Talk:Chappe telegraph

Requested move 2 June 2023

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: moved. - Just to clarify, the second "support" comment from the nom was not considered. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 13:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Telegraph Chappe → Chappe telegraph – English rather than French word ordering, as was already used in the lead sentence. Srleffler (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no good reason to move the article and none has been put forward. We don't slavishly translate into English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:ENGLISHTITLE says "article titles are written using the English language". Note also that from the beginning, the body of the article used "Chappe telegraph" rather than "telegraph Chappe" to refer to these towers. The current article title appears to be a simple mistake arising from its origin as a translation from the French Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get further consensus. – MaterialWorks 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: No English-language sources have been identified that use the current title phrase, and at least one of the English-language sources cited in the article and a caption in this BBC article use the suggested title. The suggested word order is indeed more natural in English. The current title isn't French either – that would be Télégraphe Chappe – so it is unclear where the current title came from. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, in case anyone is counting. (I proposed the move.)--Srleffler (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your support is implied. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Reverted changes

I reverted a change to the Coding and Deciphering section:

List of numerical values of Chappe signals. Document preserved in the museum of Saint-Marcan.

The code was based on different configurations of the moving parts of the telegraph. The combinations of codepoints is 96 in total, of which 92 have been used according to the table on the left. The number of codepoints can be determined in the following way:

• the regulator can be vertical or horizontal.
• there can either be only one or two indicators visible.
• In the case of only one visible indicator 12 codepoints are possible:

The angle A of the indicator with the regulator can be sharp, right or blunt (3 possiblities), the height H of the indicator can be high or low (2 possiblities) and it's sidedness S can be right or left (2 possiblities). Thus the Information can be given the form AHS with every combination possible and an ordering being done from right to left, thus having 3 x 2 x 2 = 12 possiblities.

• In the case of two visible indicators, 36 codepoints are visible.

The above angle A1 can be sharp, blunt or right (this time differing in order from the one-indicator case above), the indicators can be on the same side or opposite from each other (let's call it the Opposition factor O), the second indicator can have an angle A2 which can be sharp, right or blunt (in that order) and the sidedness S of the above indicator can be right or left. Thus it can be given the form A1OA2S, with all combinations possible and the ordering done from right to left, yielding 3 x 2 x 3 x 2 = 36 possiblities.

• Onefold and twofold indicator together sums up to 48 possible combinations
• The twofold orientation of the regulator gives us 2 x 48 = 96 different codepoints

This version is a lot more complicated, but doesn't really add anything. It's just harder to understand. It also removed a reference and an image, and dropped some information, such as that some of the extra signals were used for service purposes. It may be original research.

The math is the same either way: there are seven possible positions for each indicator. In the language of the passage above they are sharp-left, sharp-right, right-left, right-right, blunt-left, blunt-right, and not visible (indicator in line with the regulator). Since the regulator has two positions, there are 7×7×2 = 98 or (6 + 6 + 6×6 + 1)×2 = 98 configurations. The text above neglects the two configurations where neither indicator is visible, and so ends up with 96 rather than 98.-- Srleffler (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It indeed is 'original research'. I tried to understand the coding scheme in the picture, where only 92 signs are shown. Thus I started elaborating on it, getting to a different conclusion above, describing the combinations of independant factors and their ordering much more precisely as the original, which in my eyes, doesn't explain it's claim of 7 x 7 x 2, which seems bizarre too, and in my opinion came to a false conclusion of 98 possibilities.

That the "math is the same either way" is simply not true, because it is very well relevant how different signal elements are combined, thus e.g. 90 + 8 also giving the same result, but not at all describing the method applied and creating irritation. Forthermore I , based on my analysis of the left picture, came to the differing conclusion of 96 combinatorial possibilities. That may have been a premature conclusion and not backed by further research. Removing the image was not done by purpose. The reference, by contrary provided the false and deceitful information I tried to replace above.

In total, I find very well that by contribution gives additional information, and that the information I replaced is at least misleading and incomplete. --Utonsal (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. We don't allow articles to be written based on original research. They must be based on references. What you did is a great example of why: you attempted to figure out the signalling yourself, got it wrong, and then deleted the reference because it disagreed with your incorrect analysis. That is not okay.

I agree that it is relevant how different signal elements are combined. 90+8 would not represent the signal configurations. Reread what I wrote above. 7 × 7 × 2 does correctly represent all the possible signal configurations, including the two you missed.--Srleffler (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)