Talk:Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Journalism This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
A Wikipedian removed Television from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Add a link?

Does anyone think that we should add a link to the following site? [http://earlyhistory.googlepages.com/historyoftheearlytelevision History of the Early Television] - Please give your reasons as to why or why not! Thanks! West wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

As before - same reason - Because it does not cite it's sources, doesn't add anything already in Wikipedia, the site is non-notable i.e. it hasn't been cited as an authority by other reliable sources and it's authors are completely unknown. In fact if I google for earlyhistory googlepages com I get nothing. Please read WP:WEB (under criteria), WP:RS (e.g. Non-scholarly sources) and WP:NOTABLE and ideally please solve this one link first before you start posting to all the other entries you've been trying to make. Ttiotsw 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile phone TV

"Both mobile phone networks and the internet are capable of carrying video streams. There is already a fair amount of internet TV, while mobile phone TV is planned to become mainstream, if it can be effectively sold, early in 2006."

This technology will not be mainstream for some time to come (except maybe in Japan and surrounding countries)... It requires over-the-air digital TV broadcast which is not available in most countries (I don't think analogue TV will be adopted by cell phones, especially due to technical limitation - movement, autonomy, etc...). This phrase is outdated and shoud be revised... I'll try and improve it a bit... maybe someone can cleanup after me ;) --nunocordeiro 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaxial RF - All audio

Would be worth noting that originally this method only supported analogue video and mono analogue audio. Around 15 years ago digital stereo audio has been broadcasted and transmitted via coaxial RF along side the mono analogue audio signal. It’s called Nicam stereo that although is linked later in the article, deserves to have a mention under this subtitle.

[edit] History/Philosophy: Poor. There is an almighty lack of information in this "Television" wiki article.

This page needs some serious work. Surely it's in an embryonic stage? But why? This is TELEVISION! There is no history, nothing...! Why? Reasons how and why it was invented? Who 'stumbled accross' and decided to fund such a 'device'. [etc, etc]

I feel left in the dark here! Shame on the wiki contributors.

Well, you know the answer, Mr. 86.10.221.125 - Wikipedia:Be Bold and fix it. I admit I was surprised that all the history got moved - I think an overview article should at least touch on the history. --Wtshymanski 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc Comments

From the article: "A typical resolution of 800x600 means that the television display has 800 pixels across and 600 pixels on the vertical axis". I'd be surprised if the 'average' TV picture tube could manage 640*480, but that's irrelevant. Analogue TV doesn't use 'pixels'; if we're going to talk TV resolution, I wonder if someone more knowledgable could include details of analogue resolution. Fun stuff, try to contain your boundless enthusiasm for bandwidth, S/N ratios, and exactly how you discern 'lines' reliably. 203.129.39.20 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) FM

Yea resolution is kind of thrown around in the article sloppily, analogue systems use vertical lines as a measurement of resolution, while digital systems use pixels (1080p is I believe 1920x1080 px) --71.113.167.60 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What should be the distance between the TV screen and the viewer; I want to know the formula for calculation for different screen sizes.

HR Shenoy What does FTA mean?

Re: "On average, Americans watch four hours of television per day." I find that hard to believe...could anyone please verify? anon 03:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It should be cited, but I don't know if it's that hard to believe. Some demographics watch a whole lot of TV: retirees, stay-at-home parents, children, college students. Rhobite 03:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see that as very believable (Did I spell that right?). I watch a ton of TV a day. That could be because I'm just lazy, but I think most Americans watch more than that, especially with the obesity "epidemic"--Nathand42 02:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re. middle eastern Television. Isn't Al-Jazeera in Arabic? The current text makes it appear as though Al-Jazeera is broadcast in English. To the best of my knowledge, they were planning on an English language channel aimed at a North American audience but currently the only English language content they have is on their website. RJ

Re. television stations and networks. Much of what's listed on the Stations page are production companies and syndicators. A network (US) is an entity that provides programs to individual television stations, which, in the US, are only licensed to broadcast in their specific locales. Each network can a specific number--used to be 8--of "O & O's", stations it owns and operates, usually in the big markets.

Satellite and cable have created changes. Broadcast stations in an area can sign up to be carried on cable, but content providers like the Learning Channel can too. They aren't licensed to run broadcast equipment like a station and they don't provide content to licensed broadcasters either. AMT

That's interesting info. Why not add it to the main page?

What about the future of tv? like iptv or the shifting change to online tv Also maybe a rundown of popular international channels, right now it just briefly lists a few channels that are mostly US or UK based - Bth

This is a page that's well overdue for a major shake up. We probably need a new topic: Television programmes a-z. We probably need a Television personalities topic as well. And a Television programme categories topic for e.g. TV cookery, TV gardening etc. sjc

I think you're correct on all points. KQ

I'd like to see some date on the historical TV show. e.g. 1967-1971 etc.

Wallace and Grommit are essentially television. They had their big break in TV. Until the film, they were quite content with a quiet life in the UK appearing on Bank Holidays. They will always be a staple of wet Bank Holiday Mondays in my mind. Of course, Hollywood may go to their heads... sjc

Article says:

Color television became available in 1953, backed by the CBS network. The government approved the color broadcast system proposed by CBS, but when RCA came up with a system that did not require changes to the old black and white TV sets, CBS dropped their own proposal and used the new one.

Those two sentences are US-centric, to a greater or lesser degree. Was the CBS network the first in the world, or just the U.S.? Also, I presume by the RCA system you mean NTSC? -- SJK

someone could try looking on this page. Sorry I don't have time right now. [1] --rmhermen

Is it realistic to list every TV station/network here?

In the U.S., these are called networks, not stations.

I was under the impression that a television network was something more than a station (singular), that with syndication, different states and so on...?

My understanding is that some stations in a the networks are Owned and Operated stations, others are independent, but still part of the overall network. Calicocat 15:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stations are members of networks or are independent in the U.S.A.

I don't know how to create disambiguation pages, or I'd do it myself (is there some special magic, or is it just a question of changing the page around?), but perhaps we need "TV" to separate between "television" and "transvestite"??? -Bth

Is there a standard for whether to disambiguate TV program/series names by adding "(television)", "(TV series)", "(TV program)", or whatever, that I've overlooked? -- John Owens 13:07 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think regularity has been enforced, but personally I suspect "(television)" is the way to go. --Brion

Why does the top of the article say that the first electronic television programming was in Los Angeles in 1931 while the section of TV sets says the first was Germany in 1935. Rmhermen 18:14, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

In the early days, there was a competition between the Baird and Marconi systems in the UK. Needs adding. I might later. Andy G 16:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The list of European networks is totally inadequate. Who on earth thinks that there's one country? Even Iceland has two.--JBellis 16:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One Q. Should there be mention of the pot harmful soc fx of media concentration & TV's abil to push propaganda? Progs aren't controlled by viewers, but by advertisers, & viewers've zero say. Cf Chomsky. Also, OK ref fact mfg CRTs for radar in WW2, & train radar repair techs, fx TV devel postwar? Trekphiler 16:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to color television in the history section leads right back to the television article. I doubt this loop is useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.128.188 (talk • contribs).

Changed link from "color television" to "color". Accurizer 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] electromechanical TV

The article states that Boris Rosing and Vladimir Zworykin demonstrated their TV system ... is that true? I am surprised they had the technology to make that work so early. I wonder if they merely proposed the system but didn't in fact demonstrate it? Infilms

Sure they did, so long as you understand "demonstrate" to mean " flickering hand-synchronized stationary image on the other side of the lab" and not "We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor." See the book "Tube" for more. --Wtshymanski 22:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
E.F.W. Alexanderson had "hand synchronized" tv very early. The system was a mechanical scanning disc, and the synchronization could drift if the transmitter and receiver were powered by electric distribution systems which were not strictly in-phase.Edison 05:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] licence fee

The United Kingdom chose a different route, imposing a television licence fee (effectively a tax) to fund the BBC (emphasis added)

As I understand it, it is a fee, not a tax: it's paid only by the people who directly benefit (as opposed to, say, the government funding public education with my money).

However, I'm in the US, and things don't work like that here at all, so I don't know -- and I'm not really willing to learn. --Charles A. L. 16:44, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC) You are right it was POV --BozMo 21:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)

Germany, also, charges for radios and televisions and just began charging for "internet capable" PCs, not merely "internet connected."[2] Kwantus 19:24, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

This misleadingly implies that the UK is unusual in having a licence system. All (or virtually all) countries in Europe have similar systems. See [3] for comparisons of systems. As a matter of interest, Iceland is the most expensive and Romania the cheapest. Also TV licensing in the UK grew out out of radio licensing in the as, I'd expect it did elsewhere. Many countres still have separate radio licenses. Singapore has licences for TVs and for radios in vehicles. --JBellis 15:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] aspect ratio

"A common compromise is to shoot or create material at an aspect ratio of 14:9, and to lose some image at each side for 4:3 presentation, and some image at top and bottom for 16:9 presentation."

I believe this is wrong, at least as far as Britain is concerned. Here programmes are shot in 16:9 for digital and displayed at 14:9 in analogue, losing a bit of the picture at the sides and having narrow black bands at the top and bottom. I have seen no evidence of programmes being made in 14:9 and losing detail from the top and bottom for 16:9 transmission. Lee M 03:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there something like a 16:10 ratio, maybe by TV set manufacturers (I think remembering something like that), although I wouldn't know what good for. But maybe that'd just be some of this 14:9 stuff. --Newbie (CH) 17:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BBC

BBC: "state broadcaster"? I'm not sure the BBC is a "state broadcaster" in the same that broadcasters elsewhere are. True, it's content is more extensively controlled by the establishment than commercial channels in the UK (see BBC's Royal Charter), but this doesn't mean it broadcasts on behalf of the government. According to the BBC article, "is a national publicly-funded broadcaster." Whoever wrote this, please consider revising it. And yes, we Brits are very sensitive about our Beeb! pomegranate 23:34, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the BBC IS a "State broadcasting system" because it and it alone was converted from an exclusive commercial monopoly licensed by the government to a Crown chartered broadcasting corporation. The fees paid by viewers (used to include listeners) and they are not voluntary like the PBS/NPR system in the USA.
If you don't pay your "fee" you can go to gaol/jail! This is not a true "fee" but a tax that must be paid if you own a television set and it does not matter whether you hate the BBC and only watch Sky TV, because if you have a TV set the government will send out its detection police to force you to pay up or else!
Myth surrounds the BBC because it is supported by brainwashing that it is the best system in the world: I for one say that it is the worst system in the world. Before anyone attacks me I was born in Britain, went to school in Britain, suffered with the BBC in Britain and at the half-way point in my life I packed up and moved to the USA! Yes, I have friends in Britain, yes I keep in contact and yes I am and have been very involved in both journalism and broadcasting with regards to Britain and the subject of free speech.
I wrote all of that as a disclaimer so that I don't have to write it in the future when someone decides that I don't understand and appreciate the value of the BBC. That is subjective nonsense. As far as objective entries are concerned, the BBC needs to be separated into the catagory of state broadcasting.
By the way, the commercial stations in Britain are not set up in the way that the US commercial stations are licensed and the restrictions are much tighter, hence the UK has always been plagued with pirate unlicensed radio from both offshore and on land. MPLX/MH 00:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are Joshea98 and I claim my £5. -- Picapica 21:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No numerical prefix

It has been rumored by a few Wikipedians that this word is in either of these categories:

  1. Combines a Greek numerical prefix with a Latin suffix
  2. Combines a Latin numerical prefix with a Greek suffix

It is neither. It has no numerical prefix. Where did they get the idea that it is one of these 2 types of words?? 66.245.72.116 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did you hear this rumour?? I have heard (not on wikipedia) that the word combines a Green prefix and Latin suffix, or vice versa, but it obviously doesn't have a numerical suffix! [edit: or numerical prefix -- 23:22, 17 Sep 2004 ] -- Chuq 02:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are no restrictions for the suffix; the prefix has to be numerical. 66.245.16.193 15:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To make sure you know this, I heard this when someone created a Wikipedia article called Sexagon as another name for hexagon. 66.245.127.112 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Queens Coronation

Removed from main page: (wasn't the Queen's coronation broadcast in colour in the 50's?) No it was filmed in colour and broadcaast in B&W, hence if the reshoew the film it will appear as colour Dainamo 10:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] That's perhaps the ugliest television set I've seen

Don't you have a better picture? - Jerryseinfeld 01:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aaargh - a better picture is urgent! Intrigue 22:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Replaced it with a good PD image that sets up the social aspects, which this article barely addresses yet. --Dhartung | Talk 11:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see that awful graphic is gone... -- Scott Burley 18:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of a picture of a modern TV? Someone's got to have one! Intrigue 20:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Section organization

I reordered sections to introduce some sanity (bring related things together, mainly) and open up some obvious areas of future expansion. There are still mucho problems, though, especially a lot of interplay between History and Technology that could use some sorting. Looks like 'TV set' is probably the original article, and the other stuff has grown up around it? Anyway, is History really the way to start this out? We probably need a good, terse Overview section at the top (after the lead). I still think this is far from Featured Article status. It's more in need of sitting on the Expansion pile or maybe eventually Peer Review. --Dhartung | Talk 11:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers

I guess this article does need a "dangers" section, but it doesn't need to be the lead section. The current version is a start but it's very POV. Rhobite 04:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relative importance of sections

Hello, I am glad that at least *something* is left of my efforts! But seriously, the headers need to stay, this is obviously embryonic but it is a framework for others to build upon. The issues are all too real. My first reaction in reading the article on tv was "You've got to be kidding!" Here is the most important social factor to have arisen in the last half-century, and there is *no* discussion of social and psychological issues, and what space there is for that is tacked on as an after thought?!
The article reads like a piece written by a machine-head for a machine-head, ok in a tech encyclopedia, but here?!
Suggestion: let's break out the tech talk and tech history and tech geographical usage into a separate article, leaving the main article with *legible* abstracts of all three and with an emphasis on the social aspects of the thing. We are not talking about oscilloscopes here. The real story of televison is the effect is has, good and bad, on modern society. The rest is apocrypha. Haiduc 11:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you really think it ought to be the first thing in the article? You seem to be against television in general. I agree that the social consequences of television, both positive and negative, need to be explored in the article. But certainly not before the history of the invention. Rhobite 20:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
It should probably be organized as follows:
Overview of Television
Technology of Television
History of Television
Social implications
Misc

--Improv 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here I am "agin' it" because the piece is hopelessly skewed. The problem here is that the history and technology are so extensive that they drown out the rest of the material. The subject is vast, so that the most sensible way is for the main page to act as a hub with short abstracts leading to the various individual entries -
  • History of Television
  • Social Implications of Television [pro and con]
  • Technology of Television
  • Television Broadcast Networks, [etc, etc.]

Improv's suggestion of "Overview of Television" would be subsumed in the hub page itself. Do we implement? Haiduc 23:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The technical information and details of the invention should be in this article, including the paragraphs about the social impact of television. If someone want to write more than a couple paragraphs, the social topics should be branched out to their own article. History and technology should stay in the main article. Geographical-specific information, which is probably half of the current article, also be branched to its own article. Rhobite 23:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Is it possible to "subdue" some of the detail but give an overview, & link to more detailed pages? A wholesale look at the social fx needn't be here (but more needs to be said, somewhere!), & the detail on aspect ratios & such need not be here, either (say, a "TV Tech" page?). Thoughts? Trekphiler 16:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem of today's society is television. More people are spending much of their time sitting around watching television then studying or being active. THus, the term "couch potato". On controversal issue is children's exposure to television. Research has shown that as the hours of television exposure increases, a students grades will decrease. As a parent, i limit my children from watching too much television and as a result, their grades have improved and they are being more active in the community. Pballer247 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for TV sets.

IMO this artcile should be about the medium, culture, and so on. A separate arctle should be made specifically to talk about the device: television set. --Berkut 07:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong agree: All the history, technology, and geographical stuff is a distraction that should be reduced and put later in the article. I would organize sections like

Television Genres

  Drama
  News
  Sports
  Comedy
  Reality
  etc.

Production, Distribution, and Broadcasting

  Production
     Development
     Pre-Production
     Principal Photography
     Post-Production
  Distribution
     Studio Companies
     DVDs
  Broadcasting
     Networks
     Cable Networks
     Syndication
  Format (series, mini-series, movie for TV, etc.)
  Advertising

Television in Society Technology History and Culture

  Early History
  United States
  Britain
  etc.

Each of the subsections should be short, linking to other articles. The point is that the article should discuss the aspects of television that people deal with in their daily lives. History is merely context for the subject, it is not the subject itself. (I.e. history is when, technology is how, culture is where, but the what of content and genre is more useful and the who of production and why are more interesting.) Avt tor 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than respond to this dead two-year-old proposal, you might be wise to start a new one. But proposing to take over the main article name television for your own favoriate aspect or interpretation of the term is probably not going to fly. Why not instead clean it up as a good overview article with dispatching to television sets, television history, television programming, etc.? It's kind of an awkward mix at present. Dicklyon 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about television studies?

There's a social aspects-chapter, but it stays mainly at recent comments. Seeing how entire studies are dealing with the subject, shouldn't there at least be a part about Williams, Fiske & Hartley or Hall's ideas about television? Some of their pages briefly touch the subject, but I feel that the total coverage is way too low. Does somebody has the time for this?

[edit] Test Patterns

Does WP have anything about TV test patterns/ I can't seem to find anything. Jaberwocky6669 June 30, 2005 00:35 (UTC)

Do you mean like List of BBC test cards ?

[edit] controversial Maori Television Service

The article states: The New Zealand government also funds the controversial Maori Television Service with the aim of putting Maori language and culture on New Zealand television screens

Is it really controversial and if so, why? --Colin Angus Mackay 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

how can a television service that is intended to preserve a culture be controversial (unless people object to paying for a television service that is in a language they don't understand)

[edit] Organization, cOlor and Camarena , moved caution

Although he was obviously an important television pioneer, I don't think Camarena can be credited with the "first" color TV system - his used a rotating disk, which killed the CBS system, too. Is there a cite for the "unplug your set" caution? Seems far fetched nd I'd never heard of this till I read it here. --Wtshymanski 02:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] band spam

How many people come here looking for the band televisionm? almost none I suspect. So I have removed the clever spamming of this band at the top of this very popular and highly mirrored page. See Talk:The Bill#Polish punk rock band for a similar case, SqueakBox 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough I was going to suggest that such a link at the top be added until I saw your comment. I don't think this is quite the same case as what you cited since Television is a relatively well known band. I definitely don't want to make a case out of this though. Threepounds 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see they are more famous than the Bill. No idea what, if any, policy wikipedia has on this, SqueakBox 13:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Famous? Never heard of either of 'em. Trekphiler 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern TV

Article states

"Although the discoveries of Nipkow, Rosing, Baird and others were extraordinary, little of their technology is used in modern television."

Does this need to be amended now? As there are a lot of electromechanical TV's gaining prominence via DLP, utilising lightbulbs, mirrors and spinning colour wheels.

Jason

217.33.118.34 12:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the incredibly fast rate of development in modern tv I think this article needs a lot of work on it just to keep up to date, SqueakBox 13:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody feel brave enough to predict the future of TV? 3D? Holo? Interactive? ("Photons, Be Free!"?) Trekphiler 16:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly as a first sign of a coming technological singularity no-one even in the media business really feels able to predict what is going to happen in as little as 2 or 3 years time, which is why a big player like Rupert Murdoch is so nervous in spite of large sums of money in the bank. I do know I can now get video phone to the quality of not very good tv picture with my parents 6,000 miles away (for free) and that is something I could not do this time last week. When the future becomes unpredictable it is a sign of technological singularity, SqueakBox 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I reckon interactive first, followed by 3D and then holo. I also think that displays will become flexible like paper that you can roll up or put into a magazine lol.

Jason.

I agree about holo. I hope the next time I am "in" England it will be while sitting in the luxury of my own office here in Central America. If a technological singularity does occur my guess is most people will dedicate their lives to more sophisticated versions of what we call video games. We are seeing the merging of these with films for the first time and I am sure they will merge with tv before too much longer, SqueakBox 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

I guess I must be the only person who read this article -- which I admit has an admirable amount of material & covers a lot of ground -- who is disturbed that there are so few references for what appears here? Facts are given, people quoted, opinions offered, yet nowhere are we given the information needed to verify them. (In one passage, Scientific American is cited as a source, with only the date of the magazine -- but not the author or title of the article quoted -- to help the reader verify the material.) It would be a great improvement to this article if this work were done. -- llywrch 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section about "Marvin Middlemark"

This guy has virtually zero importance so I removed the little section about him, he doesnt even have a main page so he's obviously a nobody.

RobertDahlstrom 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RobertDahlstrom, What evidence do you use to support your claim "This guy has virtually zero importance" besides that there isn’t a main page on him? I think you don’t realize the importance of the TV antenna, without the advent of this, TV DOES NOT become popular in the United States at the rate is grew. The Antenna made television available in large scale to millions of sets around the world. Also, Mervin Middlemark is also the man who converted his rabbit ears antenna for use in space, and was used as the main communication line between NASA and the original space missions. I would do some research before calling someone a nobody based on that you cant find a "main page" on the guy. Doing research is not that hard. Adveragejoe 11:34, 1 January 2006

[edit] Who's on first?

Von_Ardenne demonstrated the first completely electronic television (using a "flying spot scanner") in Berlin in 1931 vs on August 25, 1934, at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Farnsworth gave the world's first public demonstration of a working, all-electronic television system. Now what?Kar98 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Define "working all-electronic television system" - a flying spot scanner, unless very large, would not be useful for actors. Any human invention more complex than a pointed rock has had innumerable "inventors" and contributors and it's uttlerly pointless to say who had the "first" in a system as complex as television. --Wtshymanski 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
flying spot scanner means exactly fark-all to me. I was merely quoting from two different Wikipedia articles both claiming to talk about the first fully electronic TV system and asked for clarification Kar98 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Von Ardenne's flying spot scanner system could reproduce only film, not live images. The definition of television used for this Wikipedia article is the transmission of live, moving, halftone images. As this website says,
Manfred von Ardenne, like some others, made a distinction between, "telecinema" and "true television". His experimental apparatus belonged more to the first category. This is based on his method of scanning with the Braun tube: a cathode ray is produced in the tube; it is focused in a so-called Wehnelt cylinder; its intensity is controlled, and it is guided line by line across the fluorescent screen by vertical and horizontal deflector plates. A light spot emerges that scans the frames of a cinema film and is transmitted to a photoelectric cell. This means that it is the cinema film that is passed on into the distance by electric means.
Farnsworth's system demonstrated in 1934 was all-electronic, and transmitted live, moving, halftone images. — Walloon 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed credit for Daniel Brookes in history. I do not find that name in the main article on TV history. Added Jenkins and Baird, who are in that article and are generally credited with successful mechanical TV broadcasts. Changed date for Nipkow to 1884, the year for which his patent gives priority, as opposed to 1885 when the patent was granted. Flying spot scanners could be used for live actors. The illumination could be scanned onto the subject, with a photomultiplier tube as the pickup.Edison 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that publications, museum displays and school teachings on television history tend to be ethnocentric. American pubications emphasize Farnsworth & Zworykin (sp?), German ones emphasize Nipkow, Ardenne and the 1935 broadcasts, British ones emphasize Baird and the early BBC activities, and each will more or less ignore most of what happened outside of their own country. People brought up with such one-sided presentations tend to have the same ethnocentric viewpoint, often without realizing it.

The fact is that several countries were ahead in television technology in the 1920s and 30s, and they were more or less on par. These include the US, UK, France, Germany, Soviet Union, Japan and Italy. Each had its own technical contributions, its own little "firsts", but the entire system we know as television today is a combination of many inventions from many countries.

So the question "Who was first" is more or less pointless. The answer depends on your criteria. First invention? First practical demonstration? First electronic system? First cathod ray tube? First electronic camera? First official broadcast service? Each of these questions yield a different answer. The aforementioned ethnocentric publications will of course only ask those kind of questions that gives an answer they like. :) Anorak2 12:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) The NBC/GE broadcasts in NY in 1939 would seem very modern if we could watch them today. Commercials, remotes, news, sports, drama, movies, broadcast electronically to 40 miles or more, with fm sound. Edison 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The 1936 BBC service actually began with both the two systems alternating during the day (though after winning a coin-toss Baird's actually had the honour of inaugaurating the service). Baird had nagged the government (which licensed the airwaves) to direct the BBC to start the service and his system was to be tested alongside EMI-Marconi's for six months, but the latter immediately proved superior reliability. Baird's system was dropped after only four months and he never recovered. --Straw Cat 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Media events" redirection should be removed

Who had this not-so-great idea to redirect "media events" to "television"? You must be joking. Furthermore, the television article provides no information on the idea of "media events". Please consider removing this redirection so ppl can start writing sth substantial on the "media events" page.--89.51.131.14 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Please do it. Kittybrewster 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What

What is that called when a channel is off air and it shows a red and yellow and white and blue screen with a high frequency beep? --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A testcard. Anorak2 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it contains many sections that are missing, incomplete or very short. It also has only one reference and an unnecessary amount of italicised text at the top of the page. As for specific suggestions:

  • The new developments should be moved to the "See also" section if they are relevant (or discussed in the article if they are especially relevant).
  • The "Add-ons" section should be eliminated or discussed in a single paragraph of the article.
  • The "Social aspects" section should be rewritten in a more concise form.
  • The "Content" section should be reconsidered or removed.
  • The "Geographical usage" section should be removed and the list placed as a "See also".
  • More discussion of the technology and standards that make television work should be included. This includes discussing things like PAL, NTSC, DVB, ATSC, analogue QAM, OFDM, YUV, etc.
  • The "Aspect ratio" section specifically the incompatibilities part should be trimmed.

Feel free to resubmit when most of these concerns have been addressed. Cedars 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First television

This article is typical for USA and England. The first real functionating TV was - maybe sorry for you - in Germany to look at. A lot of work is to make at this article. 80.136.238.221 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply us with details of what you are talking about. John Logie Baird gave a public demonstration of television in January 1926. Several American television stations were broadcasting in 1928. Can you give any German examples before 1929? — Walloon 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
John Logie Baird was Scottish, not English. I refuse to take anyone seriously if they cannot make that distinction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clydey (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 March 2007.

[edit] Average hours spent in front of the TV - Countries compared

Does anyone know of statistics listing the average amount of hours spent in from of television for each country? --A Sunshade Lust 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some effects television brings

Excerpts needing rewrite:

-" A recent research reveals that there are two kinds of waves existing our brains- one is alpha waves and another is beta waves."... "Beta waves are in charge of we humam beings' consciousness and intellection." .."Therefore, because the brain is lack of beta waves, the activity of the brain is giong to decline, and people is just like being put into a state of hypnogenesis. In this case, the intellection and attetion will decrease."

This section needs verifiable sources and contains factual errors. Berger described alpha and beta waves in the 1920's so it was not "A recent research." See http://www.biocybernaut.com/about/brainwaves/EEG.htm It also needs correction of spelling and grammar. I do not see why it belongs in the tv article at this point, since it seems speculative. Any reliable article or book on brain waves shows that Alpha waves may reflect relaxation, and are a transient phenomenon: they disappear as soon as you stop relaxing. The section implies that the effect is persistent. I expect that alpha versus beta elicited by a tv show depends on the content of the show. Discussion of removal? I'm relatively new to Wiki and not sure how to proceed when I see a section that looks like it doesn't belong in the article.Edison 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It reads like original research to me. There should be verifiable sources, in relation to television as used here. Otherwise it should be removed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If it were simply poorly written, I would suggest that someone just rewrite it. But since there are (potential) factual errors, simple removal is justified. And Edison, in the future I'd say be bold in editing and reverting. If you think it may be iffy you can always justify your actions in the talk page or the edit summary. If you ever want help, just hit up my talk page. Hope you enjoy editing here, and welcome! Carl.bunderson 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture

could someone put a picture of a British Television on rather than that ugly grey box (if i had a telly like that i would'nt watch it!)

[edit] Adoption

Is there an analogous event to Britain's Coronation driving TV uptake in other countries? 217.162.118.129

[edit] Method of Communication

I propose adding a section called Method of Communication to the Televison page. In this section we should note that "televison today is not (really) being used as a method of communication" and that "interesting programs are not on the air", by intresting programs I mean, pograms that describe different regions of the world, culture, technology, ... We should also note that "although some channels offer such information (e.g. Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, National Geographic Channel, CNN, ...), in many regions it is not available"

As television was essentially designed to inform people, it is sad to see this marvel of technology neglecting its original purpose.

I believe that Television has been abused by the broadcasters, the BBC's original purpose was to Inform,Educate and Entertain, the Corparation seems to produce nothing but a steady stream of Violence, Sex and Swearing with a load of rubbishy Proletarian factual programmes about how to decorate your house and sell your worthless junk at auction. if I had power over the whole Television industry...TV would Inform,Educate and Entertain once more, I would have programmes about Nature and Current affairs along with High Quality Drama and innocent Childrens programmes (like Muffin the Mule) and repeats of classic Comedy for all the family-User:Booksbooksbooks

[edit] space calculations

I think there is a calculation method for what is the suitable tv size for a given space (square meters)i.e. what is the preferrable size of TV for a 4*4 m2 room?.It should prove benificiary for users.

i'd guess roughly a 20" screen would do for a medium sized room, for a very small sitting room a 10-17" would very probably be enough. I do not see the need for a large Television, I rarely watch mine (it's on most of the time but it's just flickering in the corner playing the news to itself) and would prefer it if I had a slightly smaller one-User:Booksbooksbooks

[edit] Experimental vs. commercial television

I have deleted the terms "experimental" and "commercial" from the history section. "Commercial" because the BBC television was not a commercial service; commercial television did not come to the UK until ITV in 1955. "Experimental" because it is really a licensing term and not a technological term. Some television stations in the U.S. continued broadcasting under experimental licenses as late as 1947, although they were using the same NTSC technical standards as their commercially licensed brethren. "Experimental" meant only that they could not broadcast commercials.

The phrase "years of experimental broadcasts seen only in a few specially-equipped homes" also makes it sound like television receivers were unavailable commercially. — Walloon 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zworykin's role

I don't deny that Zworykin played a major role in the development of television, but I don't think it's accurate to say that electronic television systems "relied on the inventions of...Vladimir Zworykin." What inventions did it rely on? Didn't Farnsworth already have the whole thing? Didn't the improvement inventions mostly come from Albert Rose and others at RCA, not Zworykin? Dicklyon 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The debate about Farnsworth's contributions vs. Zworykin's contributions to modern-day electronic television has been going on for about seventy years now, and probably can't be settled in a Wikipedia article. Leaving one person out and the other in will only cause rancor from partisans for each side. The article doesn't say electronic television systems relied only, or even mainly on the inventions of Zworykin. Just that BOTH inventors made major contributions to its development. I think that's a fairly unbiased way to put it, without igniting further wars among those inventors' partisans. — Walloon 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
All I asked for was an example. What Zworykin invention did electronic television rely on? If we can't even cite one, then it's best to leave it as "Farnsworth and others," since Farnsworth was very clearly first according to all the historical documentation. Dicklyon 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Farnsworth was first with an image dissector tube for a television camera (1927); Zworykin was first to demonstrate a cathode ray picture tube for a receiver (May 16, 1932). The demonstration, to a hundred RCA licensees, showed both live images from a flying spot scanner and film images. Albert Abrahamson, who is much better on explaining the electrical engineering than I am, goes into detail in his book Zworykin, Pioneer of Television. So, Farnsworth and Zworykin were both pioneers, one with the first all-electronic camera, the other with the first all-electronic receiver. Two halves of the picture, so to speak. — Walloon 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The use of raster display of images on a CRT far predates Zworykin's involvement. His advisor in Russia, and other Europeans, had been doing that for a while already. Dicklyon 05:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard C. Webb, (copyright 2005 IEEE, fair use quotation for review here) tells it this way:

In 1897, Professor Karl Ferdinand Braun succeeded in getting one of Crooke’s tubes to produce a small focused spot on a fluorescent screen. The spot could be moved by placing a magnet near it or by making the “ray beam” pass between electrically charged metal plates. In so doing, visible line traces could be made on the face of the tube. Here was the beginning of a simple means for forming an electronic “screen” or scanning raster for a television display.

Ten years later in Germany, Professor Max Dieckmann built the very first real cathode ray tube using a heated cathode as the source of electrons. He also made a TV-type scanning raster and showed moving patterns on it by allowing electrical contact points to brush a rotating commutator running in synchronism with the scan. This was just a stunt to show a crude image on his tube and did not involve a photo-pickup camera.

In 1911, the Russian physicist, Boris L’Vovich Rozing, at the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology, set up a similar Braun tube scanned in step with a mechanical camera to pick up and display real optical images. We assume that a vacuum tube amplifier was available for use in that experiment. The image he obtained was said to be dim and not well focused but it was probably the first live image ever displayed on an electronic screen.

A student at the Institute at that time, and a favorite laborato- ry assistant to Dr. Rozing, was Vladimir K. Zworykin who was postured by those events to carry on and greatly expand Rozing’s work, which he had so intimately witnessed. Zworykin remained at the core of electronic television development from that time all the way to his retirement from RCA in 1958. Since he added so many important improvements to Dieckmann’s original tube and to Rozing’s early experiments, Zworykin is generally seen as the central figure in the development of the cathode ray tube and its application to television. It was my good fortune to spend a sum- mer evening on the porch of his vacation home at Taunton Lakes, New Jersey in 1948 as he reminisced about his life and told about those first experiments with television.

And I have no argument with this characterization of Zworykin's contributions. But to say that electronic television relied on his inventions is not true. Farnworth had a pretty darned good system, on a shoestring budget, not using anything that Zworykin invented. Dicklyon 05:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Max Dieckmann's CRT display is documented in the 1909 "The problem of television: a partial solution," Scientific American Supplement 68 (July 24, 1909). "this account describes the Dieckmann and Glage system, modified to provide a continuous scan or raster upon which the signals are impressed". Also "Partial solution of the problem of television" Scientific American 101 (Aug. 7, 1909). Farnsworth knew about these working partial solutions, and concentrated on the other half of the problem, which was the needed breakthrough for electronic television. Dicklyon 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I was aware of Rozing's experiments in 1911, and in fact I mention them in the "History of television" article. But he was unable to do moving images because the selenium response in the photoelectric cell was too slow.
He actually patented the scheme in several countries in 1907. The slow photoelectric cell was a big problem in generating moving video, but there was not a display limitation.
From what I understand, television receivers from the 1930s onward are direct descendants of Zworykin's design, not Farnsworth's.
Perhaps. You have a reference to that effect? Preferably not a Zworykin bio. And what about the EMI system? Didn't they contribute technology to the RCA effort? Dicklyon 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're as interested in early television as I am! — Walloon 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a contagious disease. I caught it a few years ago. I have quite a few books if you need anything in particular looked up (like all the RCA Television volumes, a number of old German books, etc. The bibliographic guide by Shiers is indispensible.) Dicklyon 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, ya, my reference is a Zworykin bio! (How'd you guess?) Albert Abrahamson writes that Zworykin "did more to create our present system of cathode-ray television than any other person."
What else is a hagiographer going to say? I'd say that of the RCA crowd, Albert Rose should get most of the credit for scientific breakthroughs, like the orthicon and image orthicon. But Zworykin was the boss, so he gets to share in the glory. Really, it was Sarnoff who set him up as the "father of television" out of all proportion to his actual contributions. Dicklyon 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physiological effects?

I read once about the effects on the brain of viewing rapid changes in (literal) POV such as in rapidly-cut video. I am having difficulty finding related information again. I seem to recall something about a "reorientation sense" but I think I am misrecalling the exact phrase. Can anyone jog my memory or provide some links? 216.75.170.81 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early (1958) Flat-Screen Tube Development

Should Ross Aiken be mentioned somewhere? His story was news earlier this year (MAKE) Unmake 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but this sort of "sideways tube" doesn't really ahve any relation to model LCD or plasma flat screens. The principle was used on the TV80 in the UK in 1984, but wasn't commercially successful. Nick Cooper 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] any historical controversies?

I remember that there were some kind of controversy when the television was introduced where some people believed that it was corrupting the minds of young people or viewing it was bad for the eyes... I don't see any articles that is related to that.--Janarius 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find a source you can add something to the "alleged dangers" section. Avt tor 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the alleged dangers section needs to be revamped or removed. For one, it is one-sided. Secondly, it is talking about the dangers of television programming and advertising, not about the actual TV, which is what this article is about. A mention that watching TV can be bad for your eyes would be appropriate, if it was cited. But the stuff that is there now has nothing to do with the television set.68.166.37.195 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color/colour

Questioning unilateral change of minority dialect spelling ("colour") on article not specifically associated with Britain or Canada. Change posted without discussion on talk page. Avt tor 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I object to 'proper' English being called a minority dialect, you are correct, and I have reverted the changes. The rest of the article is written in American English, and ArbCom have ruled that editors should not change from one version to another without substantial reason. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transmitting Equipment, etc.

There's almost nothing here on this. It's a minor technical subject, but without the transmitter, over-the-air TV wouldn't exist. Also there's not much on the technical aspects of producing the video and distributing the signal via cable and satellite. TV cameras have an interesting history, as do cable and satellite systems. Lou Sander 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged dangers

This section seems very anti TV, poorly sourced and what it offers is generally not notable enough for inclusion. I would remove the whole sub section. What do others think? SqueakBox 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole article thoroughly, but from skimming over it I haven't seen any counter-arguments to that section. What about all those studies that show TV isn't harmful and is actually educational? If you are going to show the negative you should show the positive too. On another note, there is a difference between television and a television(the electronic device. This article seems mostly about the television set aside from the section on alleged dangers. I think there should be two articles, one about the tv set and one about television media, tv programming and advertising. 68.166.37.195 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCC Deadline - removed

I've removed the "FFC Deadline" section, as the ruling is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. The text was also too extensive for a regional issue (in very POV terms, at that) in the context of an article on television as a global subject. Other countries - such as the UK - are planning to switch to digital-only transmission within the next few years, yet are not covered here. In fact, the transition to digital probably merits an article in its own right, detailing what is happening on a country-by-country basis. Nick Cooper 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

but to bo honest t.v is bad for your eye sight and could get you so unhealthy you will have to be fork lifted out if you have a stroke 80.229.242.15 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] television

La television es un mdio muy importante mediante el cual todos nos vemos forzados a seguir con el es adictivo pero nadie jamas de los jamases de nunca de jama lo dejara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.78.253.124 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Society of the Spectacle

...does not mention television, so I remove it from the bib. Arronax · talk 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/l/Talk%7ETelevision_7353.html"