Talk:Telecommunications

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Ultimately there is consensus that "telecommunications" is the basic form of the word, often used in singular, so it will be moved.   (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Telecommunication →  – Telecommunication refers to the action of communicating over a distance, while the wider term covering the technology and industry, which is the scope of this article, almost always appears as telecommunications. Now it's a bit unclear whether this is actually considered a plural form—Merriam-Webster gives the definition as "technology that deals with telecommunication —usually used in plural", while Lexico (previously Oxford Dictionaries) says, "(telecommunications) [treated as singular] The branch of technology concerned with telecommunication." But that shouldn't matter, since both show that Telecommunications should be the preferred title. Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Webster's also lists under headword in singular "telecommunication". Its second definition does say "usually used in plural". Now thwre's the rub: is "telecommunications" plural? I would say not. Is e.g. "ministries of information" plural? Have can, will have a diet of worms. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, ministries of information is plural (information ministries) in the same way as courts martial is plural.  It's a postpositive adjective.  That doesn't make telecommunications plural.  It is the name of a field of study, hence singular. "Telecommunications are the transmission of information..." sounds ungrammatical to my ear. ngrams tends to agree with me. SpinningSpark 13:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Telecommunication(s) seems to be heading down the path of statistic/statistics.  But this article currently deals with both of the aspects, so won't the singular suffice?  —  AjaxSmack  16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm communicating remotely. Have I communicated or shall I telecommunicate? Or merely communicate? Should I telecommunicate or telecommute? Is this message telecommunicated? Should I be telecommunicating or merely commuting, which after all goes from one distant place to another. (But "commute" is another back formation. As is this edit.) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Telecoms industry? Telecom industry?  but British Telecom. France Telecom. In most European languages it is singular, Deutsche Telekom, but that is little help to what we call it in English. In Hungarian it is singular uncountable essentially mass nouns don't take plural form and if you count them you use the singular.  for example, not "telefonok" plural even though there are ten (tiz) of em. It's a very fine distinction... I'm settling towards the -s, but it's very fine line (as indeed is my telephone's). 85.67.32.244 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: Version 1.0 Editorial Team has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think "Telecommunications is frequently debated in the halls of government" is grammatically correct? (That's a sincere question, by the way, not a rhetorical device.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would recast such a construction, it doesn't sound all that strange in 2021.  The almighty Google agrees.  That's where I found the title of James Bond's 1997 article "Telecommunications is Dead, Long Live Networking", which would seem confusing as a plural. —  AjaxSmack  13:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 August 2021 

message: if by "there is no risk of that" you mean that telecommunications is unlikely to be confused with [[Telecommunication (song)}]], you are of course correct. But that is not the purpose of the hatnote and why  was not used. The purpose is to aid the reader to locate the article they were looking for when they typed its name in the search bar. We don't make readers jump through hoops by making them guess the  disambiguator or where to find a link to the article they were looking for. All the reader needs to know is the name of the topic and hatnotes will take care of the rest. This hatnote should be restored per WP:SIMILAR/WP:AMBIGTERM. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's a valid disambiguation per WP:DAB.  Personally, I'd like to see it on a dab page rather than here, but that is not a solution in this case because of WP:ONEOTHER.  But even with a dab page in existence, a hatnote would still be needed here to point to it. SpinningSpark 18:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've returned the hatnote. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: I've removed this recent addition from the article;
:In the early 1950's digital transmissions were of great interest eg for space telemetry, radar, encryption and for computer technology. Like analog communication, data transmissions also suffered from noise causing the data to get out of sync. Various attempts were made to resolve the issue using digital codes. In 1953 RH Barker published a paper demonstrating how to synchronise the data in transmissions. It is known world wide as Barker code. The process is “Group Synchronisation of Binary Digital Systems”   When used in data transmissions the receiver can read the data error free. The application at the time was of great interest and is now used in many digital applications mentioned in this article.
Barker codes have very little to do with noise immunity, although agreed noise might cause loss of sync in framed data.  The main purpose of Barker codes is to achieve synchronisation in the first place and avoid false synchronisation with a sequence of data bits.  Neither of these is a noise issue.  For noise immunity per se minimum distance codes like Hamming codes are much more relevant.  There are other ways to achieve synchronisation other than framing such as Manchester code, and in asynchronous communication synchronisation is not an issue at all.  In short, even if this para was corrected, I think it is getting too far down into the weeds for an overview article. SpinningSpark 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barker code 

message: We're defining telecommunications as being electromagnetic communication.  I don't think pigeons can be described as electromagnetic by any stretch of the imagination.  It can't even be counted as tele- if we mean by that remote communication without physical transfer of the medium.  Beacons might be counted being as they use visible light but it's a bit of a stretch.   If we want to talk about early forms of communication, we should first of all make it clear that these are not telecommunications as defined, and secondly we should include the much more common communication service of mounted messengers.  The section is misnamed in any case as it talks about far more than fires and pigeons. SpinningSpark 13:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beacons and pigeons" sub-section