Talk:Two-way radio
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Radiotelephone
[edit]Is "radiotelephone" the British English word for two-way radio? User:David Jordan 10/02/2006.
I'm pulling the flag to merge the articles because there is not a solid case for both terms meaning the same thing. User:David Jordan 11/30/2006.
Here's one idea of how articles could fall under Two-way radio category. Comment on why this doesn't work below. Talk:David Jordan
Cleanup needed
[edit]The frequency-response figure is baffling. There's too much specialized jargon too early in the article. Organization is poor (talk about conventional *before* trunked, clearer that way and the motivation for trunking becomes easier to explain). How about some *H*I*S*T*O*R*Y, darn it? The first two-way system applied to police cars was in the US in the '20s, I think...got to find more. If someone wants to read about FRS or GMRS or other services there's LINKs to follow - we don't need to beat this to death here. I'm putting this one on my to-do list. --Wtshymanski 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
February 2007 Merge discussion
[edit]Can anyone please explain why Walkie-talkie and Two-way radio have distinct articles when they both seem to describe the same technology? It is my opinion that is is redundant, confusing, and that content from the walkie-talkie article be merged to two-way radio article.--Kevin586 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Distinct topics, "walkie talkie" is a historical two-way radio system as well as being modern jargon for a hand-held transciever. There can be a lot of depth to the WT article that would be too much for a more general two-way radio article. Two-way radio systems also include fixed (base station), and vehicular equipment. If we can have individual Pokemon articles, we surely can afford to have "walkie talkie" as a separate article. --Wtshymanski 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with wtshymanski 's point and add that the "walkie talkie" is a distinct part of the culture, being the way that many events and firms communicated before the advent of cell Phones. Indeed early cell phones were a logical extension of the walkie talkie concept. Two way radio far predates the technology that allowed a hand held (or even AN/PRC style backback) unit. Early 2 way instalations had several chassis and a Dynamotor all mounted in the trunk of the vehicle.cmacd 13:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The Two Way Radio article has 22,000 characters. This approaches the maximum limit before it needs to be broken into a separate article. Oppose. 146.74.231.245 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Between 50 and 100 articles link to Two-way radio and Walkie-Talkie. Some overlap but there are differences. They're not the same thing, in my opinion. 03-02-2007 User:David Jordan
First
[edit]I've learned never to call anything on Wikipedia the "first" but can anyone give me a reference for the anon addition which I've just moved here: In 1930 the first three cities debuted two-way police radios. The Pasadena, Berkley, and Tulare Police Departments added police band radios. These were licensed as KSW 2410kc and WPDA 1712 kc. This isn't what the IEEE milestones site says, though they refer to "high frequency". These two frequencies would be called "medium wave" or medium frequency. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
One might note, too that the Wikipedia page for the Detroit Police Department credits them with the first two-way car radios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Police_Department); the author got his information at http://www.michmarkers.com/startup.asp?startpage=S0529a.htm. I'm a little dubious about the Australian claim... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejdamer (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In Practice?
[edit]This article is very informative on the technical side. As a lay person with an interest in how schools could use 2-way radios in day-to-day operations as well as in communicating with first responders in an emergency (i.e., when an active shooter is on the premises), I was hoping an article on Wikipedia would include a section that focuses on the human side of using 2-way radios. How do you "get the hang of it?" Why use 2-way radios if we all have cell phones? How does the technology shape the communication experience between or among the users? Does it shape what to say, how to say it, when to say it?
Also, I'm interested in interoperability issues and just how seriously they're taken. For instance, here in Colorado, when first responders from different agencies arrived on the scene at Columbine during the student shooting rampage, they were unable to communicate with one another, and this caused considerable confusion related to chain of command. I'm finding out in my private discussions that many schools using 2-way radios can only afford units that come nowhere near the sophistication of the 2-way radios used by professional law enforcement, firefighters and other responders. As a result the schools' systems cannot communicate with first responders arriving on the scene for any emergency.
In addition, the lack of interoperability seems to go hand-in-hand with the human use of the 2-way radios in the school system. Schools may develop their own codes or jargon that cannot be understood by professional responders. Slowly, schools are being required to follow National Incident Management System guidelines or become NIMS-compliant, which means they must follow Incident Command System (ICS) doctrine. ICS includes rules on the use of "clear text" instead of any jargon at all. So this brings us back to the topic of The Human Side of 2-Way Radios -- namely, what part does the technology play in building a team or a community?
Any suggestions on whether to include this in the general article? Thank you for your comments.
12.42.161.3 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
UHF vs VHF
[edit]Its worth mentioning that in the Northern Ireland "Troubles" the British army radios upset the ROI TV signal, so people knew when a raid was coming. This was a major issue at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.121.12 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Alternatives
[edit]Please include VoIP over Wifi/WiMax as a alternative see http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2005/voIP_WiFi.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.175.36 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
History of hand-helds
[edit]I'd like to read in the article more about the history of hand-helds. Can someone savvy add that with dates? Thanks! (Btw, Is there also a Suggestion section here?) Misty MH (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's a lot of history (continually edit-warred, so you know you're getting the very best information) at Walkie-talkie. If it doesn't have a link here, I'll add one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Aircraft use
[edit]I came here to find out when radios in aircraft became practical. In the History section we're told that they did, but not when. The previous para refers to vehicle use in 1923, and the following para refers to 1933. Some more info needed here, pleaseDean1954 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Radio was first used in aircraft just prior to World War 1, first zeppelins then in the biplane. Civilian zeppelins had radio first (they trailed a wire antenna called a "zepp") but the war really sparked development of light radio sets that could be carried by heavier than air craft. The first radio transmission from an airplane was August 1910, I think by the US Navy. The first aircraft radios transmitted by radiotelegraphy, so they required 2 seat aircraft with a 2nd crewman to tap on a telegraph key to spell out messages by Morse code. During World War 1 AM voice two way radio sets were made possible by the development of the triode vacuum tube, allowing the pilot in a single seat aircraft to use the radio. Here's a timeline of the first experiments in aviation radio. This info should probably be in one of the aviation articles, maybe Avionics. --ChetvornoTALK 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Uncited material in need of citations
[edit]I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Recent edit conflict over introduction
[edit]There is an edit conflict over the lead paragraph. The original lead was
- "A two-way radio is a radio transceiver that can both transmit and receive radio waves, which is used for bidirectional person-to-person voice communication with other users with similar radios, in contrast to a broadcast receiver, which only receives transmissions. Typical two-way radios work on fixed radio frequency channels, though some can scan multiple channels in order to find a valid transmission."<ref name=CrystalRadio>{{cite web|url=https://www.twoway-radio.co.uk/epic-guide|title=A complete guide to Two-way Radios|publisher=Crystal Radio Systems Ltd|language=en-US|url-status=live|access-date=January 17, 2023|archive-date=June 26, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220626050658/https://www.twoway-radio.co.uk/epic-guide}}</ref>
I changed this to
- "A two-way radio is a radio transceiver (a radio that can both transmit and receive radio waves), which is used for bidirectional person-to-person voice communication with other users with similar radios; in contrast to a broadcast receiver, which only receives transmissions."
with the 2nd sentence moved to the article body. This has been reverted 3 times by Nightscream: [1] [2] [3] and restored by Fountains of Bryn Mawr and myself, who support the new version. --ChetvornoTALK 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
My reason for removing the 2nd sentence was that it is misleading for general readers. Two-way radios work on multiple fixed frequency channels, the top version implies that most can only use a single channel. Second, this is not present in the article body, violating MOS:INTRO. The use of multiple channels is already mentioned in the second intro paragraph; scanners here is WP:undue weight. The edit to the unsourced lead sentence fixes the erroneous implication that not all transceivers can transmit and receive - this is the definition of transceiver. --ChetvornoTALK 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC) --ChetvornoTALK 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Early two-way radios used variable frequency tuners (essentially a tuned inductor/capacitor combination). Quartz crystal tuners were introduced and these limited the channels to the number of crystals used and provided stable frequencies that did not need much adjustment by the users. Different frequencies would be selected by switching crystals. It wasn't until the advent of more sophisticated frequency synthesiser tuners that multiple crystal based frequencies were involved and scanning frequencies was a much later innovation. The Crystal Radio Systems cite is focused on current technology and this seems to be a possible reason for the confusion. The mention of that AM cite from Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be based on a conflation of two-way radios with walkie-talkies. It is also contradicted by the history in the article. The geeksforgeeks cite looks rather spammy (a content farm kind of link). The second version is more accurate and makes more sense. Jmccormac (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Chetvorno, does your insistence on inserting the word "usually" into the passage come from the source cited at the end of the passage, yes or no?
- Does your assertion on how two-way radios work, and your claim that including the passage you moved would be "misleading" come from the cited sources, including the ones you added, yes or no?
- Your edit left the passage "In contrast to a broadcast receiver, which only receives transmissions." without a citation. Please tell me why you did this.
- You cited as a source Page 811 of The Modern Dictionary of Electronics, but the link you added only takes the reader to that book's cover. Scrolling down to Page 811, we see that the definition given for two-way radio consists entirely of this: "Radiotelephone communications between fixed points (base stations) and portable units." Can you please explain how this justifies removing the passage you moved to the article body, or leaving that fragment without a citation? Nightscream (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Usually is a no-brainer. It is not a hill to take a stand upon. Constant314 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- If that's true, then why does the cited source not indicate that?
- Including that indicates that it is not always the case. Shouldn't this be elaborated both with an explanation, and a citation for it, per policy? Nightscream (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The cited source doesn't even contain the word duplex. Constant314 (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The cited source that contains it is this one, which Chetvorno removed from the lede, which is one of the reasons for this dispute.
- Didn't you look through the edit history to familiarize yourself with what he and Fountains have been doing to the article? Nightscream (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- That source doesn't mention radio. Constant314 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you think it's referring to?
- In any event, if you believe the word duplex should not be included in the article because the source doesn't say "radio", does that mean you believe the same thing about the word "usually", which is not in any cited source for the passage in question? Nightscream (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am just trying to guess what you see in that source that makes you want to remove the word "usually". I don't see anything that says two-way radio uses simplex in that source. All I see in that source is the definition of simplex. If you have a source that says duplex is never used or that simplex is always used, then it would make sense to remove the word "usually". Until then, usually means that we don't have a source that unequivocally says that only simplex is used for two-way radio. I am not particularly attached to the word "usually", as long as the text does not imply that simplex is always used. Constant314 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Constant314: I see in the source that it does not say "usually", nor otherwise indicate this. That's why it should not be included per policy. We need sources for the inclusion of material, and not removal. We do not include material based on editor's knowledge/experience/analysis, per WP:NOR. Do you dispute this? Omitting it would simply conform to that source, without any allusion to either "usually" or "always", the latter of which was not presented nor implied by the policy-compliant version of the passage.
- If there is a policy-based argument for that word's inclusion, or a rationale argument to ignore policy in this case, then why does Chetvorno refuse to provide it when asked for it?
- And may I ask what is your reaction to my pointing out that the source that Chetvorno removed indeed mentions radio? You didn't respond to that above. Do you dispute this? Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The second version makes sense. The first version ignores the development of two-way radios and has some problems. The contrast of the receive-only capability of a broadcast receiver helps distinguish two-way radios from simple receivers. The first version appeared dependent on an interpretation of that Crystal Radio Systems citation which only applied to modern two-way radios and seems to be advertising copy. The "valid transmission" phrase seems to be a product of that and is misleading. There is rarely any validation of transmissions outside of digital radio. With scanning analogue two-way radios, the scan will stop on a channel if the signal strength (or even noise) on that channel is over a preset level. The phrase "valid transmission" suggested that there is some analysis of the content of the transmission. Jmccormac (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmccormac: Does this come from the cited source, or is it your personal knowledge? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The "valid transmisson" phrase comes from the cited source. It goes on to mention trunked radio Trunked_radio_system and this may be the source of the confusion of analogue radio with a digital radio system and the "valid transmission" phrase. This is separate to the historical problems in the article like the addition of the AM radio citation which is contradicted by the History section. This is due to two-way radio being reduced to, or simply confused with, walkie-talkies. The cited source seems to be written as advertising copy (which in itself is problematic as an RS). On reading it, there are even some similarities with the Wikipedia article but it is also a bit more comprehensive in places. I'm not sure if some additions to the WP article are, in places, a partial synthesis of the cited source. Jmccormac (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmccormac: Agree with your posts that the history section is completely erroneous. Two way radio began with the development of amplitude modulation following the invention of the first continuous wave radio transmitters and rectifying detectors around 1904. I don't really mind the introduction being limited to modern crystal controlled two-way radios that use fixed channels; that's all there is now. It's just that that sentence was poorly written and unnecessary. I'll probably rewrite the history section when I get time, if no one else has. --ChetvornoTALK 01:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Chetvorno: Can you respond to my questions above? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- A good history section would clear up a lot of the problems with the article. Jmccormac (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would clear up a lot of the problems with this article.
- That includes conducting a discussion with straightforwardness, honesty, and transparency, which means directly responding to questions and arguments posed by others, rather than going silent, as you all have when I flat-out ask you about these matters here.
- Saying that these problems would be solved by "a good history section" ignores this point. It also ignores the fact that the entire article is largely one of history, so saying that it needs a "section" to this effect makes little sense.
- "The "valid transmisson" phrase comes from the cited source."
- I'm not talking about the "valid transmission" phrase. I'm talking about the points I raised above upon which this dispute hinges. Did you not read them? Where in the sources does it say "usually", which Chetvorno inserted into a passage? What aspect of the cited source justifies Chetvorno's removing an entire passage that helps define the term to the article body, and leaving that fragment without a citation? I asked these questions above, and thus far, none of you have answered this. Can you please explain this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- A good history section versus a bad history section. The reference to the Galvin AM two-way radio system is ahead of the history section and is contradicted later by the history section. The history section should cover the development of two-way radio from the first 1923 reference to the present. The use of crystal tuning and then crystal based synthesisers in modern two-radios could be mentioned as part of the development and it this way the basic introduction would not have any problems. The Crystal Radio Systems document is more comprehensive than the article in places but it was used in a manner that muddled what should be a basic introduction and ignored the development of two-way radio systems. There was a discontinuity between what was supposed to be a basic introduction and the rest of the article with the citation in that place. Apart from the similarity between the article and the CRS article, there is a problem with advertising copy being used as an RS. No technology ever appears fully developed. The use of the CRS citation and mention of crystal tuning in the introduction effectively made it appear to people not clicking on the citation as if two-way radios using modern technology appeared fully developed. A simple introduction followed by a good history section on the development of two-way radio would make things far more understandable. Jmccormac (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- None of which addresses the policy violations prompting this discussion.
- But if you feel there is a problem with some aspect of the article apart from those that prompted this discussion, then why not fix them? Nightscream (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the difference ...?
[edit]... between a tranceiver and a two-way radio? This is not a joke! - Roxy the dog 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Probably just a historical one at this stage. In the early days of radio, transmitters and receivers would have been separate pieces of equipment. A transceiver would have been an integration of the two with the transmitter and receiver in the same case as the technology evolved. Jmccormac (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)