Talk:Flag signals

Merge various signal flag articles?

(As Wtshymanski has directed the merge discussion here, I have copied his comments from Talk:Substitute flag. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Way too many flag signal articles, merge this one to International maritime signal flags to give it context and reduce its orphan nature. We have:

and that's just the ones I've found so far. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. International maritime signal flags was poorly conceived, inadequately implemented, and tended to confuse the International Code of Signals with flags particular to NATO to the extent of serious error. Separating International maritime signal flags into International Code of Signals, Maritime flag signalling, and Naval flag signalling resolves these problems. (Maritime - "merchant" - and naval flag signalling are distinctly different; the ICS comes out of maritime signaling but goes beyond just flag signaling, and is a proper topic in itself.) To the extent there is overlap amongst these articles I think it is time to eliminate International maritime signal flags.

As to the others: Flaghoist signalling is a common element amongst the articles mentioned above, and that might be a good place to treat of subtopics common to those articles in order to avoid replication. (And also a good place to fold in the Substitute flag material.) Flag semaphore is an entirely separate topic, which could be greatly expanded (trust me here). Whether Flag signals (here) might be expanded to provide an overview, I don't know.

- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... [With permission, article specific comments by Wtshymanski have been extracted and rearranged into sub-topics, below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Each of the "codepage" articles would also explain allowable substitutes for the colored flags and pennants (ball and stick, etc) approved in that code.

That way, we keep all the history in one place, since it's the same for both warships and merchant ships (just the "codepage" or "codebook" changes), we explain most of the mechanics in one place, and we leave the trainspotting details of which flags mean which letters to tables in the ICS and NATO articles.

This is exactly why content forks are such bad ideas; by creating extra articles, the contents are duplicated and inconsistent and its impossible for a reader to get a coherent picture of the topic. We describe the side of the leaf before ever saying anything about the outline of the forest. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I radically sliced and diced all of our comments and re-organized them under the different topics? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Go for it, though I would prefer a rearranged list appear over your .sig, not mine, just for clarity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "code page articles", as the diverse methods of flag signaling that have been developed are not mere means of character encodings (and variants). Nor are the differences mere matters of "trainspotting" different flags — there are entirely different systems involved, with different purposes, and the overall common element is only that they use various flags. (And the ICS goes considerably beyond just the flags.) Also, naval and maritime signaling have very little overlapping history, but I'll address that in one of the subsections below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why we should not have both an overview article in summary style and individual articles for specific codes and applications. This is the way Wikipedia is organised. By all means merge into the overview pages which have only stub information, but there is no reason in principle that those pages should not exist. Spinning Spark 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag signals

Flag signals should be an overview for all the forms. How about "Flag signals" gets all the content at "flaghoist signalling", including the history. Flag signals gets a comprehensive 1 paragraph overview of "Semaphore" and either absorbs any stubs or summarizes any other land-based or other flag signal schemes. (This is curiously missing now...it talks about wig-wag and is crying out for flaghoist and semaphore descriptions.) --Wtshymanski

I concur that this article could, and even should, be an overview. But 1) that should not preclude other articles, if they have (or could have) sufficient material to stand alone, and 2) as an overview it should not get too deeply into specifics of any sub-topic. I suspect that "flaghoist signalling" could be expanded, but in its present form I would agree to its inclusion here. Absorbtion of other stubs should be considered on a case by case basis. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Keep this as an overview.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International maritime signal flags

"International maritime signal flags" would be decomposed into the history section of "flag signals", and any remaining content relevant to the current ICS would be put there, and then "International maritime signal flags" becomes a redirect to ICS. --Wtshymanski

I favor deleting it entirely, with a redirect to either ICS or maritime flag signalling. (As I commented above, this article was poorly conceived, etc.) I think I have already pretty much extracted the "content relevant to the current ICS". The principal problem here is the large number of translations of this article, and I would like encourage the other wikis to switch to a translation of the ICS article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. This is what I thought I said. Instead of deletion, a redirect to ICS works. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So us two are agreed to a redirect on this article, though possibly pending on dealing with the other wikis and finding a new home for "substitute flag". Should we put a note at Talk:International maritime signal flags to that effect? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we in favor of redirecting this page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Code of Signals

We reserve "International Code of Signals" for the current merchant code flag pictures with only description and history particular to that code. --Wtshymanski

Sorry, no, I emphatically disagree here. I suspect you may have some misunderstanding of the situation, which I would like to address. First, the ICS is quite a bit more than "code flag pictures" (involving more than just flag signaling), and goes beyond just merchant shipping (e.g., signals to submarines, and the USA-USSR conventions). Second, although the ICS is the current standard by which merchant ships communicate (but going beyond mere flags), historically there have been quite a few other codes. Third, the ICS is itself a notable international standard, independently of the broad topic of flag signalling. My position here is that the ICS article is fine as it is, and that the merge tag should be removed. Are you okay with that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime flag signalling

[The implication above is that this article should be merged with either the ICS article or the naval flag signalling article. - JJ]

Flag signaling, and even specifically flaghoist signaling, are NOT "the same for both warships and merchant ships", not in the flags used, the means or purposes, nor (for the most part) even in the historical development. Maritime flag signalling is currently largely synonymous with the ICS, but this has not always been the case; historically there have been quite a few other codes (e.g., Marryat's). I say this article should not be merged. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the articles doen't explain what the difference is. What is the difference, aside from the semantics of what meanings are assigned to what sequences? Is this not like talking about the English alphabet vs the Italian alphabet? A merchant ship hoists four flags PQRS and the code means "Our cabbages are rotten", a warship might hoist the same letter flags PQRS and signal "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?", different semantics, but same mechanics. How is the history different, aside from details of "Captain Smith formulated this commericial code while Admiral Jones devised a Navy code" - that's different, but the idea of waving colored bits of cloth to send messages is certainly common to both.

Stuff that's common to every flaghoist scheme should go into "flag signals", only things that are peculiar to a particular code should go into that code's articles. Marrat had no idea about radio Morse code and so couldn't devise Morse protocols for sending his codes, ICS has that option. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph, telephone, RS-232, and Ethernet are all electrical signaling systems based on "waving" electrical voltages — does that mean they should all go into one article? Okay, the differences between maritime and naval signaling are not so great. But there are differences, especially in historical development, which sort out all flaghoist systems (as far as I can see) into two broad families, maritime and naval. To the extent that all the differences can be tabulated as a bunch of "diffs" (a view I reject), the diffs are smaller if they are considered within these two families. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help me to understand your objections if you could explain what the key differences are between "maritime"and "naval" signalling. Marat's code listed warships...and merchant ships. We don't fork the "Morse code" article into "military Morse code" and "civilian Morse code" because there's no difference. Explanation would be useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime signalling is currently subsumed by the ICS (there are no extant alternatives, and, as far as I know, no national variants), but they are not equivalent topics because the ICS goes beyond strictly merchant aspects, and any history of maritime signalling would be seriously incomplete without covering the development of other systems. Naval signalling — by which we must understand there is no single, universal system such as for merchant ships, and we are referring generically to the various systems of many national navies — uses additional flags, and for different purposes, and has additional complications. These differences alone urge that naval systems, which are various but meagerly documented, should be treated differently, and separately, from the current maritime/ICS system, which is unitary and (relatively) voluminous. Historically, there seems to be largely separate development of systems for the two different usages. (E.g., I suspect that signalling in the U.S. Navy derived more from the Royal Navy than any merchant or commercial code.) Now perhaps you don't find all that convincing, but do you strongly feel that they should be merged? Is it possible that your feeling on this are not so strong, that you might be willing to yield on this point? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, again, are the significant differences between naval and maritime flag signalling? is it vocabulary? Is it the shape/color of flags? Procedures? I can see a naval signal can identify what role a given vessel is playing in a larger fleet, not something that a civilian vessel needs to do. There's a larger range of maneuvers a naval vessel must perform than a civilian vessel. Again, i want to learn more about the topic and i think these articles could teach more, but right now are confusingly laid out and don't present the subject matter in an organized way. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some navies incorporate the ICS flags as a subset (I believe to reduce the number of different flags they have to carry), but even with those common flags they often 1) give them different meanings, and sometimes 2) don't even assign them the same letter. 3) The ICS is focused primarily on safety of navigation, while the several naval systems I have seen (presumably this is general) focus mainly on manuevering, and on communications with different groups of ships; 4) for this they have totally different flags. 5) Historical development appears to differ from the various maritime systems. (To learn more I recommend Captain Kent's article, and the USN Signalman 3&2 manual.)

I don't think these two articles are so much disorganized as just vastly incomplete. (You're right — they could be much more.) But merging them together does not make one complete article. I mean, it's like if you had half the parts for a Ford engine and half the parts for a Toyota engine. Sure, both piles are superficiallly identical in being possible engines, both having bolts, pistons, etc., but that doesn't mean you can make a single working engine. Especially if one pile is metric and the other is not. Having looked into the subject a bit, it is my considered opinion that despite their similarities these two articles are best handled separately. One of the faults of the original "International maritime signal flags" article is some "cross-threading" errors introduced by editors who are familiar with only one side of the subject. (E.g., the attribution of a meaning to the Romeo flag.) They need to be expanded, not merged. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Luckily language is more flexible than auto parts. We're not building a Ford engine here or a Toyota engine, we're building enclopedia articles. Because the topics have been split out, its not clear just how incomplete the coverage is. Put everything together in one enormous "Flag signals at sea" article, organize it, reference it...and on if it is then too long, and too detailed, factor out the pretty code tables into their own articles. In a sense, it's too detailed a concern that the same bits of colored rag mean "Commence firing", "Who's the local Lloyds agent? ", or "Drinks now being served" depending on if its a warship, merchant ship or marina flying them. Notice the articles are about "flags", not about "signalling" - we're talking about alphabets, not languages. We should not fear an article that momentarily hits 65 k before being refactored. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is where your problem is, that you are so fixated on "bits of colored rag" and alphabets that you cannot see these articles are about signalling. (Witness: some of the antecedent systems did not even have "alphabets".) I have pointed out specific problems that happened because naval/maritime uses are blurred, but all I hear from you is "merge and refactor, merge and refactor". At any rate, it's been a long day, and I'm weary of discussing this. The short answer is: your argument is unconvincing, I do not agree to merging these articles, you do not have consensus. Give it a rest for a few days, then perhaps we can revisit this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been a few days. I am still disinclined to merge these two articles, but am not so much implacably opposed as I do not accept your particular argument and position; I will consider further discussion. (And I think we do have agreement above on #International maritime signal flags.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book or two would be good. Surely someone has published something on the *science* around signalling with flags? There's at least the information -theory aspect, how many distinct symbols do you need for a given working vocabulary. There's the physics and ergonomics of human eyballs making out flags (color, shape, relative position) over rolling seas in high winds and rain/mist/glare/fog. All of this could be common material. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, that is the kind of stuff that is "common material" (perhaps as theory of flag signaling?). And, yes again, a book (as source) or two would be nice. But (always a "but") I doubt if any such source materials exist, aside from comments in some obscure Admiralty or Board of Trade reports. I suspect most changes come about not because of any scientific analysis, but where experience has shown problems. And most of that is undocumented.

But on your other point, well, that is where I think you profoundly misapprehend the matter. E.g., take your question, "how many distinct symbols do you need for a given working vocabulary?" In the first place, what is the "vocabulary" to be represented? A table of all the meanings of all flaghoist "codes" would be largely empty for lack of common terms. But simply trying to conceive of different systems of signaling as differing only in their "code pages" is profoundly misleading. E.g., in vocabulary systems there can be meanings that depend on the relation of multiple flaghoists, not readily represented in a "code page". It's sort of like the relationship between Greek and Latin. Sure, there is some correspondence between Greek and Latin characters, but the differences between the two languages cannot be reduced to a difference of characters. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I'm butting in on your personally arguement, but as the two articles stand now there's really no reason NOT to merge them. There's quite a lot of repeated info and nothing really distinguishing the two articles, except for the NATO flags being at the bottom of the naval article without any real explanation. The NATO system could get its own article; I see the Russian navy system has one already.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I haven't been overwhelmingly persuasive here, yet I am strongly against merging the maritime/naval articles. (I am curious about your statement that "there's quite a lot of repeated info", but currently don't have the time to inquire more deeply.) That you can see the liklihood of a NATO article is somewhat to my point. Indeed, it could be argued that the current article is NATO-oriented (i.e., U.S./G.B.). But I would argue that Marryat (e.g.) is prior to NATO, and that all naval signaling systems have some commonality could be properly addressed in the current article, with links to (yet non-existent) articles on specific navies. At any rate, maritime (i.e., merchant vessel) signaling is distinct from naval signaling, and should not be confounded with it, as I have argued above. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for repeated info, the "early developments" section of the maritime article is entirely naval, and there's a paragraph about the Marryat system and the ICS in the naval article. And the same quote about the "Admyrall." As both articles are quite short right now, this constitutes a substantial part of each. It sounds like you want to expand both articles, so presumably there wouldn't be such a high percentage of overlap. I won't claim to be an authority on how much the histories of naval and maritime signalling actually do overlap.

Yes. Both articles are so short that any mention of a common item seems overly prominent. That will decrease when the articles are expanded.

I'm not totally opposed to having separate naval and maritime articles, but I'd need to know more about the differences. For instance, what concepts are common to the naval systems, as a group, that are distinct from those used by the maritime systems, as a group? Are those concepts enough to warrant separate articles, or could they just be described in a few sentances? What concepts are common to both maritime and naval systems (ie substitute flags)? Are naval and maritime articles the only logical method of classification? Presumably, again, some of this will become more clear when the articles are expanded.

This is where it's kind of hard to explain. E.g., the concept of substitute flags is general, but specific systems use different flags for that purpose. (And there are some subtleties of usage.) Another concept is whether the units of "code" represent a vocabulary which is combined to make a "sentence", or represent complete messages in themselves. (The 1969 changes to the ICS were major because they represent a change in that fundamental concept.) And the messages to be communicated are vastly different, naval systems focused on control and coordination ("change course to ...") and maritime systems being more general ("I am bound for ...").

My concern is that the number and similarity of all these articles is likely to confuse non-sailors. "Maritime" sometimes specifically refers to the merchant marine, but it also has a more general meaning of anything pertaining to the sea. "Naval" is usually more specific, but not always. And the first search result I get for "nautical flag signalling" is the now-redundant International maritime signal flags article.

That there is confusion is due to mis-use of these terms, and something which the articles should clarify. Yes, "maritime" (often confounded with "nautical") can mean anything connected with the sea (not just merchant marine), but "naval" is, properly speaking, a sea-going military arm. I agree that the IMSF article should be re-directed. (Just haven't found a "round to it" yet.) Perhaps even deleted.

My other thought is that the differences (and the similarities) between naval and maritime systems would actually be a lot more clear in one article, not two. For instance, right now there's a diagram of the flags in the Marryt code in the maritime article. If we had these for each of the major systems (would need to be small for the modern systems obviously) in one article, maybe alongside as we trace the historie(s) of the various systems, it would provide a great way to visually track the way the different systems have incorporated and expanded upon the flags used by previous ones. It might also be instructive to have a table showing how to "say" some of the same basic things with the different systems (I don't really know how much they overlap though, I know the naval systems pertain more to battle tactics and the maritime ones to safety). LRT24 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge with any table of equivalencies is that naval/non-naval systems are saying different things, even using different flags. It would a mostly empty "sparse array". And though I would like to see a lot more on the historical development, that is going to take a lot more research. Part of why I want these articles is the hope that they may encourage someone to dive into that research. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the less sense such a table makes. I'm still somewhat in favor of a single article, though less strongly than before. Seperate articles could definately be made to work, especially with more content. LRT24 (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am definitely (and obviously) in favor of more content. The main challenge is how and when, especially as the material I suspect is out there is not on-line. I confess that one of my purposes in having these articles is to interest someone in the topic. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naval flag signalling

"Naval flag signalling" becomes a redirect to "NATO signal flags" for the current NATO code (eliminating all references to historic and other navies and putting them in the "flaghoist signalling" part of flag signals). This would allow someone to document the signal practices of the Swiss navy if anyone felt moved to contribute. --Wtshymanski

Must also disagree with this. You have this backward: "NATO signal flags" is properly a subset of naval flag signalling, not the other way around. (I suspect that what confuses the issue here is that — in the context of English language — there is a lot more material about NATO.) Historically there is much untapped material, including some significant developments by the French. For sure, the article is currently only a stub, but there is potential for much development possibly including — yes — the Austrian Navy). My view is that it should not be merged. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaghoist signalling

Maritime and naval flag signalling are arguably subsets of this topic, but those are too big to be included here, and would overwhelm the general topic. I think this article is good as it stands, basically re-directing folks to the more specific sub-topics. Should not be merged, leave as is. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was against merging Flaghoist signalling (though I am not strongly opposed as to revert). More importantly, I think, is that perhaps notice of impending merger (etc.) should be placed on the page involved, in case there are people watching there that are not following our discussion here. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaghoist was very short and i thought was easier to merge than to summarize. Sempaphore is long, and needs a better summary. Wig-wag should stay here, unless someone can develop it greatly later (in which case it can be split off and summarized). It would be a Good Thing to have a general overview of the types of problems flag signals encounter,and how the problems were solved historically. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor bringing back flaghoist signalling and merging both the naval and maritime articles into it. There's quite a bit of repeated info between these two articles. The NATO system could get it's own article, I see that the Russian navy's system already has its own.LRT24 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "NATO system" is basically the American system applied to the NATO navies, and I suspect the "Russian navy's system" is similarly applied to the Warsaw pact navies. Mixing these (and other systems, such as the Japanese) in a single article would likely cause a lot of confusion. Likewise if merchant signalling (i.e., the ICS, but also historical non-ICS systems) were mixed in. At any rate, if the NATO and Warsaw systems are treated separately (a good idea) there would be much redudancy trying to merge non-naval signalling with each. What I favor is "flaghoist signalling" as a sort of shell article that provides (as you say) a general overview, covers a few incidental systems not warranting separate articles (e.g., weather signals), and then points to the principal uses of maritime and various naval systems.

I think there is not that much overlap between "naval" and "maritime". The maritime article touches on the origins of flaghoist signalling at sea, which was naval, and the naval article has two sentences on Marryat's maritime system, which had implications for both areas. These similarities seem prominent because both articles are short, but will be less when (if?) they are expanded. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag semaphore

I am inclined to think that this topic is sufficiently distinct and substantial to warrant independent status. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge template from this one. This discussion seems pretty dead with the only comment besides proposer being against merging. Flag semaphore is still in use and was as widespread as Morse code. It is certainly a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. Spinning Spark 17:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Wig-Wag is "more mobile" than (European) flag semaphore because it 'only needs one flag'? That's a feeble (and, predictably Americo-centric) justification. If you can carry one flag, then carrying two is hardly a great imposition.

The big advantage of Wig-Wag (and its fatal flaw) is that the signaller must deploy a much larger single flag. After all, there's little to be gained otherwise from substituting a well established two-flag semaphore with a new and more complex one-flag system. Having a much bigger flag means reliable signal communication over a much longer path. BUT... that larger flag produces much more air resistance when 'wagged' (or wigged) and it needs a much thicker flag post (or pole) - the whole cumbersome thing weighing considerably more than the two-flag equipment. Wig-Wagging for anything other than the briefest of messages required unusual muscular strength, coordination and physical stamina; the sort of battlefield tactical messaging of, say, the American Civil War required a rotating team of signallers to allow rest and recovery in between work. It was by no means always possible to find men of the correct intellect, fitness and strength. It's really hard to see how the practicalities of Wig-Wag rendered it somehow 'more mobile'.

This is for info, only. I don't intend to edit the article. I suppose, in retirement, it's become my life's work - Canute like - to trawl Wikipedia calling out silly examples of American exceptionalism...2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:DC7D:D977:5E79:92BB (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute flag

I am inclined to concur that this should be merged (as you have done), but it will need a new home if (as I recommend) "International maritime signal flags". ICS is a likely candidate, but I am not happy with that. This needs more contemplation and discussion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both "maritime" and "naval" signals use substitute or repeater flags to save on the number of flags carried in a set. Substitute must be a common topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? And likewise every article that shares a common element of "red cloth" should be merged? Look, I don't really give a rat's ass about this particular article, because it's really just a rather tedious graphic with a bit of text tossed at it. Keep it or toss it, as you wish. The ICS article doesn't need it, as the basic explanation about substitutes is already covered (albeit very briefly). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be serious. If there's great differences between warship signals and commercial signals (apart from the obvious vocabulary or codebook), please explain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am being serious. Substitute flag is a graphic with a few words of text stuck on; I do not object to deleting it. And I think you are pushing commonality way too far. (Do I need to explain this further?) As to the naval/maritime distinction, I have provided an explanation, in the appropriate location. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Zulu

Do not support merge, I do not support merge of Bravo Zulu with another article. Bravo Zulu is very frequently used & warrants it's own separate article. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional objections specifically regarding Bravo Zulu were made at Talk:Naval flag signalling. For lack of further interest I am removing the merge-to tags. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag signals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204151146/http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime/?epi_menuItemID=923e01c531c0a3825b2a7fbd3227a759&epi_menuID=35ad5b8aabcefa1a0fc133443927a759&epi_baseMenuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759 to http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime/?epi_menuItemID=923e01c531c0a3825b2a7fbd3227a759&epi_menuID=35ad5b8aabcefa1a0fc133443927a759&epi_baseMenuID=e106a3b5e50edce1fec24fd73927a759

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wigwag

How can wigwag be a binary code when it has three coding symbols? That makes it a ternary code. Further, each character is supposed to be composed of three elements. If it were a binary coded this would not be anywhere near enough for all the letters of the alphabet. SpinningSpark 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Nor is it (in modern usage) "conceptually similar" to Morse code, it uses Morse code (which occasionally is also described as binary). And it certainly does not require "a 6- to 8-foot platform". Though I have not checked the source (Raines? or is she cited only for the "used extensively ..." bit?), so perhaps Myer's system used a ten-foot flag staff, ergo, the need for a plaform? Needs to be checked.

The wigwag section seems to have been derived mainly from Myer, without any further consideration of subsequent developments or usage, and nothing about modern usage. Definitely needs rewriting, but based on more research. Feel free to take this on! To aid you I have fixed up the citations (full-citations in the "Sources" section, with short-cites in the text), and added tags and comments. Ask if you have questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely seems to have been a Morse code version of wigwag dating from around the Civil War period, but it may have been that there was a different code used early on. I saw a source that said wigwag was originally based on the Baine printing telegraph which would imply some kind of binary coding. Didn't see anything that made this entirely clear what codes were used though. SpinningSpark 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a modern source that verifies binary coding is used (although it doesn't give the complete code chart). It doesn't say when that came in or when Myer's ternary code was abandoned. SpinningSpark 00:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're on tear! Attaboy.

I would be real cautious about this binary/ternary stuff. For me wigwag is "binary" in the sense of leftside-rightside (with a single flag), and I don't see how it could be otherwise. But don't forget that "stop characters" aren't considered "symbols". So where the source says "three symbols", the nature of those symbols needs some explanation. I'm out of time today, but I'll check back with you tomorrow. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Myer source definitely describes a ternary system. There are three flag positions representing three different symbol values, e.g. A is 112 and Z is 113. This is quite separate from stop characters and rest positions. SpinningSpark 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That being so unusual we should probably explain it. Are diagrams any where we can grab? Or replicate? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already put an explanation of ternary in across two sentences. It's a simple enough concept, no need to be condescending to our readers. The Myer source has diagrams and is public domain since it is published 1866. SpinningSpark 02:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we have to explain "ternary", but we need to explain what Myer's ternary positions/movements are. I see that the hathitrust.org link has illustrations, but I don't have enough online time to page through it, and one has to be a member to download the pdf. I found a pdf (at http://www.civilwarsignals.org/pdf/lgmanualofsignals.pdf), which has some explanations, but no illustrations; it is incomplete. Though I wonder: for all that Myer was an interesting fellow, surely there was more to wigwag than him, right? I think I have a Signal Corp history; I'll try to glance through in the near future. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really guy, it's not so difficult. The article ref gives a page number and the diagrams are nearby. You don't need an account on Hathi Trust to view the document so captures can be made off screen, or single pages can be downloaded – again without an account. I've uploaded the main chart here, but I don't think we should use the whole thing in the article. It would be too intrusive and WP:UNDUE, even for the wigwag section, as I'm not sure, and you seem to suspect the same thing, of how long Myer's ternary system lasted. SpinningSpark 16:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myer's 1872 edition of the Manual of Signals has a definite change to a binary code and seems identical to the code described by Wolters, who implies that the binary code was used in the Civil War period. A third element is still being used, but only for "control characters". So the ternary code was dropped at least by 1872 and probably much earlier. SpinningSpark 16:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of stuff needed. Good illustration, too. From the bottom figures it looks like "wigwag" was starting to morph into semaphore, and I wonder if they have some common roots. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that they are connected. I don't know how trustworthy this site is, but it claims 2-flag semaphore was invented by Claude Chappe in the 1790s. Wigwag, on the other hand, appears to have been inspired by dot-dash codes from the electric telegraph in the 1850s. I have now put that in the article under a history section. SpinningSpark 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears? Be careful of OR. And I would be wary of all of the amateur web pages, unless they have facsimiles of books, etc. If someone not a well known historian or expert on this topic (are there any?) makes a claim, see what source they use, and go back to that. Google Books is probably your best hunting ground. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, give me some credit. I haven't used anything from that site, and in any case, it says nothing about either Baine or wigwag. Please check your facts before lecturing other people. I don't need lessons in what makes a reliable source. Did you even look at what I put in the article before saying that? The source I used is The Oxford Companion to American Military History published by the Oxford University Press. If that's not reliable we may as well give up. It is also in the Memoirs of general Edward Porter Alexander, at one time Myer's assistant while developing the code. SpinningSpark 21:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I didn't mean to come across as lecturing; I was ruminating on what kind of sources what be getting into, and didn't know how deeply you've gotten into this. If you have some good sources, fine, and some day I'd like to dig into them myself. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms

On the need for platforms, Myer briefly discusses the need for signal parties to carry tools for constructing platforms. Plate A right at the beginning of the book shows some truly enormous platforms; one 125 ft and another 130 ft. SpinningSpark 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A signal party might need to construct platforms, but that is in the use of flag signals, not the signals themselves. Might as well say they needed to carry food and water; so what?

The need for height (and a constructed platform where natural features are lacking) is for getting a clear view over trees, etc. It is analogous to needing wire for electric telegraph, and entirely incidental to the signals themselves. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]