Talk:Signaling (telecommunications)

dab?

This does not appear to be a disambiguation page. It seems to be a poorly written article. It wasn't tagged as a dab until the cleanup tag was added. I do believe cleanup is necessary, but do not believe it is a dab. Tedernst | talk 02:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe not! I added the tag as I was trying to disambiguate various signal page links... but I'm not sure what this page is. I'll accept it if you say it's not a dab. - grubber 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I wrote most of the article I may be blind to its shortcomings, but having just reread it some months later I'm not sure what the problem is. My intended structure was a definition section, followed by a classification section (defining the axes of classification) and then a section describing how some of these axes of classification are either or not orthogonal. Don't pull your punches; I can take it :-). Let me also say that it is indeed not a disambiguation page. JanCeuleers 08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized!

I reorganized some of the information (headings and the such) and when I get home from vacation I plan on correcting and improving it further. (I'm on a HipTop2, so I can't do much information-wise.

--Nelson 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources vs See alsos

I'm (Jim.henderson 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)) and the following is taken from my talk page:

Hi - I changed the "Sources" subheading to a "See also" subheading to unify the style of this article with other articles. The items in the list are internal articles. It makes sense that they be included as related articles.

Your edit summary for the change back to "Sources" states that those articles "say nothing about signaling". If this is true, maybe it would be prudent to remove them. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 07:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply in more detail in the article's talk page later today, but Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188 are basically dictionaries, thus their Wikipedia articles don't discuss specific items defined in the dictionaries. The idea of a "Sources" section is to say where the article originated, which for a great many little articles is these dictionaries. Jim.henderson 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have hit the main points in my paragraph of some hours ago. Anyway, for a little more detail, a "See also" or "Further reading" section is to direct attention to information related to the topic covered by the present article, in which the reader may take an interest. A "Sources" or "Reference" section, on the other hand, is not for getting more information. It's for telling the reader where the information in this article came from, or where to verify it. In the present case, the government dictionaries are terse and supply no more information on this topic than is already in the article. We provide a link to Wikipedia articles that describe these dictionaries, so the interested reader can understand what kinds of sources they are. As it happens, this article says a lot more about signalling than the dictionaries do, and in turn the dictionaries say more than the Wikipedia articles about them do. We'd be glad to get further "Sources" or "References" for this information, but I see no reason to delete the skimpy source citations that we've got or mislabel them as supplying further information. Jim.henderson 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I think that it would be more appropriate for WP to have this article as Signaling (telecommunications), that is, the American English spelling, with a redirect from the British English (well, non-American English) spelling. Also, it would make sense to use the American English spelling consistently throughout the article. This is a general topic, not something like Signalling System No. 7, where even the ANSI standards use the British English spelling. Thoughts? — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same and had already a version spelled accordingly, but didn't install it, thinking someone might invoke first author privileges. Kbrose (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, see WP:ENGVAR. I see you've already changed the article, so I won't revert it. But remember, yours is not the only spelling - what looks odd to you looks normal to me, and vice-versa. The Wikipedia policy seems sensible - follow the first author, unless there are strong reasons not to (British spelling in an article about California would seem out-of-place), and always be consistent throughout the article. Please stop forcing American spelling. GyroMagician (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the move as well. Signalling is acceptable in American English. I believe it would make more sense to use signalling as it is then acceptable in both forms of the language. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, the article was originally started with one l and per WP:ENGVAR it should stay at that name unless there is a compelling reason to change it. There has not been any discussion that says it should be moved to the two l version of the word. GB fan (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to change the spelling, please conduct a significant discussion first (probably an WP:RFC with notifications at relevant wikiprojects).

The current situation has the defects that some articles use UK and some use US spellings, although that may be unavoidable since the alternative of deciding which is "right" would definitely not help the encyclopedia. I created a list of the articles that were recently changed at User talk:Johnuniq#Summary (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Old topic, but independant of how the WP article is named it should be at least mentioned that organizations like ITU-T or ETSI tend to use the BE spelling (I think it was Bernard Shaw who once joked that England and the US are the only two nations divided by a common language). - 84.159.113.183 (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have marked this as an {{American English}} article and removed the discussion in the lead about one L or two. Readers interested in how to spell correctly should be consulting a dictionary. ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Merging proposal

Can this entry be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(electrical_engineering)? I think it deals on the same thing (lectrical signals carrying information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.27.5 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, although it would fall into some subcontext in that page. Signaling is a heavy discipline in telecomm and needs its own entry - hopefully the current page can be improved. Sillyvalley (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does In Band Signaling have its own page and Out Of Band Signaling does not?

This page does not give much info on out of band signaling. 71.173.24.76 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only that. The link on OOB signaling in this page redirects back to this page, which is cyclic. Looking at other pages, there seem to be several other pages discussing out-of-band telecom subjects, not necessarily falling into the scope of signaling. This is going to confuse a hell lot of people. Sillyvalley (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the circular reference. ~Kvng (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Concerned.

I have a concern about the definition of Out of Band signalling. The definition given refers to Common Channel Signalling. In a telephony channel, which is nominally a 4 kHz channel there is a pass band of 300-3,400 Hz. This is the pass Band referred to, which a frequency is either In or Out of. If signalling is 2,400 Hz, 2,600 Hz, C4, C5, 2,280 Hz or 500/20 Hz these are In band. If signalling is dc or earth/loop or 25 Hz it is outside the pass band and will require another piece of equipment to move into the pass band. If it is 3,825 Hz it is Out of Band and we are using E&M to drive it. If signalling is C6 or C7 it is somewhere else, and so not an Associated Channel Signalling (ACS) method.

Sorry I used English spelling here, in Talk, for Signalling but that matters little in discussion. We were always used to adopting many of the US signalling methods into the UK and Europe before we went away and got our own. There were good reasons why the US got in there first with 2,600 Hz SF for example.

Europe had a system CEPT R2 using a 3,825 Hz SF frequency, whose SF tone was never heard because it only existed between the Channel Translating Equipment which derived the E&M. This was more often used for Inter-Switch Trunks between International Switching Centres in European cities. E&M was also derived in the Multi-Frame rotation of TS16 in a 2 Mbit/s CAS link or the robbed bit in the frame of a 1.5 Mbit/s link. As multiplexers became easily available scope was widened to make asymmetrical link designs in order to be more creative. E&M from 3,825 Hz was in a very few occasions used for signalling between terminals in private networks and private circuits.

A lot of the science of using Signalling Systems referred to private circuits for voice, FXO/FXS, inter-PBX, etc. This does seem a bit historic now with the facilities of the WWW and the latest mobile phone Apps. The article does need a bit of re-jigging maybe to separate signalling for inter-switch trunks and private circuit telephony but is it worth it ? It's all very ancient now. This was big in the 1970s to 1990s when I used to do it for a living. I could go on about this sort of thing for ages, but is anyone going to be interested ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Hour (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge from Signaling protocol

The concept and protocols can and should be covered in a single article. ~Kvng (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)