Talk:Telectroscope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Telectroscope article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comment

I decided to describe briefly the origin and history of the word 'telectroscope' because it seems that television history is seen as completely different in some countries.--C. Trifle 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite needed

Please could somebody rewrite this section into something that would give sense?

"Essentially, the telectroscope functioned on a principal whereby a selenium rod was "parceled" by electromagnets while a strong alternating electric current was passed through a photosensitive glass chamber. This chamber was filled with essentially inert gases, which reduced the risk of flammabilty and short circuiting during bombardment of the rod. When certain electromagnetic frequencies were reached (the rudimentary ability to control rate of A/C power made this hit and miss) an image could be replicated over a piece of treated glass. It was because of the inability to sustain a recognizable, if not quality, image that a mildly famous incident occurred whereby one of the initial Spanish investors interpreted an image of his Aunt as a childhood horse."

I have just removed the above piece of writing from the reference list. It was attached to the reference concerning Mark Twain's story. It had been added by an anonymous writer and it had not been substantiated. Then it was placed in Ref. No 10 but it did not make sense there. However, I suggest that it should be left on the talk page because of the nature of the subject. Television and especially telectroscope have always included both information and fictionalization.--C. Trifle (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times article

For those with NY Times access, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/arts/design/21tele.html?ref=arts --Elonka 03:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Described as

Tim Vickers has made some edits to add the formulation "described as". I am reverting these because, if something is generally described as X, then it is an instance of X. Since there is no precise technical definition of a telectroscope, we should be content to accept any electronic device for far-seeing which goes by this name. The stagey, Victorian presentation of this new gadget is no reason to attack the language used to describe it. If reliable sources like the BBC are willing to accept and use this term, we have no reason to object. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but the lead must make clear that this is not an article describing a novel technology. I wouldn't go as far as the BBC in using quotation marks to indicate disbelief "If you believe artist and inventor Paul St George then his "Telectroscope" connects New York and London via a (very) long tunnel running through the earth's crust", but probably just adding the link to installation art will do the job OK. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not content with your new wording since it still seems that you are trying to attack the new device. Since it actually performs the function of far-seeing and that this is the main kick people get out of using it, the set-dressing and artistic flummery associated with it is incidental and so doesn't belong in the lede. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "real telectroscope". It's just a name for the art installation.--Pharos (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it is real as evidenced below where you say that you have used it yourself. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happens after June 15th

I watched some youtube videos and the comments range from it being taken down as it is only a temporary art exhibit, to it becoming a for-profit operation. Addionally, what is the lag time? Is it actually the speed of light divided by the distance between the two endpoints or is there like a 3 second lag? The NY times report said its instantaneous but i haven't came accross a great source telling what this is. Even the official site http://www.tiscali.co.uk/telectroscope/cn/gallery/index.php doesnt tell much. Mainly, the more I read, the more that this is an art exhibit (eg the drilling ceremony) and less of a scientific venture. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, of course it is an art exhibit.--Pharos (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I must have caught the article during a reversion. The article now is clear that the transatlantic tunnel is imaginary. So I guess, it closes up on June 15th but the official website still isn't stating anything definitive. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

We have editors trying to attack the material about the new telectroscope on the grounds that it is not a real telectroscope. Since previous conceptions were largely imaginary, the logic of this line of reasoning seems elusive. What we have now is a situation like that of the Channel Tunnel. For many years, this was the stuff of daydreams and failed ventures. But now that we have a real one, it is this which takes prominence. So, it is with the telectroscope. Readers coming to this article will be expecting to read about the new construction and previous efforts and imaginings should be relegated to historical sections. Similarly, per MOS:IMAGES, the article should lead with a picture of the telectroscope at top right. I shall now act upon this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's a "telectroscope", not an electroscope. Second, it's an art installation, not an invention. We might as well lead with an image of run-of-the-mill videoconferencing.--Pharos (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Videoconferencing seems relevant but we have a reliable source reporting the organisers saying otherwise. I shall continue to develop this point in the new structure. The historical antecedents are interesting but no longer represent the most importatnt aspect of this topic. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, it's a great art exhibit and all (I've been to the one in Brooklyn, maybe we can wave at each other), but the organizers are having fun. Their "telectroscope" is not a real invention, and the real inspiration for their art does not suddenly become "historical antecedents".--Pharos (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think that a historical spelling error is more important than a concrete device which is now known to millions. Wikipedia is not solely a vehicle for antiquarian trivia. We must cover this topic in proportion to our readership's expectations per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Paul St George certainly seems to think that this "antiquarian trivia" is noteworthy. The greatest example of undue weight I can think of would be swamping an article about a 130-year old phenomenon with information on something that's just opened this weekend. By all means, though, we can start an article on The Telectroscope, comparable to the one on The Sultan's Elephant.--Pharos (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem oblivious to the fact that the 130-year old phenomenon was effectively a hoax - a piece of imaginary journalism such as one would today find in the National Enquirer. Your preference for this dusty old joke seems peculiar. It does not merit such prominence per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructured again

I've restructured this article again. While I agree that the most recent phenomenon should not be given undue weight, this should not be done at the expense of a proper lead paragraph. I have restored the lead and expanded and referenced the pre- installation art sections of the article. I have also restored one of the photos of the St. George installation to the lead paragraph. It made no sense to have a photo of someone who had originally misused the term, and who had nothing to do with inventing the telectroscope. Most people will be coming to this article because of the art installation, and given that it is currently the most notable use of the word, it makes more sense to use that as an illustration. If a separate article is begun specifically on the art installation, then the photo can be changed. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)