Talk:Semaphore

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 23 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Semaphore (apparatus). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Request for comment

There is a request for comment at Talk:Optical telegraph#Request for comment on meaning of semaphore which affects this article. SpinningSpark 08:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion you've linked to, they seem to adopt the meaning "signalling device with arms" as their definition of "semaphore".

I think it's fine for words to have different meanings in different contexts; but I find the definition adopted here to be startlingly broad. For example, per the definition the lede, a mirror/sunlight signalling device is definitely a semaphore, but so is the optical hookup between my CD and amp.

The citations for the definition given in the lede could be improved; one is Britannica, and the other is something called "FactMonster", which I've not observed anything on WP being cited-to before.

I came here to find out about the semaphore alphabet, so I guess I'm off to Flag semaphore. Ah, rabbit-hole -> Optical telegraph; they distinguish two types - a shutter telegraph (which by our definition is a semaphore) and a "semaphore telegraph" (one with arms).

So there's an implied definitional conflict between these articles. I don't know what to suggest, but I don't like leaving this kind of confusion lying around, without some kind of explnation.

That is, if there are diverse opinions about what a semaphore is, that is a fact that belongs in the article.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tautology is a taugology

This interesting (?) sentence appears in this article:

A hydraulic telegraph is either of two different semaphore systems involving a hydraulic-telegraph.

Once in the past, the article titled Traditional Brazilian medicine began by saying "Traditional Brazilian medicine is the traditional medicince of Brazil." Somehow this present instance doesn't seem as egregious but it probably merits an honorable mention. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semaphore → Semaphore (apparatus)
Semaphore (disambiguation) → Semaphore

– I'm struggling to understand how this could be considered the primary topic of "semaphore". Semaphore (programming) gets twice as many page views and is at least as well represented (compared to all signaling device usage) in reliable sources such as those accessed via Google Scholar or Google Books. There are several other uses on the dab page that readers may well be looking for. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the programming meaning has 12,291 views compared with only 6,125[[1]] for the apparatus meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My first job was as a computer programmer, and I've never heard of a semaphore in programming. Signalling is the only meaning my brain recognises. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The signal is primary by longterm significance. The programming article even acknowledges the name is based on the signalling device. It's ridiculous to suggest that every little computer science term based on something from the real world should then dethrone it simply because it gets more views. Apple is still the fruit, by the way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fails both WP:PRITOP criteria—blindlynx 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Semaphore indicates that there were 244 clicks on the hatnote over a total incoming traffic of 7.4k and total identifiable outgoing clickstreams of 1.2k, which would be ~3% and ~20%. With the CS meaning being basically another derivation of the same broad concept as the physical meanings, at least to the untrained eye of the average reader, perhaps the best thing to do would be to actually give it a place in the same article as opposed to making readers search for it via the hatnote. --Joy (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very clear primary topic by long-term significance. The average person would associate semaphore with this, not the programming term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.