Talk:Invention of radio
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invention of radio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invention of radio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
split Later radio development-Early radio development
Article needs to be WP:SPLIT into Later radio development and Early radio development.--J. D. Redding 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think a better idea would be to cut the detail and make the article more about what it was a month ago. The details of what each inventor did can be put into their own bios. Otherwise, you're going to have a big mess deciding what to put into which article, and both will remain bloated. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreeing (scalpel in hand). Hertz1888 (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Pruning needed
I removed a few kB, mostly long-winded unsourced passages in refs where they don't belong. But every part of this article has become bloated, making it a big job to even identify what to work on. Please do work on pruning away the less relevant bits, and we'll see if we can get the size trend reversed... Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Can the prune hat-tag be removed? Should be ... very little activity to "prune". Pruning isn't needed. The article needs to be split. J. D. Redding 14:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments on radio developers comparison
1)Tesla sent early radio transmission on 1893? It was not a long distance radio transmission, this aspect should highlighted, the experience was nothing new or worth mentioning. Put in this way it seems that was Tesla to achieve first successful radio-transmission, WHICH IS NOT TRUE!!!
2)""".....Many of Marconi's system components were developed by others.[270] According to the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, the Marconi instruments were tested around 1899 and the tests concerning his wireless system found that the "[...] coherer, principle of which was discovered some twenty years ago, [was] the only electrical instrument or device contained in the apparatus that is at all new".[271] Oliver Lodge claimed British patent of 1900 to contain his own ideas which he failed to patent.His 1901 transatlantic transmission is disputed.... """ Should we rely on the US naval institute as main source, c'mon? Branly, before Marconi's experiment, never made researches on hertzian waves, while Righi or Lodge didn't think about a practical utilization of the hertzian waves for radio-transmission since the maximum range was not suitable for telegraphic transmission. Marconi didn't use hertzian oscillators or Tesla coils in his apparatus. Only the Marconi's oscillator could reach 150 or 200 picofarad compared to the 5 of traditional hertzian oscillators!! The statements that many of Marconi's were developed by others is just a denigratory and pointless affirmation. It was only Marconi who invented the radio!!! You just show his invention as a banal assembling of things invented by others, SO BANAL THAT ONLY AFTER 1899 OTHER SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULTS OBTAINED BY MARCONI !!!! Magnagr (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Written Like a Novel Instead of an Article
One must read this article for a very, very long time before finding out who actually invented voice-carried radio. This is how novels work, or perhaps feature-length magazine articles, but not encyclopedic articles like those found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia standards (much in line with the standards for any encyclopedic writing) the first line of the article should immediately tell you who developed voice-carried radio, and then (later in the article) go on to fill in the (key, not exhaustive) historical details. 98.245.168.93 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Marconi
Can somebody provide a source for "In 1943, a lawsuit regarding Marconi's early United States radio patents were resolved by the United States Supreme Court, who overturned most of these." ?
I read somewhere that the Supreme court never overturned his main patent "U.S. Patent RE11,913", but only the later ones. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.181.11 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found a source and changed it ...
- C-Class Radio articles
- Top-importance Radio articles
- WikiProject Radio articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (technology and engineering) articles
- Technology and engineering in Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (mass media) articles
- Mass media in Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Mid-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
- Wikipedia controversial topics