Talk:Morse code

message: Sourcing for non-latin extensions seems weak, and there is no apparent standard as I understand. In the table of codes we list numerous codes that are not part of the International Morris Code standard, some with the footnote "The character or symbol encoding is not in either ITU-R M.1172 or ITU-R M.1677-1 .", and none referenced. The result is a large table that is confusing and unverifiable.
I propose separating the codes actually in the standard from the rest, and those all need some reference or be removed; there is no way to tell if they are incorrect, as demonstrated by the issue @Pengo points out with the characters ż ⇄ ź Strangerpete (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are about it, I'm in favour of removing all the audio files from the table.  These have been a long standing issue making the page slow to load.  The reader is not really getting any more information than already in the visual renderings.  It's all just more dits and dahs after all.  The file of the complete alphabet is enough. SpinningSpark 17:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that as well, my only concern would be whether it affects vision impaired users, but I really don't know. Strangerpete (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

text: @Spinningspark I did a test with my browser (Opera/Chrome) and for me, none of the audio was actually loaded until played. Perhaps the audio player itself is part of the issue? But much of the loaded page size seems to come from all the images, totaling 724kB for the whole page, in particular the VFR map is 166kB alone. I will also admit the audio files overall have more views than I was expecting (1 year- A: 3566, X: 1200) -- do page statistics only count a person visiting the 'File:xxx' page, or also when someone clicks 'play'? Strangerpete (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

text: All those unverifiable codes should be removed from the table. This article is highly likely spreading misinformation.220.100.57.58 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Morse code is a living communication system with more in common with spoken languages than with any data protocol. The "unverifiable" additions are largely from other language cultures, and often do have references or they can be found readily, e.g. in other language Wikipedia Morse code articles. A column identifying which codes exist in which standard would be good, but the suggestion of deleting every addition beyond the published standards is absurd. It would be like if Wikipedia only allowed article text to contain words found in the first edition of Webster's Dictionary from 1828. —Pengo 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating extensions from standardized codes 

message: the line for "K" in the table is malformatted, and needs to be fixed 2603:6080:4E00:AA8:5126:E872:C9AD:C77B (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: It's unclear what is malformatted in that line of the table. Could you please specify what should be changed in the form "please change X to Y"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiwec81618 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022 

message: These are (mostly) not "non-Latin", they are perfectly normal latin characters not used in English. Is this really what they are called in the wider world? Bagunceiro (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed to read "Diacritics and non-Latin extensions". I don't speak Morse, so would a more expert editor please review my change, please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-Latin" extensions 

message: Suggest to change ‘a through z’ to ‘a to z’. Using ‘through’ this way is not standard/traditional English (this usage is only found in recent American texts and is not widely understood or accepted outside the US). In standard English, using ’through’ in this sense is unnecessary and wrong because the original ‘to’ performs exactly the same function. 2001:E68:5404:44CB:88FD:BCB7:5713:6B54 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have changed. I don't believe that this is a MOS:ENGVAR issue. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023 

message: I would like to request a change of the word "identifcation" to "identification" in both occurrences in the "Aviation" section.  Both Wiktionary and web searches suggest that the former is a misspelling, not some technical term that could be mistaken for a misspelling, like "ordnance". 166.181.80.186 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tollens (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023 

message: In the part 'speed in words per minute', they state that the speed for a dit might be 50 milliseconds. I don't know how long it would realistically be, but 1/200th of a second seems really short. It would mean that you could type 100 e's in one second, which seems a lot to me. 2A02:1810:4F27:3A00:5476:75CA:86EB:1B2C (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 50ms is 1/20th of a second. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2024