Talk:Signalling (telecommunications)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] dab?

This does not appear to be a disambiguation page. It seems to be a poorly written article. It wasn't tagged as a dab until the cleanup tag was added. I do believe cleanup is necessary, but do not believe it is a dab. Tedernst | talk 02:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe not! I added the tag as I was trying to disambiguate various signal page links... but I'm not sure what this page is. I'll accept it if you say it's not a dab. - grubber 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I wrote most of the article I may be blind to its shortcomings, but having just reread it some months later I'm not sure what the problem is. My intended structure was a definition section, followed by a classification section (defining the axes of classification) and then a section describing how some of these axes of classification are either or not orthogonal. Don't pull your punches; I can take it :-). Let me also say that it is indeed not a disambiguation page. JanCeuleers 08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized!

I reorganized some of the information (headings and the such) and when I get home from vacation I plan on correcting and improving it further. (I'm on a HipTop2, so I can't do much information-wise.

--Nelson 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources vs See alsos

I'm (Jim.henderson 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)) and the following is taken from my talk page:

Hi - I changed the "Sources" subheading to a "See also" subheading to unify the style of this article with other articles. The items in the list are internal articles. It makes sense that they be included as related articles.

Your edit summary for the change back to "Sources" states that those articles "say nothing about signaling". If this is true, maybe it would be prudent to remove them. E_dog95 ^Hi 07:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply in more detail in the article's talk page later today, but Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188 are basically dictionaries, thus their Wikipedia articles don't discuss specific items defined in the dictionaries. The idea of a "Sources" section is to say where the article originated, which for a great many little articles is these dictionaries. Jim.henderson 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have hit the main points in my paragraph of some hours ago. Anyway, for a little more detail, a "See also" or "Further reading" section is to direct attention to information related to the topic covered by the present article, in which the reader may take an interest. A "Sources" or "Reference" section, on the other hand, is not for getting more information. It's for telling the reader where the information in this article came from, or where to verify it. In the present case, the government dictionaries are terse and supply no more information on this topic than is already in the article. We provide a link to Wikipedia articles that describe these dictionaries, so the interested reader can understand what kinds of sources they are. As it happens, this article says a lot more about signalling than the dictionaries do, and in turn the dictionaries say more than the Wikipedia articles about them do. We'd be glad to get further "Sources" or "References" for this information, but I see no reason to delete the skimpy source citations that we've got or mislabel them as supplying further information. Jim.henderson 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)