Talk:Broadcast translator

message: Hi.  I think the data on FM Translator is redundant to this.  Note also that it is an orphan.  Can that information be added to this article and change FM Translator to be a redirect?  Thanks.  --ChrisRuvolo 16:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JoaoRicardo 22:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrate [[FM Translator]]

message: TV Translator says most of the same information, but is smaller. can it be incorporated into this article, or both be merged?
Same with Repeater...
Raccoon Fox 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with TV Translator? 

message: I consider a "repeater" station as one that receives a signal on a certain frequency, amplifies it, then retransmits it on the same frequency.  A "translator"'s outgoing signal is on a different frequency than that of the incoming signal. --  Denelson83  09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation between "repeater" and "translator" 

message: Why merge TV relay transmitter into Broadcast translator?  Isn't the latter used in one country, and the former an international term?  People who don't know, could assume a "translator" might have something to do with how Star Trek is presented in Thailand or something, while the international term will either be properly recognized or draw a blank.  Jim.henderson 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'd agree that TV relay transmitter, broadcast translator and rebroadcaster, which are essentially just three different names for the same thing in three different countries, should probably be merged into a single article with international subsections — the potential issue is in determining the most appropriate international title, since it's not appropriate to simply privilege one country's terminology over another. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, far as I see, all three names can work for insiders as long as we don't get hung up on the standard terminology of our particular country.  However, we aren't writing for insiders, who have no need to look up this matter in an encyclopedia.  We're writing for outsiders.  Outsiders can easily mistake rebroadcaster and repeater for having to do with sending a football game again a few hours or years later, and mistake broadcast translator for having to do with dubbing a soap opera to or from Portuguese.  Fortunately, TV relay transmitter is used by insiders in approximately as many countries as its competitors, and will also be most easily and least ambiguously recognised by outsiders.  Jim.henderson (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that's probably the best title. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, having won the argument, assuming victory is what it's about, it then occurred to me that TV Relay Transmitter only covers the majority of what the other titles cover, and what do we do about the rebroadcasters/translators of FM and other voice broadcasters?  Jim.henderson (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Relay transmitter, skip the TV part? Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper industry term

message: Even if it is put in quotes, "bad actors" conveys a very non-neutral position, as well as characterizing the legal differences between commercial and non-commercial translators as "loopholes" is clearly an advocacy position of the author and not appropriate in a Wikipedia article.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have to agree that the 25 June revision of the "controversy" section made no great improvement, or at least not proportional to the expansion in size.  Perhaps you would like to tweak its prose a bit or revise it drastically?  As it happens, it discusses or at least alludes to political and sectarian questions of which I know little.  Jim.henderson (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "controversy" section is horrible, no two ways about it.  It would probably be better removed; most of the "references" appear not to be reliable sources.  (If I were feeling particularly snarky, I might suggest that it should be rewritten by a member of the fact-based community.)  There is legitimate controversy here, but as it stands the section reads like someone was trying to preempt questions about the sourcing by dumping dozens of URLs into the text without regard to their veracity or legitimacy as sources for the claims being made.  121a0012 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV  problems