Talk:Identification friend or foe

message: I'm going to take the flag off - seems fine to me. Mrmaroon25
*I think its too much information in one place without sections or reorganization.  I'm going to revert back to the flag, but if you still disagree, change it again and we'll leave it clear of the cleanup flag.  St.isaac 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem to need cleanup 

message: IFF doesn't have multiple modes.  SIF (SSR) has multiple modes.  IFF has only one mode (Mode 4). There is a new Mode 5, but this isn't the IFF we are talking about here.  Mode 5 is really a crypto Mode S and ADS-B.  I would get rid of all the references to SIF (selective identification feature).
* OK, did that, hope it works for you.
* Note:  IFF is Mode 4 and 5, there are no other operational modes.
Jaylynik 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much mixup with SIF 

message: Excuse me, but what's the basis of the claim that SIF modes are not IFF modes? By whose definition?
k5okc 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIF is Not IFF? 

message: To the article author, a gentle question.
In one paragraph it's stated: "There are two military modes of operation designated for use by Allied forces:". However only one mode follows it.
Can it be assumed that the section is incomplete, as you're still going through your references? Or perhaps due to a typographic error?
Many thanks.
DPdH 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumably incomplete paragraph about "IFF Modes" 

message: To the article author, can you please include as "References" the details of the manuals (if possible) that you mention as sources in this talk page?.
Maybe including title and publication code (I don't think they have an ISBN!) would suffice (unless they're classified) to make the contents verifiable. Just a kind idea.
Many thanks.
DPdH 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please include details of your references 

message: I can identify ambiguous statements, but haven't the knowledge of IFF to re-write the passages to eliminate the ambiguity.
In the third paragraph, what do "bad crypto" and "wrong crypto" mean? Would "crypto" mean "encryption" or "cryptography?" How does either apply here?
There is a reference to IFF being less useful for low-flying aircraft because IFF uses microwaves. This problem may exist here-and-now if all modern IFF is microwave-based, but was it a problem with early radio-based IFF equipment? If the statement does not pertain to all IFF units throughout history, it should not be in the introduction. 
Also, note that the mention of "Soviet-era" IFF implies the existence of IFF from 1917 until the 1980s, which I suspect is not true.   172.162.106.247 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: jargon unhelpful to non-experts

message: Yes this page is semi comprehensible with quite a few missing bits. Needs real cleanup. BillO'Slatter 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Cleanup 

message: We should standardize Capitalization of the IFF Acronym and title (I did so, in a few areas just now) Bwebb00 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of the IFF Acronym 

message: I think we should delete (or better integrate) the KIT and KIR mention.  They are excessive in a Wiki article.  Besides, a lot of the current and upgrade  IFF systems have eliminated the KIT and KIR computers by integrating them into the Transponder. Bwebb00 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  You're right, I was a Navy IFF tech in the early 2000's and the crypto was integrated.  KIR/KIT doesn't apply and its use was excessive. 67.172.42.133 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong!  Just because it isn't typical of recent transponders doesn't mean that it should be deleted.  The KIT/KIR is history behind the KIV and final integration into the transponder, and important theory behind the workings of Mode4.  Thin it down, clean it up, but don't delete all of it.  Off topic: this article needs a lot of work and mountains of references need to be added to it.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of KIT  and KIR jargon. 

message: From the bottom of the article: "here are two military modes of operation designated for use by Allied forces"
Who are "Allied"? Is this WWII? This is either extremely point of view, or "allied" shouldn't be capitalized. 193.157.228.182 (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point-of-view 

message: I am moving this sentence from the end of the history section, after having added well documented alternatives.
: Position with IFF is determined by comparing antenna dish angle and the delay from the interrogator (1,030 MHz) pulse to the received IFF pulses on (1,090 MHz).
I have found in the patent literature about how early US IFF systems worked is not supported by this sentence.  If someone can document it, perhaps it can be restored. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence deleted from history 

message: "Mode 5 – provides a cryptographically secured version of Mode S and ADS-B GPS position. (military only)" As this is the only appearance of the term on the page, it is unclear what is meant by "Mode S". --Khajidha (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modes 

message: I really think the page should be moved to Identification Friend or Foe as this is the proper capitalization for an acronym. WP:ACRO is mute on the subject. It is capitalized in other, generally reliable sources, such as The title of the Encyclopædia Britannica entry, and is capitalized as the working entry for US Military articles as well. Is there anyone that disagrees with this? I had attempted to speedy the capitalization but the admin that got to it - User:RHaworth - disagreed with the speedy tag. As such, to determine a proper consensus, I'm adding an RFC here on the issue. 67.165.69.4 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Identification friend or foe is capitalised in the titles of the two sources that you cite because that is their house style, you will notice that in the Britanica article it is not capitalised in the text. This tells us that it is not something that always has capitals (like a proper noun for example)  The WP style is not to capitalise in titles, see WP:TITLEFORMAT. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

text: * Wikipedia has grown up. We do not need to follow the styles of others, we lay down styles and let others follow. Wikipedia style is no capitals. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I was unaware of WP:TITLEFORMAT, despite my efforts to find something in the manual of style about it. I guess one can never stop learning about things here on Wikipedia. Thank you both for your comments and the education. I'm withdrawing my RfC at this time. 67.165.69.4 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Top of article reads:
 "It [IFF] uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster."
Is that right?
Doesn't the IFF first send an interrogation signal and then listen for a response?
162.207.203.26 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you mean 'it listens then sends a response'?