Talk:Radio

Galleries for the TV broadcasting section

Currently, I have 2 variants of representing the TV part of "radio tech".

Variant one: a TV and a TV tower.

Variant two: 3 TV sets from 3 different countries and decades.

If somebody doesn't like Ostankino Tower, feel free to swap the variants.

(left) A portable TV by Sharp Corporation (right) 533m Ostankino Tower

(left) RCA 630-TS (center) A portable TV by Sharp Corporation (right) ITT Nokia TV set

Regards, The Sour Shchi Professor Профессор кислых щей (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

These are really great pictures of historical televisions. My feeling is the applications section should only cover the current applications of radio, and should have pictures of modern devices. This section is for general readers, who may be confused by pictures of historical equipment. CRT televisions are virtually obsolete. I wouldn't mind one picture of a modern one, but flatscreen TVs are the norm and there should also be a picture of one of these. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks Профессор кислых щей (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Signaling vs communicating

Kvng re: signaling. I added that term. I don't mean to be fussy, but it seems to me that the word "communicating", in the sense that ordinary readers understand, doesn't really apply to a number of applications we list for radio waves. For example radar, radio astronomy, remote sensing, radio direction finding and jamming. Anyway, I'm okay with what you decide, just wanted to get my 2 cents in. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Kvng's edit got me noticing something - signaling (the verb)[1] is pretty much the same definition as communicating (the verb)[2]. So, if the topic of this article is "the technology of communicating using radio waves" (backed up by its following lead section) and described here as a subset of Radio waves, then radar, radio astronomy (and other types of radio remote sensing), and radio direction finding do not belong here, they are also a subset, and belong at, an "Applications" section at Radio waves. Radio jamming belongs here as long as we are talking about communication jamming. The hatnote "This article is about science and technology" is also wrong, that would also be Radio waves. This "Radio" article is the one "For its use in audio distribution". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess I am in favor of restoring the previous definition "the technology of signaling and communicating using radio waves" and keeping the article as it is, covering all uses of radio waves here, not splitting them between this article and Radio wave. It would seem to me if 'signaling' is the same as 'communicating' then even under the current definition radar, radio astronomy, remote sensing & RDF belong here. It comes down to whether we adopt a narrower or broader definition of 'communication'. Here are some sources supporting the broader definition:

• "the transmission of wireless signals (electromagnetic waves) over the air or through a hollow tube called a 'waveguide'. Although 'radio' is often thought of as only AM and FM or sometimes two-way radio, all transmission systems that propagate signals through the air are some form of 'radio'." Glossary, PC Magazine website]
• "the transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves of radio frequency, especially those carrying sound messages." Oxford Living Dictionary
• "the system or process that is used for sending and receiving signals through the air without using wires" The Britannica Dictionary
• "the use of unguided propagating electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz to convey information" Stephen Ellison, Radio Systems Engineering]

--Chetvorno^TALK 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is the difference between signaling and communicating. In the context of a lead (which should not get into hair splitting) I see them as synonymous. If we want to indicate that coverage in the article is broad, perhaps we should just say Radio' is the technology of using radio waves. ~Kvng (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a difference, I just thought adding 'signaling' would make the lead clearer for nontechnical readers. But I don't want to split hairs, and have no objection to using 'communicating' alone, as long as it's understood to include all the applications of radio listed in this article. What I would object to is dividing the applications between this article and Radio wave, on the basis of a narrow definition of 'communication', as Fountains seems to be suggesting. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think radar, radiolocation and radio navigation are clearly communication or signaling applications of radio waves but these are mentioned in the lead and covered in the body. So either I'm operating with a misunderstanding of what communication or signaling is or we have some work to do to make the lead sentence consistent with the rest of the lead and body. The simplest fix is to make the lead sentence broader with my suggestion above. ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem I see with "Radio is the technology of using radio waves" is that applications of radio waves in the research, industrial, heating, and medical fields, such as particle accelerators, microwave ovens, MRI machines, diathermy machines, and cancer hyperthermy treatment, are not usually called 'radio'. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't think adding 'signaling' could cover radar, radiolocation and radio navigation? --Chetvorno^TALK 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, per my personal preference, signaling is an improvement over communicating or communicating and signaling and not worse than what I proposed. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this (to me) does not look like a case of splitting, its just correct set/subset.

• Radio is a subset of Radio waves', as defined in the lead.
• radar, radio astronomy (and other all types of radio remote sensing) use, and are, a subset of Radio waves.
• All of the variants of the MOS:LEADSENTENCE proposed above still define this article as strictly covering radio "communication" (the general understanding of the single word title Radio).
• The rest of the lead summarizes the communication medium.
• Most of this article does follow the lead, describing communication of one type or another.
• The remote sensing parts of this article are small in proportion and really don't belong here, they should probably be a "See also" here and mentioned in an "Applications" section at Radio waves.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm with you on point 3. Above, I proposed Radio' is the technology of using radio waves, which doesn't mention signaling or communication. Otherwise I don't have an argument with this assessment. Does this map to a specific proposed improvement? ~Kvng (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, where are the sources for these distinctions? I gave 4 sourced definitions of 'radio' above that don't mention 'communication', all of them clearly apply to radar, radiolocation and most to remote sensing.

• "the use of unguided propagating electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz to convey information" Stephen Ellison, Radio Systems Engineering].
• "...all transmission systems that propagate [radio wave] signals through the air are some form of 'radio'." PC mag glossary.
• "Radio: A general term applied to the use of radio waves" ITU Radio Regulations 2016, p.7

All these applications, 'communicating' and 'remote sensing', use the same technology: unguided freely propagating radio waves, radio transmitters, radio receivers, and antennas, and are regulated by the same laws and institutions. I don't see the basis for covering them in different articles.

--Chetvorno^TALK 03:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:TOPIC of this article is covered by its first 3 lead sentence references, the general understanding that "Radio" means the communication medium. A tertiary check of what the topic's scope is would be Britannica --->radio. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Britannica page you referenced is Radio broadcasting. It is in the Arts and Entertainment section of the encyclopedia. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting Radio communication (vs. ISM, astronomy, etc.)

I'd like to propose splitting Radio communication into its own article. It's a notable concept and the main use of radio waves, besides ISM and astronomy [edit: and radiodetermination, including radar]. It's well recognized in international regulations, e.g., ITU's definitions:

• telecommunication: Any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems (CS).
• radio: A general term applied to the use of radio waves.
• radio waves or hertzian waves: Electromagnetic waves of frequencies arbitrarily lower than 3 000 GHz, propagated in space without artificial guide.
• radiocommunication: Telecommunication by means of radio waves.
• radio astronomy: Astronomy based on the reception of radio waves of cosmic origin.
• industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) applications (of radio frequency energy): Operation of equipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally radio frequency energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunications

Then, in the new article about Radio communication, one could delve into the various types, such as terrestrial vs. satellite-based, point-to-point vs. broadcasting (sound-only or audiovisual - TV), etc.

There's already duplication between Radio#Applications and Radio spectrum#Applications. One should also avoid sections homonym with the article (or its redirects), such as in Radio communication#Radio communication. fgnievinski (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What would be left in Radio after this proposed split? ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Draft:Radio and Draft:Radio communication; they're both pretty sizable article drafts, about distinguishable general and specific concepts. fgnievinski (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're going with that and see how the material can be presented in two articles. Before proceeding further, I would review incoming links to Radio and see if it is easy to determine which of the two proposed articles these should link to after the proposed split. There are over 10,000 incoming links to this article. You may be able to get a feel for it reviewing a subset but all would need to be reviewed as part of a split. That's potentially a heavier lift than the split itself. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: Indeed, there are about 20k links [3]. From what I've garnered, most are meant for Radio communication, with many specifically for Radio broadcasting. One way to assist in disambiguating incoming links is by searching in specific categories or its subcategories (e.g., Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=linksto%3Aradio+deepcat%3AEntertainment&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1). So, it seems doable. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Draft:Radio, "Radio is a general term applied to the use of radio waves," - Wikipedia does not do terms and/or separate articles for the same thing. If we are describing radio waves then this content should be part of Radio waves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Merging radio into radio waves would make the result even larger. We wouldn't merge Lighting into light. The original proposal is permitted as per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Notice specially the last paragraph in that policy section and appreciate the notable topic could be stated more explicitly as Applications of radio waves. There are many standalone articles about applications of particular concepts, such as Applications of randomness, etc. The distinction between the physical concept (radio waves) and their practical applications ("radio"), including the usage of the term, is well noted by the ITU, which is as authoritative as it can get about radio matters. fgnievinski (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not a proposed merger or making articles bigger. Its more a matter of getting content under the correct topic and then cut it way down per WP:SUMMARY (i.e. we do not need long sections on Radar, etc in any "Radio" article, they have their own articles). We have an article on "Radio communication" called Radio (the common understanding of that word/title). There does not seem to be a need to spawn another one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The current version of Radio conflates radio wave applications with radio communication. In fact, it is wrong from the very first sentence in the lead: "Radio is the technology of communicating using radio waves." – such misdefinition excludes all non-communication applications of radio waves. fgnievinski (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The previous thread Signaling vs communicating discussed this same topic. Before the current version, the lead read:

Radio is the technology of signaling and communicating using radio waves.

I suggest reverting to this lead. It covers the non-communication uses of radio in question, so we wouldn't have to split the article, and is consistent with the ITU definition of 'radio' above. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is signaling and communicating, per their definitions[4][5], both imply communication of some sort. Aircraft tracked by radar or black holes detected in the radio spectrum are nether signaling or communicating. If we are trying to cover everything currently included in this article it would be a modified definition "Radio is the wireless transmission and/or reception of electromagnetic waves for communication or detection". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

One must distinguish between (1) the common meaning (radio = radio communication or even radio = radio audio broadcasting) and (2) the authoritative definition (radio = radio wave applications). I'm fine leaving the article Radio about (1), as long as we put a hatnote such as {{about|radiocommunication|other uses|Radio wave#Applications}}. Then, Radio#Applications would be cleaned up, splitting Radio#Radar and other subsequent subsections. Radio spectrum#Applications would also be split apart, between communication and non-communication applications. fgnievinski (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Signalling" is synonym with communication:

• Signal: a physical phenomenon, one or more of whose characteristics may vary to represent information [6] [7]
• Communication: information transfer according to agreed conventions. [8]

So, I'm contrary to reverting as proposed by Chetvorno.

Notice radio communication excludes radio wave applications such as radio astronomy and Earth remote sensing as well as industrial, scientific, medical, and domestic purposes (including heating), in which there is no intention in conveying a pre-determined message. fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting non-communication radio wave applications

I've implemented my latest proposal above:

• Draft:Radio
• Draft:Radio communication
• Draft:Radio wave
• Draft:Radio spectrum

fgnievinski (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Merge Radio communication station

There's no reason for Radio communication station to be a separate article when this article already discusses radio technology and several types of radio systems. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)