Talk:Signal (disambiguation)

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling

message: 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)
replies: text: Good job fixing it. Dicklyon 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signals: Rush album, obscure band and plural of "Signal" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recently added entries

message: 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)
replies: text: Hello!  Well,  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ordering