Talk:Television/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 (hyperlink removed due to spamfilter regulation) 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:

a-z. We probably need a

---

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.

---

---

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

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.128.188 (talk)

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

---

The article mentions that Television is a mixed Greek-Latin word, but it doesn't say why the two languages were combined. The reason is that the Greek for "far sight" would be "Tele Skope", but this name had already been used for an earlier quite different invention (the telescope!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.122.111 (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Under reality television, why weren't the medical reality shows mentioned, such as "Trauma:Life in the ER", "Code Blue", "Impact:Stories of Survival", "Babies:Special Delivery" and "Birth Day", and for weight loss "X-Weighted" and "Big Medicine" all the aforementioned reality shows are on Discovery Health. Also no mention of animal-protection reality shows like "Animal Cops:Detroit" or "Animal Precinct"Kim K From AbseconNJ (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Kim K from AbseconNJ

---

In the very first line, black & white television is referred to as monochromatic which is not true. Monochromatic images contains black and white colors only with no intermediate gray shades. The correct term could be 'grayscale', although the term black&white itself is a bit misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Yaver (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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?

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

) 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: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)

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)

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

stereo that although is linked later in the article, deserves to have a mention under this subtitle.

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)

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?

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 ?

You may be referring to

color bars.Thomprod (talk

) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Are you being serious? Think about it, a television service intended to preserve a primitive culture? Did traditional Maori culture include television? Applejuicefool 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, I propose we ban all television programmes about any event, person, book, building, culture, religion, animal, piece of music or technology that was around prior to the invention of television.86.0.203.120 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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,

13:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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,

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

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,

18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

All tv is based on Nipkov's methods of breaking up an image into lines with varying intensity. Tabby (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

what do you think about adding a link to www.international-television.org? There is plenty of informations on global television in the market data section: www.international-television.org/market-data.html

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)

I agree. I was hoping to find out the inventor of the big picture box, but my favourite encyclopedia was seriously lacking in historical information. I think I might add this as a project of mine if noone else steps up... Kolonuk 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in History of television. Nick Cooper 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On 30 April 2008 I added a link to "History of television" at the top of the article to aid those looking for technical/historical info - had trouble finding it myself - and removed the so-called "History" section which contained nothing more than three paragraphs detailing the development of electromechanical television up to 1927. (How weird is that?!)

User:Buddha24 "un-did" my edit on 7 May 2008. I "re-did" the edit; and NOW I've just "un-did" it, and added links to "History of television" and "Technology of television" under "See also", which is more in keeping with Wiki's style.

I've left out the "History" section for now. I think I'll insert a "History of television" link in the body of the article, or come up with an abbreviated history drawn from "History of television" (unless someone else does it, please!).

I'm still far from satisfied; this information should be consolidated into one article, or the links to the other articles should be included in the body, rather than under "See also", where they are likely to go unnoticed.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk)

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)

AIUI the big issue with the 240 line system was that the camera couldnt be swung around to follow the actors like the 405 line camera could. Anything more than slow mvoement of a mechanically scanned camera causes desynchronisation. Tabby (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

In the US, this is called

color bars and tone.Thomprod (talk

) 19:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

, 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
  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) Note - do not edit this template directly!!! The template is used by adding the following to a delisted article's talk page:

{{subst:delistedGAbecause|your reasons for delisting}}

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 March 2007

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)

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)

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!)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

I have cleaned up the citations, which helps. I think the section needs to be kept, but I'd certainly like to see a section on the benefits of television (if there are any).--Jrsnbarn 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the "social implication" controversies swirling around TV deserve a seperate, well-researched & NPOV article of their own (& a small section here). 64.128.36.79 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

With the emphasis on ALLEGED, this article seems perfectly neutral to me. If any editor would like to research and post some of the positive psychological/social/cultural effects of television, they should be discussed in a separate section. Moving or removing this section would paint an overly rosy picture of a benevolent, harmless television that has not been clinically proven to adversely affect some of its viewers in any way. If there are counter-arguments, fine. If there are not, the research cited in this section would show that reality is unable to keep a neutral viewpoint of television. Not all things can be given equal weight in the good and bad columns. Some things are just harmful. Walksonground 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing social aspects into a new article and will write a summary for the television article. FreemanMAS214 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

) 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Society of the Spectacle

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

If you put a magnet infront of a Rear back TV, what will happen? —The preceding

) 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

History of television

Henry Sutton was an Australian inventor who devised a television system in 1885. Sutton is largely forgotten by history. Although he did not complete the manufacture of his 'telephane' his work predated Baird by 30 years.[4] Ozdaren 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any health risks related to television and if there are should we implement this in the article? —The preceding

) 09:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

about the origin of the word 'television'

In the article it is correctly mentioned that the first part of the word comes from the greek τήλε (far) but it also says that -vision is Latin, which is half true. The word vision derives from the verb video which also comes from greek "ειδέω" (to see). Maybe this would be more accurate. —The preceding

) 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Latin "vision" is cognate to Greek "oida", but the Latin is not derived from Greek. Rather the two come from a common Indo European root. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vision Anorak2 12:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• in English it is typically pronounced as τελε (perfect) rather than τηλε (far),but English/American ignorance of proper pronuciation is not a new phenomenon. Sochwa 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that since 25 May we've had the beginning of another Farnsworth Vs Baird edit-duel, with champions of each needlessly padding out the intro of this page. I've now deleted these, as it's a debate - if it should be anywhere at all - which should be on History of television, not here. Nick Cooper 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Should recent competition with internet sites such as youtube be mentioned? I have no statistics/details, but someone might. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12va34 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 June 2007

This article discusses everything but the history of the device - there is no information on the inventor, and the first television, and major developments in television should be all in a history section. I'm busy so I'm unable to do so right now. --

01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DIY Projector

Instead of a TV, some people also create their own projector to function as a TV and computerscreen. Making your own projector (from parts, not from scratch) has several advantages amongst of them the price, this is several times lower than simply buying a new projector and in operation it's also cheaper (as no lightbulbs need to be replaced after some thousand hours, given that this is mostly done by a LCD-screen in stead of a bulb)

User talk:KVDP

11:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Media/Medium

Television is a communications medium. It cannot be considered media, because "media" is the plural form of the word "medium," and television is one of many communications media available. This ridiculous mistake appears all over wikipedia, and editors would do well to correct it wherever it appears. From merriam-webster website: "The singular media and its plural medias seem to have originated in the field of advertising over 70 years ago; they are apparently still so used without stigma in that specialized field. In most other applications media is used as a plural of medium. The great popularity of the word in references to the agencies of mass communication is leading to the formation of a mass noun, construed as a singular <there's no basis for it. You know, the news media gets on to something — Edwin Meese 3d> <the media is less interested in the party's policies — James Lewis, Guardian Weekly>. This use is not as well established as the mass-noun use of data and is likely to incur criticism especially in writing." Walksonground 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

games

Video games are a good way to let time fly when you have nothing to do, but when you are on for to long i fine you start losing focuse and even start getting pulled into that computer. once i was playing online with some friends at a friends house so i hade really nothing to do. i was playing for 28 hours. after the 20 hours i didn't feel hungry or even tired. i know then that somthing was very,very wrong. after i got of i just fell to the ground and was out like a lamp.

so in a conclution its ok but not for to long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowostawsky (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How It Works article

I've just added a link to a new How Television Works article. Yes, I know a lot of this can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I haven't really found an article that explains what goes on inside a TV in a relatively straightforward way without getting sidetracked or assuming too much previous knowledge. This is the first draft of my attempt, anyway. Happy Christmas! --IanHarvey (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Color Television: when?

The article currently contains no mention of when color TV was invented/first broadcast, and indeed seems to imply it never was in black and white!--190.74.125.209 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Baird demonstrated color tv in the 1920s. The reason for the persistence of B&W only systems into the 1960s was economic rather than technological. Tabby (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: Brightness and Contrast controls

The article currently says: "The brightness control shifts the black point, or shadow level, primarily affecting the contrast ratio or gamma of the image, while the contrast control primarily controls the image intensity or brightness.[1]" I think this is misleading, since it says that the brightness control affects the contrast and the contrast control affects the brightness. I suggest changing this to read, "The brightness control shifts the black level, affecting the image intensity or brightness, while the contrast control adjusts the contrast range of the image.[1]" I welcome other's comments before making this change.Thomprod (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the paragraph my proposed change referred to has been moved to its own article Technology of television. Seeing no objections, I am making the proposed change in that article. Thomprod (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually its true that the brightness control affects black level rather than brightness, and the contrast control affects both contrast and brightness. The naming of the controls is historical and somewhat odd, frequently confusing consumers. Tabby (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

Shouldn't there be a small section in the article on censorship? Either self censorship or that from a regulator as in this case of this news article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7210826.stm. Buttocks are seen in advertisements as well as tv programs regularly in countries where I have lived and nobody finds them in the least bit offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FTW?

Somebody needs to explain FTA... Trekphiler (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

-Not taking the time now to go through the whole article to see what needs explaining here, but I suppose you mean FTA=Free To Air http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air, an article that itself needs some work. Derekbd (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sports as genre?

Why isn't sports listed in the television genres section of this page? Sports are almost always the highest rated TV shows of the year, whether it be the Super Bowl in the US or the World Cup in the rest of the world. I think its odd that its not mentioned in this article. --71.210.176.217 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

TIME Collection

There is a collection of Early TV related stories that the TIME Archives put together, and that could be placed in the External Links section. The Collection could provide context and more resources for those users who wish to expand their research. [5] --Kevindkeogh (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Geographical usage

Accompanying graphic ("A map showing when television was introduced in each country.") uses a bright green for much of Africa, Tibet, Malaysia and other places, but there's no such color in the legend; I presume (but do NOT know) that it's supposed to match to the dark green (1960-1969); that would be logical. --Grndrush (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a UK English translations

Several words need translating, such as program may not be understood as programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.153.78 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Move "History of television" into this article.

This article is almost completely devoid of technical information; bad news for someone looking for an article on how television works and not expecting to find it under "History of television", or missing the notation, "Main article: History of television" altogether. (It took me a quite a while to find the relevant article.)

The so-called "History" section contains nothing more than three paragraphs lifted from "History of television", and only brings us up to the state of electromechanical television in 1927. It would have been better to have left this out altogether rather than include this truncated account.

I would strongly suggest moving the entire "History of television" page into this entry.

In the meantime, I'm going to attempt to delete the "History" section and add a "Technical and historical information" link at the top of the page.

Rico402 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Buddha24 "un-did" my edit on 7 May 2008. I "re-did" the edit; and NOW I've just "un-did" it, and added links to "History of television" and "Technology of television" under "See also", which is more in keeping with Wiki's style.

I've left out the "History" section for now. I think I'll insert a "History of television" link in the body of the article, or come up with an abbreviated history drawn from "History of television" (unless someone else does it, please!).

I'm still far from satisfied; this information should be consolidated into one article, or the links to the other articles should be included in the body, rather than under "See also", where they are likely to go unnoticed.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk)

I've added a partial "History" draw from History of television. However the section remains incomplete. I'll be expanding this section and hopefully have it completed within the week.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy science

"Latest research at the Boston University's School of Public Health showed that television, as well as many other household devices, is source of a chemical called flame retardant, which finally transforms into dust, landing on surfaces aroung the house.^[1] "

I'm moving this to here, as the article and the statement above show ignorance of basic chemistry. There is no chemical called fire retardant, fire retardants are a range of different substances. If you want to claim warmed plastic distributes dust, TVs are just one of many appliances this would apply to.

If you want to put it back, perhaps you could find a credible source for more accurate information. Tabby (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Digital Telelvision

Across the board on the television pages, I am seeing TV stations listed with their digital channel, and so far just about all of them have been incorrect. In the US, all TV stations are digitially defined using their ANALOG channel and sub channel. For example, if you have a station on analog channel 12 and digital 13, the ONLY digital channels will be 12.1, 12.2, etc. Putting "13.1", "13.2" is incorrect as in the legal scheme of digital tv in the US, this channel doesn't actually exist. The only spot the digital channel number exists is on the license, like with US FM radio. It is used as a reference for which set of frequencies the station will use to transmit their digital signal. The PSIP data (Program Service Information Protocol) is required by FCC law to "map" to the station's analog channel. (All FM Frequencies are assigned a channel number from 200 - 300). When these digital channel boxes were put on the TV profile pages, they should have only listed the analog channel (which is known as the "major" channel) and the appopriate minor channels (the .1, .2). I've corrected the ones Ive run across so far, but the rest need to be corrected before confusion sets in about the station's digital.

~ Signed, Mike. A Broadcast engineer, who has set these systems up for three different TV stations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.44.209 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce

A

Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce has been created as part of WikiProject Television. I suggest that anyone with interest in the technical aspects of television, broadcasting, and related technologies join the taskforce and the discussions there. --tonsofpcs _(Talk

) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with map image

The image "TV-introduction-world-map.svg" (the graphic that deals with when TV was introduced to different countries) has problems with the color coding on the map versus the colors on the legend. The colors on the map range from red to orange to yellow to green. But the legend also includes pinks and blues. When you actually click on the graphic the new page has the correct legend. So the display issue is related to the graphic vs. legend on the article page itself. Unfortunately my editing skills are pretty weak in regards to fixing a problem such as this. Could someone a little more sophisticated in this help me out here and fix it? Basically, all that needs to be done is to take the legend from the image page and use it to replace the one on the main article page. Thanks. Mantisia (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

TV images

1 pixle on a tv can display over 1 million colors. There are 250,000 pixles. The number of images that can be displayed is 1,000,000 Power 250,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.1.161 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1,000,000^250,000 = 10^{6 X 250,000} = 10^1,500,000!! That's one big fat number, especially considering that the universe is less than 1.50 X 10¹⁷ seconds old. (60 secs/min X 60 min/hr X 24 hr/day X 365.25 days/yr X 13,700,000,000 years = 4.32 X 10¹⁷ secs.) Although larger than a googol (10¹⁰⁰), much, much smaller than a googolplex (10¹⁰¹⁰⁰). Of course, the vast and overwhelming majority of those possible images

would essentially be just nonsense, or "

noise". Cheers, Rico402 (talk

) 13:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If God was a television our universe would only be one picture of all other posible pictures. Gjeremy —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

Which argues that the number of universes is a finite value based on the current resolution and bit depth of a digital color image, which is just plain silliness. It is currently impossible to know if ours is the only universe, but most astrophysicists hypothesize that there is a vast if not infinite number of universes. Rico402 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive this super-long page

{{

archiveme

}}

--Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Elonka 04:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So where is the archive? Thanks. --70.142.45.253 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a link. Sorry it wasn't done earlier. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

please add a link to International Television Expert Group

I would recommend to add a link to International Television Expert Group >[www.itve.org http://www.itve.org]</ 94.222.208.121 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

INCORRECT: NOT- Barbara Lyon credits...Credits belong to Actress Barbara G. Lyon born 1942

((( She faded from the scene following 1962 television guest appearances on McHale's Navy and My Three Sons.[1] )))

These credits belong to Barbara G. Lyon source- S.A.G. (4 EPISODES OF "MY THREE SONS"; 2 EPISODES OF "McHALE'S NAVY")

THESE SHOWS ARE NOT- Bebe Daniels and Ben Lyon's daughter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.56.152 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

TeeVee

What the heck does "TeeVee" mean, and where did this spelling originate? I would like to see some discussion of this in the article since "TeeVee" redirects to this page. --70.142.45.253 (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The first TV

Why does the article list the inventor as Farnsworth? Was it not John Logie Baird who invented the first ever working television set? 92.24.20.56 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was John Logie Baird, a British inventor, I can only guess someone (an American?) is trying to deceive by claiming otherwise. I would appreciate if this misinformation could be corrected by someone who is registered. 91.85.191.206 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states, "Farnsworth made the world's first working television system with electronic scanning of both the pickup and display devices." (Emphasis added.) Baird used mechanical scanning for converting images into electrical signals. ("Philo Taylor Farnsworth (1906-1971)", The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco.) Rico402 (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadcast TV band

"Broadcast TV is typically disseminated via radio transmissions in the 7-1000 megahertz-range of the FM frequency band".

Technically incorrect. There is no FM frequency band as such. Instead, certain bands may be able to be used for FM (or not). In the same way, a band may allow TV (see ITU).

Not only that, but the usual system of television (ignoring digital systems) is AM with an FM audio subcarrier. While this system may be in the process of being phased out, it would not be correct to ignore it.

Numbat01Numbat01 (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed to 54-890

CATV channels. Ref = "Television Frequency Table, CSGNetwork.com., a Division of Computer Support Group", as cited in article. Rico402 (talk

) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Under paragraph three of Taxation and Licence, under advertising, the word percent is first written as "per cent" and in future references is used the "%" symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyluismofo (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First television

From the german wiki: "Ab dem 22. März 1935 wurde in Deutschland das erste regelmäßige Fernsehprogramm der Welt in hochauflösender Qualität ausgestrahlt (s. Fernsehsender Paul Nipkow, Berlin)"

The first television report was 1935 in germany... Everyone who ignores the propaganda from the USA knows this. The same thing with "jet engine" and the article "jet" and "computer"... It shocks me, the propaganda is very denial... ---Green_Link~~

I thought New York has low resolution mechanical TV service well before then Tabby (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As late as 1935? Why were the Germans so slow? In Britain John Baird demonstrated television in 1924. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually 1935 the first regular TV programme was broadcasted in Germany, the first transmission of an TV signal was 1926, also in Germany and therewith the first transmission in the world. Also the idea for television was invented by a german named Paul Nipkow in 1884 and his invention, the so called Nipkow-Disc, was later improved by Ferdinand Braun, also a german. This Nipkow-Disc was also used by John Baird for his experiments and he demonstrated television in 1925, not 1924. His television also was only a "mechanical tv" whereas the Germans used CRT televisions, which were superior to Baird´s tv´s.

78.42.19.119 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) if you want to know more about tv go to google.com and seach television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.232.238 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

As any scholar could tell you, the history of television requires a tremendously detailed survey of technological development. With that said, I wanted to call attention to the box on the right side of the page that lists John Logie Baird as the inventor of the television. While I would normally argue that the invention of television has too convoluted a history to attribute to just one man, I will, for now, overlook such a claim, and, instead, identify the lack of consistency within this information box. If Baird did indeed invent the television, then the date listed below it as 'launch year' must read precisely March 25, 1925 (Edgerton 29). For if the current qualification of 'inventor' is the first person to publicly exhibit a device allowing an image in one location to be wirelessly broadcast to another, then John Logie Baird 'invented' the television on March 25, 1925. If, however, this isn't the page's stipulation for defining television history, then one should consider the following facts ...

1) "The first time the word 'television' appeared in print was in a 1907 Scientific American article that featured German physics professor Arthur Korn's invention of the photo-telegraph through which he successfully transmitted photographic images by wire from Munich to Nuremberg in 1904" (Edgerton 26).

2) By the time John Logie Baird's public demonstration occurred in 1925, "Charles Francis Jenkins had actually been chasing the vague possibility of 'seeing at a distance via radio ... as distinguished from wire television' for more than a quarter century" (Edgerton 27). Jenkins was likely further along in his developments than Baird by March 25, 1925, and he demonstrated his advanced version of the TV only three months later (Edgerton 29).

3) Philo Taylor Farnsworth "became the first inventor to ever transmit moving images – 'black lines, a triangle, and a dollar sign painted on a sheet of glass' – by electronic TV on September 7, 1927" (Edgerton 42).

4) "The British Broadcasting Company inaugurated regularly scheduled telecasting to the general public on November 2, 1936" (Edgerton 5).

Regardless of whichever view this page takes, there should, at least, be consistency in its claims. Either list the "inventor" as John Logie Baird and the "launch year" as 1925, or ...

1) Affirm that television, by definition, is a "wireless" means of communication.

2) Reconsider what it means to attribute the 'invention' of television to just one man.

3) Remember that television is generally considered to operate on the basis of 'electronic' scanning (as Farnsworth established), not 'manual' scanning (as practiced by Jenkins and Baird).

4) Specify what is actually meant by the term launch year, since commercial broadcasting of television didn't actually begin until 1936.

Reference:

Edgerton, Gary R. The Columbia History Of American Television. Columbia University Press. 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragic Mr Magic (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In light of the above, & since Farnsworth's 1927 demo was the first public exhibition of electronic TV, I'm changing "inventor" to PTF & "yr" to 1927. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Farnsworth's 1927 "test" was not a "public exhibition". The first successful test of the Farnsworth system occurred on 7 April, 1927. Later that day, the test was repeated for George Everson, one of the financial backers, who then sent a telegram to Les Gorrell in Los Angeles: "The Damn thing works." After many improvements to the system, the first demonstration to the press was given on 09-01-1928 -- the first "public" demonstration. (But the first demo to "the masses" occurred in 1934 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.) PTF as the first to successfully design and build a fully electronic TV system is correct. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

see below

“The majority of its budget comes from TV licencing (see below)” – keep on looking! --87.163.52.3 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

minor correction - cost of UK license

the cost of a colour TV license in the UK is now £142.50 - not £139.50 Smithmatthew (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

World map

The map suggests that most of the former USSR countries had TV in the 1930's but this is hardly the case. 86.112.252.217 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and all the igloos in Greenland got TV the same week it rolled out in downtown Cophenhagen. It's a terrible map. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

More Information, not just links

Is it just me, or does it include almost no information on what TV is like now? Nothing on how LCD TVs are more popular than CRTs, or what it really is. Nothing on how people feel about it, how many hours TV occupies our days. Oh no, just a lot of info on commercials. I know there is a link for "Social Aspects," but can't someone summarize that information and put it on here, so this article can be all-encompassing? Same for the "Color Television" section. Does anyone agree with me on this? November19thdh1 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the

Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue

are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Section for "Television sets"?

I think we could use a section for "Television sets" with a link to main article Television set. Any thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Medium or message?

This article mixes too many different subjects: television technology (i.e. "history", "environmental aspects" and "numismatics"), television business (i.e. "funding"), television programs (i.e. "genres" and "social aspects") and television effects (i.e. "social aspects"). IMO, the article is a hodge-podge of disconnected concepts that intermingles hardware and software, medium and message, technology and business, and does none of them well. Does anyone else see a need to reorganize this article? --

talk

) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a problem not just with this page but with useage of the term in general, and this needs to be said. Until recently the term was used colloquially to mean moving images broadcast by radio, yet such a definition cannot coexist with the phrases 'closed circuit television'(which has existed since TV was invented) or 'internet television'. I think a definition of the term television must therefore go no further than 'the viewing of moving images at a distance'. Even extending the word to mean 'a device for such viewing' is problematic because it implies that a modern computer with a broadband connection is a television, which it is not, though it does have the capability of enabling television. Similarly mobile phones etc. Is television a medium? This is even more problematic because the very term medium has gained new usage, with yet more confusion over 'media' which now has a singular meaning in addition to being the plural of medium. Stricty radio is the medium of television, in the same way that tape was the medium for audio recording.

So I think the opening sentence has to change because television is not 'a medium for transmitting moving images', rather it IS the transmission of moving images. The British TV licence conditions are in my view seriously flawed in that they seek to require a licence for the reception of "all television programmes as they are being shown on TV". The licence defines "TV equipment" as "all television receiving equipment, such as a TV set, COMPUTER, GAMES CONSOLE, DIGITAL BOX, or DVD/VHS RECORDER. This is clearly gibberish. If a computer is a TV then all privately streamed video requires a licence, which I don't think is what is intended. --Memestream (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your view is that of a tiny minority, I'm afraid. The average reader coming to a page on "television" will not only accept, but expect, a description of the technology & funding issues, since the narrow view of "television" as "viewing of telecast imagery" is not only not commonplace, it is, AFAIK, bordering on

OR. Unless you are Marshall McLuhan; if so, we can argue about how nonsensical "The medium is the message" is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

07:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me that my view is that of a tiny minority? You seem to be the minority on this page, and I responded to Wikiwatcher who said that in his opinion this page mixes too many different subjects. --Memestream (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to believe the responses here amount to the totality of views on the subject, which I submit is extremely faulty reasoning. (It is the same fault arising from basing decisions on polling, which only reflects the views of those who were asked, & who actually responded.) Nor is my "minority" herein terribly pronounced (of all of three responders). Neither does it concern me to be in a minority here, since I expect such a change will not be uncontroversial, or it would have been made before now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid i agree, i expect all these subjects to be covered, since television is such a wide subject. I came on here looking for it myself, and would be annoyed if all i got was links to the different areas surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.181.93 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Critique for HIST406 10-4-10

I feel that this article was well written. The author uses good grammar and does not have any spelling errors that I have noticed, nor if there are any, that disrupted the ability to read this article. All of the sources at the end of the article seem to be mostly adequate in their credible nature and show that the author did do some extensive research to make sure his/her statements were backed up by actual record. The article here does cover the topic extremely well and does not really leave one questioning its accuracy. It starts with what the television set was when first invented and chronologically states the improvements to the technology as well as who invented them. The time of technological improvements however only goes to about 1931. This still leaves 70+ years of time in which TV has definetly improved and its history is well documented. I understand too that this is an article with a History section taken from the main article on the History of TV so many of its points are left out. However, when one goes to click on the main article it is seen at the bottom of most sections that the article is kept updated on a fairly consistent level. The illustrations found in the section of the original article's history section (not the main article) are few but helpful. However, more could be used due to the fact that many people, including me, may not know what a telephonoscope or pentelegraph looks like. Yes there are links to these pages in themselves but pictures here in this article would serve as an easy and quicker was for the reader to understand what the author is talking about.

In summation, the article is definitely well written. It tells me what I need to know and has plenty of sources for me to go to for further information. As previous stated above, the only things I would change or add would be more relevant information on the development of TV such as plasma and other new technologies such as HDTV and even 3D. The last thing I would add would be more illustrations to further enhance the reader's understanding of what television sets once looked like so the reader can develop a mental time-line of how televisions looked throughout the years. HIST406-10jglasser (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)jglasser

1. ^ TV Dust Carries Harmful Chemical