does anyone else think there should be a safety section? Perhaps in place of distraction. Right now the distraction section seems to simply focus on the affect of texting while operating a vehicle. However I think this might be a better title for a section on distraction from work, or a decrease in productivity. Also a safety section would be a good place to cite this story on a woman sentenced to six years in prison for texting while involved in an accident.[1] --76.166.235.166 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Campus[edit]

I am a UF student and our campus got this service 2 years ago. I think it deserves a bullet on the "Academic" impact list. Press releases here: http://www.mobilecampus.com/FAQs/tabid/Press/tabid/59/Default.aspx, main website here: http://www.mobilecampus.com/Default.aspx?base The press releases start in 2005 but the service existed at other campuses before then, however I can't trace down an exact date. Thanks, 66.253.134.235 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


if u deleted ur mobile messages .. is there a way for people to read them .. for example the police? Using a cell phone while driving is a destraction, plz respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.149.187 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a court order (warrant) it is possible for law enforcement to get a copy of messages sent and received as this is all passed through phone companies communication systems. --ČσъяạβҜ †Talk† 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose sentencing[edit]

At the bottom of the introduction it says: 

"Canadian Cellular Carriers (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Fido, Solo Mobile, Virgin Mobile, SaskTel, MTS, Aliant)"

There is no period, and no reference to anything else. Are these names services that do not charge for received messages, as discussed above? Or are they something else? Someone please fix this, as I have no idea what these companies have in common with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy coyote (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

143[edit]

I've never seen 143. But isn't it "one for free", instead of "I love you"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.4.111 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about 'one for free', but I can understand that 143 is the number of letters in each word for the phrase 'I love you'. Does this help your concern at all?Heytaytay99 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143 was used for 'I Love You' in pager times http://www.angelfire.com/ky/bussgobeep/beepercodes.html 71.134.242.186 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

I was just wondering if there is any way to warn readers that there is explicit language in an article. Children often surf Wikipedia and this really isn't the sort of language we want them to repeat. I know there are worse articles but is this language really nescessary in this case? Please post comments/ideas/answers etc.Heytaytay99 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Text speak section needs to be looked at. Do we need so many examples? And do we really need to include ones with swearing in? -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I took the plunge and deleted all the ones with Fu* in. Discuss here if you disagree. I still think there's too many though. -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be something tasteless about censorship in wikipedia. Omission is only misinformation. --Kariudo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.115.24 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put a link to www.textionary.ca [2] so people who want examples can find them.

Crime impact[edit]

What worries me about this is that many States are now allowing anonymous texting to places that pass it on to local law enforcement. The problem is that without being able to get to talk to someone who law enforcement can get a feel for, how do they know where the person making the tip is coming from. I had a friend who worked at a call center many years ago and many of the anonymous calls were just bogus and mostly came from ex's, people who weren't taking their medication right, people who were racist or people who simply didn't like someone else for any number of reasons and they usually didn't stop at one coplaint. The person(s) making this/these report(s) will still get a report number back but they can't be checked out dispite this. For exampe, say someone in your apartment building doesn't like you because he thinks that you've been flirting with his girlfriend so he and his friends decide to get even by texting that you're doing something illegal, they'll get a number which they can then give to your landlord, boss, the place you like to eat and so on. The old way when a complaint was made, officers would talk to the one(s) making the complaint and if need be, the one that the complaint was about. I think all this text messaging is going to take time away from real cases, slow down our already slow legal system and maybe even lead to more lawsuits. This is going to take text bullying to the next level.Grateful Jerry (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signaturescomment added by Grateful Jerry (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: The line "Police have also retrieved deleted messages to frame cult member Sara Svensson" seams out of place as there is nothing in the page to say she was "Framed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.228.210 (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree , they should write more on how text messages have been used to convict people such as that young lady who texted her boyfriend to kill himself & he ended up doing so. Kimberlyguzman23 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Impact[edit]

Can the line "Texting can also bring people together and create a sense of community through ‘Smart Mobs’ or ‘Net Wars’, which create ‘people power’ [23] " really be accepted as a fact? It's reference points to an author that suggests people can organize through different wireless technologies. Text messaging does not produce community, not true community anyways. --Matt872000 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added information about how text messaging and textisms have affected academic/formal writing in students. I feel like this is definitely an aspect that could be further developed if anyone wishes. I also added a further reading section with more journals/sources that relate to my contributions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cament1 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is a text message?[edit]

This article doesn't say what a tm is. Is it only letters and such or does it include spoken messages? You can't assume every-one knows. I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a message composed of text, so no spoken messages since they're not text... Seems self explanatory to me. Do you want a definition of the word text? The word message? Perhaps we should explain what a phone is. Or a letter. At some point you have to assume people know what a word means, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was very rude "brucepodger". That was a decent question asked by...unsigned commentor...anyway. I think it is a reasonable request and should be included. Not a major section or anything, but just a short sentence or so in the course of the article explaining texting. Maybe just, "text messaging is a form of communication where the texter/sender/writer types text/words on a cellular phone using the keypad and sends it to another person." I don't know. That was just something fast to jog your thinking. And your example of "define letter, define phone, define message...ooh ooh ooh." was very...well not relevant at all. Obviously a word commonly used in the human language such as message or letter, something that has been used for years, decades, centuries, is not a good example. Granted, most people know what text-messaging is, but it's not a very commonly used word. Well it is but I mean as common as message or letter, something that is used in everyday language. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reworded the intro; hopefully it's clearer now AniRaptor2001 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it sounds good. =0) Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article says it can include pictures, moving pictures, and sound. So what is texting now? How is it different from using a cell 'phone (or similar device)?2002:D3E1:2168:0:0:0:D3E1:2168 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could someone fix this reference near the bottom of the article?[edit]

I don't know what part of the article this is supposed to be connected to. could someone fix this reference near the bottom of the article?

anon 03:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gone - be bold Carré (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed content[edit]

Took out "Also, it has been a known risk that cell phone users will spend their money on their cell phone rather than the basic nesecities." because it's uncited, written badly and is generally really stupid. 98.221.123.121 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records[edit]

I moved all the texting records to a separate section. Would like thoughts on criteria for inclusion of records. My vote would be only records mentioned by Guiness book of world records would qualify - otherwise we'll get things like 'most text messages sent while skydiving' and other silly stuff like that - non-encyclopedic and not notable (in spite of tendency of small newspapers to cover same) --Karl.brown (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a new record set? Swype sets Guinness World Record for fastest text message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazil749 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing Concerns section[edit]

I'm going to add a section discussing criticism of the cost of text messages, at least in America (which is what I am familiar with). It is well known that an SMS message costs a carrier next to nothing to transmit, but users without text message plans are charged up to 20 cents per message. Since an SMS message weighs, at most, 160 bytes, a megabyte's worth of SMS data would cost a user over $1000, which is not in line with data plans sold by these same providers. It appears that text messaging, at least in the U.S., is something of a cash cow for providers. I feel that this is something that should be touched upon in this article. AniRaptor2001 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This section is inaccurate. SMS is not free, contrary to the NY Times article. That paragraph should be updated to reflect this source:

http://blog.clintecker.com/post/67253912/what-carriers-arent-eager-to-tell-you-about-texting-or Alexdi (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texting in Politic[edit]

"Text messaging has helped politics by promoting campaigns. In 2006, the Scottish Socialist Party initiated a campaign for people to text the First minister Jack McConnell to demonstrate their support for free school meals.[citation needed] SMS messages were used by Chinese nationalists to rapidly spread word of the time and location of demonstrations during the 2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations.[citation needed] Political organisations such as Cymru X, the Plaid Cymru youth wing, and the Young Scots for Independence, the youth wing of the Scottish National Party, have used a "text referendum" to gain public support and raise the profile of their respective causes.[citation needed]"

These are the links that i have found:

[3] [4] [5] [6]

Lacastrian (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder pain[edit]

Editors may be interested in: Texting Can Be a Pain in the Neck, Shoulders. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackberry[edit]

The sentence from the Medical Concerns section says, "Although this refers to strain developed on older Blackberry devices, which had a scroll wheel on the side of the phone." This makes it seem like only the older Blackberry devices are the reasons why there is a strain on the thumb. It should be made clearer in the article that the "Blackberry Thumb" does not just refer to only Blackberry phones. "PDAs, smart phones, or other mobile devices," are mentioned in the BlackBerry thumb article. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the Text messaging article should include this sentence. --Pandaphobia (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence in History section.[edit]

The first sentence in the third paragraph of the history section doesn't make sense to me. "SMS was originally designed, but is now available..." It seems like the person who originally wrote the sentence was talking about the network that SMS was originally designed for. If I knew which network it was originally designed for, I would fix it myself. Fishnet37222 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TMS[edit]

The opening paragraph refers to text messaging being called TMS in Australia. I live in Australia and have only ever heard it refered to as an 'SMS' or a 'Text' - I've never heard 'TMS' before. I have a feeling your information may be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.131.67 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 219.90.254.126, 22 April 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} In australia the text messege is known as either a txt or an sms, never have i heard it be called a tms in australia (im from adelaide, so this might only be relavent to SA)

219.90.254.126 (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.
In addition, I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.  Chzz  ►  13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

I'm from Australia also and I have never heard "TMS". Where is the reference that says that Australians call it TMS? (also see TMS above: another Australian who doesn't say "TMS") James Who (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 97.119.115.84, 3 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

'Text messaging was reported to have addictive tendencies by the Global Messaging Survey by Nokia in 2012 and was confirmed to be addictive by the study at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 2004.'

It is currently 2010, without reading the sources, I would guess the Nokia survey was done around 2002, not in the future. The source for the chapter is dated in 2002.

I believe the section should instead read as follows: 'Text messaging was reported to have addictive tendencies by the Global Messaging Survey by Nokia in 2002 and was confirmed to be addictive by the study at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 2004.'

97.119.115.84 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as TMS in Australia[edit]

Having lived in Australia all my life, I can assure you this is plain wrong, it is known as SMS or Text. TMS is NEVER used. This obvious error very early on makes this article look like it is written by amateurs. 86.96.227.90 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Legislature in Massachusetts[edit]

As of September 30th, texting while driving will be illegal. This ought to be relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.147 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDIT*

Nevermind...I see there's an article for that already... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.147 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS message numbers[edit]

Something seems wrong here. The article claims 50 texts per subscriber per month in Spain, 35-40 in UK and Germany, and over 500 in the USA. It then goes on to talk about "reasons for lower takeup" in the USA. On paper the numbers are 10-12 times those for Europe. So either the discussion about lower takeup is wrong, or the numbers are. I have a hard time believing that the average US phone user, including senior citizens, sends 18 texts every day of the year.

PS: This is my first ever Talk post on Wikipedia, please be gentle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STeamTraen (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical clarification[edit]

"Texting while driving leads to increased distraction behind the wheel. In 2006, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group conducted a survey with more than 900 teens from over 26 high schools nationwide."

What nation? Of course, I know the answer, but maybe this should be changed to a less US-centric phrasing.. 2.108.19.74 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT WAS THE FIRST SENT TEXT MESSAGE?[edit]

WHEREAS THE FIRST TELEGRAM SENT WAS WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT?, WHAT WAS THE FIRST TEXT? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.168.221 (talk) [reply]

Are you trying to suggest an improvement for the article or just asking for your own personal reasons? Please read WP:NOTFORUM -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suggesting a fact to add to thine article. We added the first telegram on it, so why not the first text message? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMS size wrong[edit]

The article states that SMS messages are "at most 160 bytes"; however, this is inaccurate, as SMS messages have a maximum of 140 bytes. They can send 160 characters thanks to a 7-bit encoding (GSM 03.38), but the size in bytes is still 140. However, I did not change the text because it links to a source (Techcrunch) where they do some calculation and mention 160 bytes. How shall we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.212.178 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably talking about 7-bit bytes, which were used in old 7-bit computers, and are basically equivalent to 8-bit bytes with the first bit 0. The byte size doesn't matter much between 7 and 8 bits, unless you are talking about values beyond 127 or compressing the bytes into a bit stream, as done here. Even though 8-bit bytes are now the de facto standard, many people still call a group of 7 bits a byte. The number of bits in an SMS message is 1,120 = 7 × 160 = 8 × 140. —PC-XT+ 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow take-up in the US[edit]

The history section needs a part about the slow rate of take up for texting in the US compared to Europe etc. Texting took off really quickly here in the UK but in the US people hadn't heard of it/didn't do it until quite a bit later on. I remember a tv news article where a US journalist came to the UK to report on the 'texting craze in the UK', as he called it, and was saying how this technology hadn't taken off in the US and he didn't think it would. My US friends were amazed when they came over to London and saw how many people were doing it. The history section needs to reflect this slow take up. Reading it, you'd think it was accepted in the US as readily as elsewhere, and it wasn't. Of course now it has taken off, but there was a delay compared to how quickly it was taken up in other parts of the world. 86.134.117.74 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem very important to me how quickly one country took up this trend compared to another. Is there a reason that we should highlight this comparison of the U.S. and the U.K.? What about Japan? Brazil? The 100+ other countires that now use texting? I really don't see why this information would go in the article, even if you did provide a source for it (which would be the first requirement). -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 March 2013[edit]

-- I would like to add the following to this section, as I think it adds to the body of knowledge that is already on this page. It is describing how text messaging has affected intimate relationships

The Medium is the Message[edit]

One of Marshal McLuhan’s most influential ideas is that the medium is the message. He believes that the type of medium you choose to use when communicating with another person will affect how your message is received[1]. Text messaging has become one of the most popular medium used to start, advance, maintain, and influence relationships[2]. Sending a text message instead of calling your significant other greatly influences the message you send, as well as how they will view it. You are able to take your time and reflect on what you want to say by editing and re-wording the message, you can go back and retrieve old messages, and you usually feel less inhibited than when talking face-to-face or over the phone. In a 2009 study looking at how text messaging is used in strong-tie, dyadic relationships, participants stated that they used the medium to carefully plan and edit the message before sending it, allowing for a sense of control. They also used text messages to hide or mask certain emotions, such as sadness or anger[3]. This is due to the digitalized nature of new media and technology; it omits the emotional and personal aspect of the message itself, as you are unable to see or use body language or voice influxes to convey certain messages[4]. Text messages can inadvertently upset someone, as the person who receives the message cannot see your smile or wink, or hear the joking tone of your voice. The nonverbal cues that are crucial for effective communication are absent. This is why people choose to include things such as ‘LOL’ and emoticons in their text messages in order to give non-verbal hints as to what the intended tone of the message is. In the aforementioned study, one couple even used 's:' to denote sarcasm in order to ensure no messages were taken the wrong way[5]. This clearly illustrates how the medium of text messages visibly changes the way that one receives the message being conveyed, and couples often need to create mediation techniques to convey the intended emotion to their partner to ensure the message does not cause unintended problems.

Constant Contact[edit]

New media is increasingly being used to mediate interactions between two people, acting as an interface between romantic partners. This ubiquity of interfaces is in large part due to the fact that new media are becoming increasingly smaller, to the point that they seem virtually invisible to us[6]. For example, the idea of the touch screen on cell phones, such as the iPhone, acts as a near-invisible interface between two people when texting. This highly interactive interface causes one to feel as if they are closer to the person with whom they are texting, blurring the line between interactions. The nature of new technologies and text messaging also creates a feeling of “perpetual contact”[7], giving rise to the sense that users are virtually available and accessible at all times. Through text messaging, one is able to contact your partner at all times of the day, even if they are at a movie or attending an important event. Texting during such an event is seen as much more appropriate than talking on a phone, allowing one to stay in contact with one’s partner in ways never before possible. At the same time, such assumptions regarding availability can be frustrating, as you often feel pressured to read and respond to a text, even when you are busy [8].

The fact that cell phones are easier to use, especially ones that are comprised of a touch screen, also play a huge role in interfacing. It is becoming easier to simply text your significant other in the modern world, which causes people to feel more inclined to communicate that way rather than calling or seeing them in person. Text messaging appeals to many couples, as it allows for a sense of privacy, and it is a quick way to keep up-to-date with one another. Couples have even reported that using text messaging has enriched their communication, and thus their relationship [9]. Since texting etiquette is quite different from telephone etiquette (i.e. no need for greetings, proper grammar, etc.), it allows one to communicate quicker and more efficiently[10]. This removes the human aspect of interactions and dating, and demonstrates how dependent we are on technology, especially when it comes to corresponding with others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananapancakes4 (talk • contribs) 8 March 2013

Not done: WP:NOTESSAY TBrandley (review) 03:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ McLuhan, Marshall (1967). The medium is the message. New York.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  3. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  4. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  5. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  6. ^ Nicholas Gane, David Beer (2008). New Media: The Key Concepts. Oxford: Gane, Nicholas, and David Beer. New media: The key concepts. Berg Publishers, 2008.
  7. ^ Katz, James E., and Mark Aakhus (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  9. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.
  10. ^ Pettigrew, Jonathan (2009). "Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 45: 697–716.

Definition[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what a text message is, but I think the definition given is wrong. It currently says "Text messaging, or texting, is the act of typing and sending a brief, electronic message between two or more mobile phones or fixed or portable devices over a phone network." To my way of thinking, an "electronic message" is a message sent electronically, a message being "a communication in writing, in speech, or by signals " (Webster's online). But I thought text messages are only composed of visual symbols (letters of the alphabet, digits etc.) and do not include spoken communication. Can some-one who uses a cell 'phone clarify this? Kdammers (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you believe the issue to be. Are you trying to say that text messages don't fall under the definition of a message? -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I am sort of in the blind here since I don't really know what a text message is. Never-the-less, it is my understanding that a text message does not include sound. Is that correct? If so, then when some-one (per the article's text) 'send a brief electronic message' via a telephone by speaking (e.g., "Hi, I'll be a bit late."), s/he is sending a text message -- contrary to what I understand a text message to be. Kdammers (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that text messages do not include sound. So if someone spoke into their telephone and the recorded sound was sent to another phone, that would not be a text message. As the article states, texting "is the act of typing and sending" a message. The only exception would be if someone spoke into their phone, which then converted the speech to text and then delivered the message as text. This would still be a text message even though it was never typed by a person (the phone did the composition instead). I hope this clears it up. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History spotty[edit]

I wanted to read about how and when text messaging became popular, only to find a glaring gap in the history section from 1996-2007. We went from "the first commercial message" to "billions of subscribers" without any explanation.

My personal experience is that teenagers rarely had mobile phones when I graduated in 2003, if their phones could send text messages, and it was another few years before text messaging became more substantial than calls and of course computer messaging clients like IRC/ICQ/AIM/MSN. I could expand on that, but that's just what happened where I was.

Something like number of messages sent by year, phones released supporting text messaging, something to give us an idea of when this became common.76.105.131.18 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Swipe-to-type"?[edit]

Any support for adding a section on what seems to be called "swipe-to-type"?[7] I looked it up because I've seen people using it commonly, and with noticeable speed I might add. It's basically a sort of "analog" kind of typing for touchscreen devices. There seem to be two major competitors for app popularity: Swype and SwiftKey. 76.103.93.154 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section about security in the article is garbage.[edit]

It is better to be uninformed than misinformed (people who watch FauxNews are more wrong when asked about current events and politics than people who do not follow news). I am tempted to delete it, but that would be presumptuous of me. ¿Could an expert please correct it? I find the claim that SMS is absolutely completely 1010% secure unbelievable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but I have reverted some unilateral changes introduced by one person without discussion a couple of months ago, and rewritten it a bit to remove original research and unsourced assertions. Thanks for the heads-up. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Text messaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emoticons[edit]

"Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages"[1] Benjamin (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.rice.edu/2012/10/10/women-use-emoticons-more-than-men-in-text-messaging/

Statistics on SMS use per country/continent are outdated[edit]

2003: "Europe follows next behind Asia in terms of the popularity of the use of SMS. In 2003, an average of 16 billion messages was sent each month. Users in Spain sent a little more than fifty messages per month on average in 2003."


2007-2008: "As of 2007, text messaging was the most widely used mobile data service, with 74% of all mobile phone users worldwide, or 2.4 billion out of 3.3 billion phone subscribers, being active users of the Short Message Service at the end of 2007. In countries such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway, over 85% of the population use SMS. The European average is about 80%, and North America is rapidly catching up, with over 60% active users of SMS by end of 2008."


2009-2010: "In the United States, text messaging is very popular; as reported by CTIA in December 2009, the 286 million US subscribers sent 152.7 billion text messages per month, for an average of 534 messages per subscriber per month. The Pew Research Center found in May 2010 that 72% of U.S. adult cellphone users send and receive text messages."


2012: "Young Asians consider SMS as the most popular mobile phone application."


It would be great if these figures and claims were updated to reflect recent shifts in the use of Instant Messaging services like WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, etc. Data from 20 years ago seems a lot less relevant in an age where technology shifts communication preferences more rapidly.


Mxbndr (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

I report a problem: on this page several numbers are written incorrectly (e.g. "1000"; "1,000" is correct); I have corrected three so far. JackkBrown (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Text_messaging&oldid=1220055650"