Talk:Symbol rate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Discussion of Suggested Merges
This article should not be merged with Symbol_(data) until the article bit rate is merged with the article bit.--GrahamDavies (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be merged with baud until the article length is merged with metre.--GrahamDavies (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- :)
- Actually bit/s and bps are forwarded to the bitrate article. Mange01 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History
The "Baud rate" article was renamed to "Baud" in 24 January 2007, but "Baud rate" is still forwarded to "Baud". Merge suggestion templates were placed in May/June 2007 on the Modulation rate, Symbol (data) and Baud articles. Merge suggestion templates were placed in December 2007 on the Significant condition and Symbol (data) articles.
Yesterday I merged the "modulation rate" and "Symbol rate" articles into the "baud rate/Baud" article, since there has not been any protests to the merge suggestion templates. However, the forwarding of the Symbol rate article was reverted. To resolve the dispute, I suppose we need to vote. Mange01 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Survey 1: Merge with Baud? Article name?
Should Symbol rate be merged with Baud, which already is merged with Baud rate and Modulation rate? And what should the name be of the article?
- Strongly support. The main article title may either be Symbol rate or Baud. Argument: These rates are synonyms. Mange01 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly object. First, I also undid the merge of Modulation rate. This now re-directs to this article. The reason is that, as originally described, modulation rate is synonymous with symbol rate in the special circumstance of a modulated channel. I hope this is OK. Second, I don't see the sense in merging an article about a physical property with the article about its unit of measure. To cite another parallel, this would be like merging the temperature article with the kelvin article. Third, the term baud is subject to technically dubious usage. In fact, it is more frequency used incorrectly, as "baud rate", than correctly. But, correct me if I'm wrong, Wikipedia is, like an English language dictionary, descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It is not our place to exclude a common usage of a term just because we think it is wrong. So, the article on baud should address both usages, one of which is closely associated with this article and the other of which isn't. Therefore, baud and symbol rate should be separate articles.
[edit] Survey 2: Merge with Symbol?
Should Symbol rate be merged with Symbol (data)?
- Support. The articles discuss the same issues, and one of them is reduntant. I can not think of any issue that should be discussed in one of the articles but not the other. Mange01 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support for the same reasons as Mange01.--GrahamDavies (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion continued
If the answer is "no" on survey 1, I suppose Baud rate should point at Symbol rate instead of the Baud article for the same reason?
For now the "Symbol rate" article is not very well written, and I don't understand what difference you had in mind. I have already merged text from "Symbol rate" and "Modulation rate" into the "Baud rate" article. Can we copy all the text from the current Baud article to the Symbol rate article? After that, perhaps some text may be removed from the Baud unit article? At least temporarily while waiting for the survey result, in view to clarify how two separate articles would look like? As a third step, I suggest that the Symbol (data) text is merged into the Symbol rate article.
I agree that the term Baud rate is problematic. Not so much because it has been confused with bit rate, it was long time since I saw that. I teach using a course literature that claims that 1 baud = 1 symbol, which is an understandable mistake, since "rate" in "baud rate" can be understood as "per time unit". But, as you pointed out, we have to mention baud rate in the articles since it is a widespread term.
There are some units that are forwarded to the measure article. Example: (bit/s)/Hz -> Spectral efficiency. Is it important to always create separate unit articles? Why?
(You and I Graham had a discussion a few days ago, but then you gave me the impression that you supported all the suggested merges. Sorry for misunderstanding you.)
Mange01 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to the above discussion
I'm sorry that we appear to have different approaches to improving this area of Wikipedia, but it's good that we both want to do it. I am not, like you, a "wikiholic", so it would be unfair of me to stand in your way if you want to push changes through. I will reposition myself as a helper. I have a long history of work with both passband and baseband communication systems, I have designed symbol constellations, channel equalizers, etc., so I think I understand many of the issues at a deep level. I will make a couple of points and try to explain my position fully and then I will let you take the lead. I don't know how long we should wait to see if anyone else contributes to this discussion. I have the impression I showed up at the eleventh hour myself.
The parallel of (bit/s)/Hz redirecting to Spectral efficiency is not appropriate here because (bit/s)/Hz is a combination of fundamental quantities and units of measure. By contrast, baud is a single word assigned as the unit of measure of symbol rate to honor a major contributor to the field. It deserves its own page to explain the derivation from Emile Baudot's name and to link to that article. Please also consider that the (mis)use of the term needs to be explained and this should not be done in an article about symbols.
If we agree that articles are not well written, we should consider a gradual re-write as an alternative to copying existing text from one place to another. This would be facilitated by having in mind where we want this set of articles to end up. I will now explain where I think that should be and leave the final structure to you.
The Symbol (data) article is the most fundamental, should be the longest and most thorough. It should make free, but only correct, use of the other terms.
The Symbol rate article should be very brief and point the reader to Symbol (data). However, there should be hooks here for related articles. Modulation rate should redirect to this article and the equivalence of these terms should be stated clearly in the Symbol rate article. It should also be stated that baud is the unit of measure of symbol rate, thus referencing that article. The non-equivalence of baud rate should be noted, thus referencing that article as well. Whether someone is looking for the correct or incorrect use of terms, when they reach this article they should know where to go next.
The baud article should also be very brief and point the reader to symbol rate. This is where Emile Baudot gets a mention. Again, it should be pointed out that baud rate is used in contexts unrelated to symbols, allowing a reader to click over to that article.
The baud rate article needs sections on each possible misuse of the term. As I see it, these are 1) the same as baud, with "rate" erroneously appended, 2) the use where bit rate would be the correct term and 3) the use to mean gross bit rate, as distinct from payload bit rate, where communication involves a protocol overhead.
That makes one large, one medium/short and two very brief articles with modulation rate redirected as at present.
--GrahamDavies (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
