Talk:Radio/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

20th Century

Just leaving a note that the chronology of this section is just all over the place and is generally quite a mess. Manys (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The following passage is unacceptable and has to be deeply reviewed and rewritten if not radically reduced since it is based on POV interpretation and it is not shared by the scientific community:
"... In 1943 the United States Supreme Court invalidated one of the Marconi patents, number 763,772 (1904), on the basis it had been anticipated by Tesla, Lodge, and others. After years of patent battles by Marconi's company, the United States Supreme Court, in the 1943 case "Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States", held regarding the priority of engineering advances concerning the invention of radio that "[but] it is now held that in the important advance upon his basic patent Marconi did nothing that had not already been seen and disclosed".[18][19] [20] Although Marconi claimed that he had no knowledge of prior art taken from Tesla's patents, the Supreme Court considered his claim false.[21] In addition to the June 21, 1943 ruling made by the supreme court, the United States Court of Claims also invalidated the fundamental earlier 1935 Marconi patent .[22] This case defined radio by the statement: "A radio communication system requires two tuned circuits each at the transmitter and receiver, all four tuned to the same frequency."[23] The court determined that Tesla's patent clearly was the first to disclose a system which could be used for wireless communication of intelligible messages (such as human voice and music) and used the four-circuit tuned combination.[24]..."
The supreme court was not called upon to give a decision regarding the paternity of the radio invention and the judges never put in doubt the primacy and the originality of the first complete radio system built by Marconi, and they never stated that Tesla or others invented the radio and not Marconi. This what the judges said: “[…]Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent” and “[..] To find in 1943 that what Marconi did really did not promote the progress of science because it had been anticipated is more than a mirage of hindsight. Magnagr (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Radio communication system talks entirely about ...radio. The subject of this article. Perhaps, if it's all right with you, we should merge these two articles so as not to waste the reader's time skipping about trying to piece together a coherent overview of the subject. Of course, giving due copyright attribution where legally required...--Wtshymanski (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well merged Wtshymanski! Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've often observed that we make the reader reassemble the broken souvenier ashtray of knowledge by gluing together the splinters of fact combed out of the deep shag carpet that is Wikipedia. Two shards are now stuck together. For now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition in lead

"Radio is the transmission of signals through free space by modulation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies below those of visible light."

So a radio set can use signals using infra red radiation just below visible light? I would like to see an example. In fact I will tag the claim as 'dubious' and unless an example is provided, a more modest claim will be added. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So how would you phrase this? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

car radios

My 1990 car's radio only goes to 1620AM. Were there improvements after that which allowed AM frequencies to go up to 1700? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.127.87 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Guglielmo Marconi?

I am surprised that there is even a discussion around the paternity of the radio invention that is worldwide recognized as belonging to Guglielmo Marconi. This is one more example of how twisted is the information found on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.67 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally share your thought. I've been trying for a long time to restablish the historic truth about the radio invention, but all my attempts seem vain either if I back my informations with the most authoritative sources or I fully explain my position on the Talk section of the article: I'm alway regularly blocked. The basic position imposed in all the articles regarding the radio and his invention is: Tesla invented it and Marconi was just a fraudster. This is a historic "monstruosity": Tesla should deserve just a line and not more in any article regarding the radio considering his contribution to the development of the invention, while Marconi should be the main protagonist. In all the wiki article happens exactly the opposite. Just to remember you that just few months ago Marconi in the "History of radio" was briefly remembered as: HE COMMERCIALIZED THE RADIO
I've never read in any other inventions article that the inventor who devised it shouldn't get too much credit because he didn't invent nothing new since he used components and idea developed by others. It would be like reading in the Wright brother article that they didn't do anything new because the propeller and the wings had already invented or that Ferdinad Benz shouldn't be credited with the creation of the first car because the internal combustion engine and the wheels (maybe invented by Tesla too) had already been conceived. This denigratory approach is used only for Marconi and is totally scientifically groundless. Marconi's apparatus was totally original and didn't have nothing to share with that one of Tesla of anyone else, yet it was not possible for me to explain the technical difference between the Marconi and Tesla systems. My dear, it's a hopeless battle. I'm just sorry for all the young people getting wrong informations after reading all the articles regarding the radio in wikipedia.....Magnagr (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Magnagr stop discrediting tesla i see that you are trying same thing on tesla page,please stop doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.3.146 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Read this article and then you'll realize who is the real one to be discredited. This article is just a ridicolous and scientifically groundless apology of Tesla against Marconi. Tesla never built any radio apparatus, his radio apparatus description on paper was something simply technologically ridicolous. He should barely be mentioned while in this article appears as the major player. In Tesla article I just remembered Galileo Ferraris, the real induction motor inventor, who was not even mentioned, where is the Tesla discrediting? I don't fake history of science and technology as many are used to....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In Tesla article I just remembered Galileo Ferraris, the real induction motor inventor???? Do you now anything about tesla? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.14.165 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

am vs fm wave graphic

a week ago there was a B&W .gif that I felt far better illustrated the "feel" of the difference between fm & am. Although it was a 25-frame (or whatever) .gif it was much more organic than the animation up now (Friday 7-19-13 4:15pm EDT). I am writing a manual on RF and wanted to include a link to this wiki page but now don't feel like it's as obvious as it was before. I like the fact that color within the image now discerns the difference between am & fm, but the increased resolution actually decreases the impact of the idea... in my opinion of course...

Thanks, Andy Smart andy.smart@livestream.com

It would be helpful to show the graphics in question here (in Talk:), if it still remains accessible in Wikimedia Commons. Also, please sign your Talk comments in accordance with WP:SIGNATURE. Reify-tech (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why Meucci was the real inventor of the telephone

This document substantiates the belief that Bell copied Meucci's invention. It is difficult to give to Bell the paternity of the invention.

http://www.chezbasilio.org/immagini/meucci-bell.pdf --Magnagr (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of place patent cases

rv'ed this restoration of material. The minutiae of court cases about patents 40-45 years after the fact are out of place in a short timeline. If we need more material about Marconi please integrate the material into the Marconi section (as I did here diff). The material in question contains primary sources, biased sources, or no source at all so please do not add it back in without fulfilling WP:BURDEN first. We have a well developed Invention of radio sub-article that covers this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Marconi was very, very important in radio, he first commercialised it, he had key patents which swung in the balance and so forth. Without the patent discussion he gets one sentence. I don't buy the 'we have a history of radio' article argument either. This article has to be balanced on its own. If you want to summarise it down that might be acceptable, but simply removing it is ahistorical.GliderMaven (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you reading the same article? Marconi has four paragraphs, not one sentence, including "Marconi's experimental apparatus proved to be the first engineering complete, commercially successful radio transmission system.". The material being removed does not pass WP:RS since it consists of a primary source, a primary source, a patent history (but not a history of radio), an unreliable Indain ham radio website, a "Tesla" source, and a primary source. The last paragraph makes many claims but only has one source. Also the cases in question were not about the "invention" of radio[1], but instead about related patents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I don't think you can entirely remove the patent battles from the article. You seem to be alone in wanting to do that. Given that, I have reverted the article to the consensus position. I don't have a problem with reducing the amount of material on the patent battles, but it's wrong to take it out completely.GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring WP:BURDEN but we will skip that. I will simply move the material that can be matched to reference to context and cleanup the redundant material (there is allot of it). If more can be referenced please add it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Single Sideband

I have a handbook "Radio Communication Its History and Development" by W.T. O'Dea, dated 1934, published by the Science Museum, London (H.M.S.O.). On page 54 "Single Sideband Transmission" it cites..

a) A.T. & T Corporation and International Western Electric as demonstrating an SSB speech transmision from New York to London in 1922. b) The British Post Office opened a public trans-Atlantic telephone service on this system in 1927 at their Rugby station with a transmitter installed by Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd which radiated on 5130 metres.

Consequently, I think the claim in the article, that radio amateurs invented SSB in the 1930s, is incorrect.RadioCheck (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

non-communication radio

Radio communication redirects here. This indeed seems to be the main focus. But there's a creep up of non-communication uses of radio: Navigation, Heating, Radar, etc. So I propose moving these elsewhere (e.g., radio waves, radio spectrum#application, etc.) and requesting the article to be renamed to its redirect. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some ITU Terms and Definitions:

  • Radiocommunication: "Telecommunication by means of radio waves" [pleashttp://www.itu.int/ITU-R/asp/terminology-definition.asp?lang=en&rlink={9909E104-6FAA-4C2B-9DE4-1B37823B6754}]
  • Broadcasting: "A form of unidirectional telecommunication intended for a large number of users having appropriate receiving facilities, and carried out by means of radio or by cable networks. Note - In English, it should be assumed that 'broadcasting by radio waves' is intended where the word 'broadcasting' is used without qualification, unless the context indicates the contrary." [2]

So radio communication is understood to include one-way radio broadcast and two-way radio communication.

Specific proposals:

If I don't hear anything, I'll proceed with the moves above. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are two definitions from authoritative sources demonstrating how "radio" alone, as in the present article's title, is not supposed to mean anything specific:

  • Radio: "A general term applied to the use of radio waves. Pertaining to the use of radio waves." [3] ITU-R
  • Radio: "pertaining to the use of radio waves" [4] IEC
Problem noticed here. This article is ill defined as just "Radio" - many things are radio and communication is one of them. Allot of the stuff listed under the History of radio and Invention of radio are actually history of Radio waves. The one biggy that is a stopper to moving this article is WP:COMMONNAME, everybody calls the communication stuff "radio"[5]. So on the fence leaning towards keeping communication at this article title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Well, even "radio communication" doesn't necessarily mean radio-intervened human communication. So we have two main concepts, Radio communication and Radio science and technology:

Radio could redirect to radio broadcasting, as this is the most common usage. Radio communication shall become a disambiguation page. The current version of radio would be renamed to radio science and technology. Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a great reason for splitting or redirecting or for other reasons making this a non article. Yes, in common usage there is a divergence between "radio" in the scientific sense of a particular radiation band (with many technological uses thanks to more than a century of thoughtful engineering), and "radio" in the narrow, pop-culture sense of its use for sound broadcasting. At present the article mostly deals with applications rather than science, and treats each application lightly, with links to detail articles. This method might be carried out more comprehensively and precisely, moving more material to the other articles, but I don't see a reason for an alternative approach. Jim.henderson 16:21, 21 November 2014‎
@Jim.henderson and Fountains of Bryn Mawr: The main current problem is that most incoming links think they're pointing to Radio (pop culture) when in reality the present article has grown into Radio (technology). They serve two different communities. Radio can redirect to Radio broadcasting, the most common usage; but I urge the separation of this WP:Chimera. The bad impact is seen for example in History of radio -- which "radio"? Without a title suffix, people will keep assuming that "everybody knows what a 'radio' is." Fgnievinski (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Still tired from real-life adventure last night, and doing more catching up than serious thinking. Anyway, incoming links can be sent to appropriate places. Several are really about a radio program in which case no automatic method will work and they need correction anyway. Bulking up the existing Radio wave might appeal to those who want a separate article about radio theory and engineering. What definitely does not appeal to me, is making another article without first examining existing ones for possible realignment.

health effects

shouldn't it be here somewhere? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In the narrow sense, radio is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, and the general topic seems adequately covered at Electromagnetic radiation and health. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edison and Hughes

Per this edit and this edit, Wikipedia is based on current historical research, not interpretations of 1899 sources or 19th or early 20th century observations/conclusions reached by participants in some discovery. Also supporting source supplied here (History of Wireless) clearly states Hughes work was "similar to Edison's", that both were radio, and does not support the wording "others' claims are disputed". Current historical consensus that Edison, Hughes, and even Thomson/Houston were detecting electromagnetic waves (radio) is quite clear. Besides the "ieeeghn.org, IEEE Global History Network, Etheric Force" source supplied see:

  • Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling page 831
  • History of Wireless by T. K. Sarkar, Robert Mailloux, Arthur A. Oliner, M. Salazar-Palma, Dipak L. Sengupta page 259
  • Power Struggles: Scientific Authority and the Creation of Practical Electricity Before Edison By Michael B. Schiffer page 287
  • George Westinghouse: Gentle Genius By Quentin R. Skrabec page 100
  • The Business of Electronics: A Concise History By Anand Kumar Sethi page 22
  • The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World By Randall E. Stross page 47

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that the link I originally provided and which you reference here implies that Edison was the first to investigate radio waves. 'Similar to' can mean any number of things, and it's pretty clearly stated earlier in that same book that Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson (who later accredited Hughes with the discovery of radio waves) 'proved the same year that the sparks were actually oscillatory high-frequency electric currents'. Also, none of those books with the exception of the one I originally linked to are scientific textbooks or were written by scientists. But all of this is beside the point anyway, as according to this source here [6] on page 829 Edison wasn't even the first to notice the spark, and it had commonly been observed by telegraph operators for decades before. Plus, I have another source [7] which agrees with me that 'Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct' hence why I described Edison's claim as 'disputed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where I stated Edison was the first. None of the people mentioned "investigated radio waves", they all, for one reason or another, miss-identified what they were observing. Historical matters are covered by historians, not specifically "scientists", and some of the authors cited here and in the article have electronic/engineering backgrounds. We again seem to be referencing a very old (1910) source and "Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct'" refers to their claim that Edison's apparatus could not rule out induction and therefor was not a scientific proof. It is not a statement that Edison did not detect electromagnetic waves (most agree he did). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is 'most'? I can barely find any references to Edison and his work with regards to radio or his 'etheric force' outside of that IEEE article you linked to. I hardly think this qualifies as a consensus. I suggest you find an expert to verify your claims that Edison was transmitting electromagnetic waves (I've already made posts on several forums asking for an expert to weigh in on this debate).SQMeaner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can always start with the W. Bernard Carlson reference cited (7 pages on it) and maybe Christopher H. Sterling? If professors with Ph.Ds are not enough not sure what you are looking for. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a link written by a Michael E. Gorman here [8] and here [9] which also backs up my claim that Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves. He is also a university professor with a phD, so it still basically comes down to your word against mine. Furthermore, I did a bit of digging and found another useful link called 'Observations of electromagnetic waves before Hertz' [10] by Charles Susskind, who was, of course, a professor of electrical engineering at UC Berkeley. It goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, and apparently Luigi Galvani was the first to notice a spark caused by an electromagnetic wave in 1780. You should probably update the radio page to reflect this. Also, before you bring it up, I did notice Edison was mentioned in the article and I would like to draw your attention to the statement that E. Thomson did refute Edison on page 36. Furthermore, I seem to have found another link from the same site you originally based your edit on here [11] which states that Edison's hypothesis was 'was in 1876 experimentally disproved by Eli Thompson'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your right, Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves (as stated by me several times), but his experiment was producing electromagnetic waves as stated by me and Michael E. Gorman (please read the article) i.e. "no connection was made with Maxwell's theories". You seem to keep missing the point that "Edison's hypothesis" was not electromagnetic waves so that was not what Eli Thompson was trying to disprove, in 1876 tests for electromagnetism were non-existent. Thompson's disproof was to build an apparatus that showed two opposite induced currents did not spark (had polarity) so were caused by induction. This turned out to be a faulty "proof of induction". 1876 was 12 years before Hertz so what Thompson realized, later in life, was the sparks were being caused by electromagnetism and when he inserted sheets of metal to balance his circuits he accidental constructed a tuned radio circuit. That is what caused the behavior in the sparks, not induction (please see "Innovation as a Social Process: Elihu Thomson and the Rise of General Electric" By W. Bernard Carlson, page 62). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I contacted Thomas A. White (the guy who did the Nikola Tesla article) and according to him Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison did discover radio waves but they were not the first to do so. Could you please change the wording of the history section of the radio article and the radio timeline article to reflect the fact that they were not the first, as to me both of those articles in their current state seem to pretty heavily imply that Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison were the first to discover radio waves.SQMeaner (talk)
I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. His sources are more authoritative. Even if they weren't, SQMeaner, the sources you quote do not seem to state that Hughes and Edison did not discover radio waves, only that they did not recognise what they were. --ChetvornoTALK 02:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding people to the list of "pre-Hertz observations" would be a good idea, within limits, we are getting into the world of WP:SYNC. It can and should be added straight away to Timeline of radio, it is just a list, Susskind and History of Wireless look like good sources (I recommended keeping that LIST article just because its a good place to flesh out missed items that could then be WP:SYNC'ed with Invention of radio (a bit out of sync right now). Radio may not need this information at all, it is a short summary and currently follows Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling at this point. We could probably make Radio a little more "true" with the sentences:
  • "In 1873 James Clerk Maxwell showed mathematically that electromagnetic waves could propagate through free space. The effects of electromagnetic waves (usual unexplained action at a distance sparking behavior) were actually observed before and after Maxwell work by many inventors and experimenters including Luigi Galvani (1789), Joseph Henry (1842), Edwin Houston, Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison (1875) and David Edward Hughes (1878). Edison giving the the effect the name "etheric force" and Hughes went as far as building a wireless transmitter and receiver, but none could identify what cased the phenomenon and it was usually written off as electromagnetic induction."
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
So do you think an edit should be made and, if you do, who should do it?SQMeaner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like consensus and a good anti-bureaucratic move ;) so added it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic induction

The article cites magnetic induction as a type of radio heating, but magnetic induction has nothing to do with radio waves. It's a magnetic field that crosses the boundaries, not radio waves - DesmondW (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Luis Sanchez y Jennifer Suarez

 Esta es la historia de dos estupidos que solo se quieren para tener sexo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolchica (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction not adequate summary of article

The definition in the introduction seems to be limited to radio communication, sending information across space from a transmitter to a receiver (although I think its a very good introduction to communication). However the article includes other uses of radio besides communication: radiolocation, radio navigation beacons, GPS, radar. I think the introduction should be expanded to mention these other uses. --ChetvornoTALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Also I think the short Heating section should be deleted. RF heating is not called "radio". --ChetvornoTALK 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea for cleanup, maybe a lead-def of "Radio refers to technologies that use radio waves, such as communication, navigation, and detection". A WP:LEAD paragraph to summarize the article looks a little difficult because the sectioning needs rationalization. Right now it reads:
  • Etymology
  • Processes (a section on communication systems)
  • Communication systems
  • History
  • Uses of radio (mostly describing communication systems)
The body of the article should probably be reorganized. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at definitions of "radio" in sources, there are a number that use the word "transmission": "the transmission of radio waves through the air or space" or "technology relating to the transmission and reception of radio wave signals" [12], [13]. These definitions seem to limit the term to the uses you mention -- they exclude local uses of radio waves which are not typically called "radio", such as radio frequency heating used in industrial processes and microwave ovens, radio wave spectroscopy and material characterization, medical diathermy and hyperthermia, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electrodeless fluorescent lamps, and radio frequency oscillators in scientific equipment like atomic clocks, mass spectrometers, and particle accelerators. I could probably live with your definition, but I think one of these might be better. What do you think?
Definitely agree article should be reorganized. It seems to me there is too much uneven technical detail. Maybe it should be WP:SUMMARYSTYLE? A short section giving a brief overview of radio technology, then a list of radio articles? By the way, I have a comprehensive list of applications of radio (User:Chetvorno/work11#Uses_of_radio), organized by function, that I was working on for this article. Maybe this could be in the body? --ChetvornoTALK 18:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sounds like a good idea to me since its such a broad term "Radio". Getting the article into line with what you sketched out looks good. My lead-def is rough, yeah, maybe stick with what RS calls "radio" and come up with a better def there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite

Completely rewrote article. Changes I made:

  • Converted it to mostly WP:SUMMARYSTYLE as agreed in previous thread, with a small initial overview and theory section, followed by a comprehensive list of applications, with a paragraph explaining each.
  • Broadened definition of radio in introduction as discussed in previous thread, to include noncommunication uses such as radar, beacons, radio navigation systems, remote control and remote sensing, and radio astronomy.
  • Added sections on Regulation and the importance of bandwidth
  • Tried to improve the inconsistent uneven coverage of the subject
  • Since we already have plenty of articles on the history of radio, and all the space in this article is required for applications, I think this article should not include history. Removed the text in the "History" section and replaced with links. (I'm having second thoughts about this. Please give me your input)

Will be adding more sources in future. These are big changes; I'd like to hear what you all think. --ChetvornoTALK 03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I like history sections. An overview at least would be necessary here. I don't like pages and pages of bullet points. Could this text be written more as a narrative summary, and less like the Power Point Presentation from Hell ? We don't need to give all the details if we have linked articles to point at; the interested reader (with a surfeit of time on her hands) can click through to the good bits. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm okay with restoring the History section, but I hope we can keep it short.
It was agreed in the previous section that the article should have a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE organization, rather than the narrative style you suggest. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE specifies that articles about broad topics should be written in an outline form, consisting of subsections describing each Wikipedia subarticle within the main topic, each containing a summary paragraph and a link to the article. That is the way the "Applications" section is organized. The reason I used a bulleted list is because its indentation reveals the multiple levels of subarticles within the topics better than Wikipedia section headings would.
The descriptions probably could be improved and shortened. However I like the indented format to handle the large number of applications of radio. I feel that your recent rewrite [14] of part of the "Broadcasting" section is less readable and comprehensible than the previous bulleted version [15], your version just comes across as a big block of text. --ChetvornoTALK 18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Even a Power Point presentation comes with narration. Bulleted lists are not a wholesome way to write so much of an article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

Notices the Etymology section is currently an essay based on observation of primary sources. Needs some cleanup. Noaccountaccount (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit to intro gives undue weight to Tesla

The recent unsourced edit to the introduction, saying Nikola Tesla "invented" radio, is an erroneous reading of history promoted by Tesla fan websites. The reliable sources linked below give the true story:

The first Morse code radio communication system was invented by Marconi in 1894; it didn't use Tesla's circuit and had nothing to do with Tesla.[16] While Tesla did invent the resonant transformer (Tesla coil) which was used in the first long distance radio transmitters and receivers,[17] the famous "four circuit" system, and used it in some radio wave transmission experiments, he was mainly interested in wireless power and never developed a radio communication system.[18][19][20][21][22] Oliver Lodge,[23] John Stone Stone,[24] and Karl Ferdinand Braun[25] applied this circuit to radio.[26][27] The 1943 US Supreme Court decision did not "award the patent" to Tesla, it just invalidated Marconi's patent, mostly due to Lodge's and Stone's prior patents.[28][29] No one person "invented" radio; it was a collaborative achievement.[30] A detailed, thoroughly sourced explanation of the contribution of these people to radio is at Spark-gap transmitter#Inductive coupling. --ChetvornoTALK 17:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted addition. --ChetvornoTALK 21:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Audio visual material

List of these audiovisual materials Geesoul (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tesla Nonsense

"It's interesting to note that Marconi's first successful test was using a Tesla coil".

This is nonsense. Marconi's early tests used a simple induction coil known as a Ruhmkorff coil. Nothing remotely to do with Tesla. I have removed this spurious claim Gutta Percha (talk)

Audiovisual materials 

Geesoul (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"B93 Birthday Bash" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect B93 Birthday Bash. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#B93 Birthday Bash until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hörfunk" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hörfunk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Hörfunk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Regular Radio" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Regular Radio. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Regular Radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Am fm radio" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Am fm radio. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Am fm radio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion is closed and the result was to redirect AM/FM radio to Tuner (radio). It seems strange to redirect a type of radio to an article about a component of a radio. It seems to me the appropriate redirect would be Radio receiver; that is where AM/FM radios are described. --ChetvornoTALK 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Chetvorno, I agree Radio receiver is a better target. I would support WP:BOLDly changing this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. --ChetvornoTALK 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

List?

Large parts of this article seem to be in list form. Should it be converted more towards prose? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You and I talked about this in this thread. My feeling is that the number of applications and subindustries within radio justified a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE list structure in the "Applications" section for clarity. When you get 3-4 levels deep, the Wikipedia section headings don't do a good job of visually distinguishing what sections are inside other sections. But other editors on this page have disagreed. --ChetvornoTALK 21:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Stepanovich Popov

He is not mentioned Moribundum (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's because you haven't added him yet.
Be bold and add it, just as long as you follow Wikipedia requirement that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. And if you need help composing citations, or with some other aspect of editing, let us know! Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
+1 to the request to add Popov as an independent inventor of a "radio" as in "a box to receive radio waves". Even if user Fountains of Bryn Mawr says "A lightning detector seems to have been the best use Popov could find for these short range waves."; it does not cancel the fact Popov have successfully achieved something without dealing with Marconi. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Popov's "radio", a coherer detector, was a copy of one he read about (demonstrated and published by Oliver Lodge). So its not his invention, he was just making modified versions of it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
As I have already spent my Sanity points to improve the general article on Radio, I'll skip this discussion as I would have spend my next Saturday in my library. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing by section

I agree with others that it's preferable to work on sourcing the live article text. If the content was obvious nonsense, fringe, erroneous, etc. I would not contest the mass deletions. But in this case, the content is quite uncontroversial and largely accurate - it just needs sources added. I started to add citations to the "Radio communication" section the other day, but was thwarted due to edit conflicts by others working on the same section. I suggest we let each other know which sections we're working on to avoid edit conflicts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

While editing, you can always put the {{in use}} template at the top of the article, but please remember to remove it when you are done. If working on a section, use its little brother {{in use|section}}.
If you are performing a series of edits, you can put {{Under construction}} at the top of the article as a flag to advise others that work is being actively undertaken. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Good idea, wilco --ChetvornoTALK 14:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, good suggestion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was able to make some progress adding sources, but only at the rate of a few paragraphs per day. I could not go any faster, most will agree this type of work takes time. But now with these mass deletions of uncited text from the article, it's needlessly made more difficult to add needed cites while keeping track of duplicate citations. I'm certainly not a "serial policy violator" and it's sad to see other editors disparaged this way. Sorry, but I won't be working on the article again until the situation is resolved and the disruption ends. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Restored it, hopefully it stays that way. It really is disruption. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
If the edit war chaos has subsided, I'll be putting more time into sourcing, working from the bottom up. Unfortunately I can't complete it all in one sitting, so I will have to do it over a series of days. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Finished adding missing sources. Hopefully this issue is now resolved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, LuckyLouie — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
EDITED OUT I had a somewhat non-related issue with the article; fixed it. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Too much text without good photos

OK, I have fixed one little designy stylie issue: the article had been out of any photos of household radios. Also, there was neither modern 5G smarties nor 1990's cellies with good ol' antennas (even though there was an Apple smartphone... with some picture on its screen, oh my copyrighties!) Профессор кислых щей (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The photo in question
OK, that's an old IPhone, and there's a navigation app on the screen. Could have been used for the section on GPS rather than one for cellphones. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radio/Archive_2&oldid=1221735926"