Template:Did you know nominations/Frequency modulation encoding
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Frequency modulation encoding
- ... that early floppy disks used FM encoding that used only half the available storage? Source: Wakeman pg 1
- Comment: I added this with the DYK tool when I uploaded, but it seems it never got posted to the DYK nom page. Trying again...
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).
This seems to be exactly the same topic as that of a much older article, differential Manchester encoding. I have tagged both articles for a proposed merge. As such, I think it is ineligible for DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- "is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- "That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- While we're repeating stuff we've already said, maybe I should repeat that the first sentence of Frequency modulation encoding states that FM encoding "is a type of run length limited code". If you don't want to think the article is about a type of code, maybe you shouldn't say in the first sentence that it is about a type of code? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I am now stating for the third time, this article is not about the code, it is about the entire system of which DFE is used for one part. I have made several changes to the text to make this distinction clear and you haven't commented on any of them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- But it's the same code, used for the same basic purpose (maintaining synch). How is it notable for two articles rather than just one? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- "That describes it as a code" ... in a specific setting. I have added words to this effect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- "is a simple type of run length limited code". That describes it as a code. It is the same code as the one described in differential Manchester encoding. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: The lead sentence of the article is "Frequency Modulation encoding, or simply FM, is a simple type of run length limited code that saw widespread use in early floppy disk drives and hard disk drives." I see nothing like "it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10" and I think it clearly indicates the field is disk storage. I have added a link to DME in the appropriate location and I assume from the wording of your reply that the merge tag can now be removed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The lead sentence of the article says that it is about the code 0 → 01, 1 → 10, and mentions its usage in multiple applications. If it is intended to be only about the way floppy disks were formatted using this code, and not about the code itself, I think it needs significant rewriting to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: FM is a specific implementation of DME in the same fashion that MFM is a different specific implementation of DME. FM referrs to both the encoding of the individual data bits as well as the disk format and the header timing signals. I believe this is well explained in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
By all means, suggest alternative phrasing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did a preliminary NPP review and have similar concerns plus others. I'm posting separately at that page. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The wording has been changed multiple times to address David's concern and I have changed it yet again in an effort to avoid the issue, hopefully successfully. North8000's concerns have been addressed on the talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Thank you, Maury Markowitz, for a great nostalgic article. The article was created on 3 April, and the nom was posted on 10 April, but I accept the explanation given above - it's only three days out, anyway, and you have waited three months for a final review. And hooray, Earwig is working for me today, so you get a non-AGF attestation of zero plagiarism. The citation for the hook is right at the bottom of page 1 of the Wakeman citation. I am satisfied that the article is about system and storage, and not just code, and that mention of the code in the body text is merely a means of explaining the system and storage issues. I have been using a PC since 1982 (by which time we had the smaller floppies) but I'm not expert, and I did need the mention of 0101010's etc. to explain storage and system. Ah, those were the days - Mortville Manor on a floppy, having to use the keyboard to make the Lemmings jump ... (shut up, Storye book). Just one issue: QPQ please? Storye book (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Storye book: "Earwig is working for me today" - ohhh, it wasn't just me... QPQ is Richard Peck (RAF officer) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
. Thank you, Maury Markowitz. Good to go (at last!) Storye book (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)