Talk:Television/Archive 2

Globalize tag

In the history section we mention Scottish(British), Russian, American, Hungarian and Mexican inventors. What, specificially, should be added to make the article more "global" ? I'm taking the tag off until someone re-tags it with an explanation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is TV resolution?

According my knowledges each televisor resolution PAL and NTSC and SECAM is about 411 * 300 individual pixels.

ANSWER: PAL has a 720 x 576 resolution: bear in mind that the pixels are non-square, so the final ration of width:height is 4:3.

NTSC is 720 x 480.

SECAM is the same as PAL, AFAIK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.62.97 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In the [U.K.], PAL S (Simple) analogue (colour) signal was originally transmitted within a 625 lines (interlaced odd/even fields at 25 frames per second) framework. Vestigial sideband transmission (occupying a 8mhz range of frequencies) meant that the theoretical number of individual elements could be half of this figure (4 million). Of this, quadrature modulation of Chrominance supresssed side bands, and inclusion of a F.M. sound carrier reduced this maximum number of elements still further. The horizontal resolution was also limited by the rise time(s) of the associated video processing circuits. Vertical resolution was also limited by the loss of certian lines that were used for Teletext services, field timing signals, and in later years sychronising signals for home recording equipment. Subjective resolution of any display screen is limited again by rise time (pixel refresh rate), display protective screen, and finally the back-lighting. LED wins hands down here as the brightest and most efficent. Just because a display claims to have a resolution of 1080 (HD), doesn`t mean you can see it!. So, in conclusion, resolution is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder !. (Television engineer and Technician since 1963)Francis E Williams (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Health

This article doesn't list the effects of television consumption on one's health...Smallman12q (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what to do. Cite it and write it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the effects on human eyesight are covered quite well by the latin expression "Muchas Squarius".Francis E Williams (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

History quibble

'Although television was first introduced to the general public at the 1939 World's Fair ...' Even if this refers to just the USA, it's wrong. The dates for the first publicly-announced TV broadcasts in the USA are 1928 for the mechanical system and 1936 for the electronic. See Timeline of the introduction of television in countries. PhilUK (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I miss notes about the work of the inventor Manfred von Ardenne and the first fully electronic television transmission (Joerg-ks (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Cite it and write it. Though after reading Manfred von Ardenne I'm mostly struck at his ability to surf the crest between the Nazis on one hand and the Soviets on the other. How does one accumulate a 60-ton cyclotron in wartime Germany? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most

The word "most" should be removed from the first sentence.

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.170.78 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, "if" there were a "comma" (period) after the word "television". If not, then it would read :-

"Television is the widely used telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that are either monochromatic ("black and white") or color, usually accompanied by sound."

However, it would not then define if it was "the most popular" or the "most widely used". Try this alternative as well:-

"Television; the most widely used telecommunication medium for transmitting and receiving moving images. Images can be either monochromatic ("black and white"), or color ("chromatic"), images are usually accompanied by sound."

The above version then shows the subject; - "television", the "usage"; what the subject "refers" to; - "telecommunications medium", it then introduces the subject details; - "images". The next sentence is then linked with the new subject "images" to avoid "ambiguity" with the previous subject of "communication". Image types are then "defined", and finally the additon of a new subject "sound", concludes the statement.

These statements then introduces a whole new problem; - what other method is used, (other than Television) in "telecommunications" to transmit images that is less popular? There is no way of comparing it unless we now add the less popular method in the next sentence. In fact; is there any other way at all?

I am not an english teacher, but I hope the above gives some "food fot thought". if not, then at least an insight that not all readers see "grammar" or "prose" structure in the same way. The structure of prose is difficult to maintain if you remove or add just one "word" at a time. Regards. Francis E Williams (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Francis. While his proposal "Television is the widely used telecommunication medium" is true (if we were to accept it, I would say "a widely", but...), the change makes untrue the reality: TV is the most widely used. (Unless you can provide statistics, with reliable sources, saying 'net streaming has supplanted it in usage...). Absent these, deleting "most" is introducing a falsity. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But then we have to consider the whole statement, in which the function "transmitting" is introduced. Which itself is open to interpretation, but is usually understood in these terms as a "radio freuency spectrum broadcast". The point being, if the new statement is then considered to be false, what other R.F. transmitting technique is used to compare it with? "Streaming" image data by other than cable connection: I.e. Satellite; could also be considered "radio frequency broadcasting", so now we have another anomaly to solve. Which is the more appropraite description for satellite connected Internet streaming? Well, it's academic really, but most interesting to see it developing into a discussion.Francis E Williams (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.57.93.140, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Plase change "The networks effectively ended advertisers influence over television programming with this introduction" to the same paragraph without this last sentence.

advertisers have a tremendous amount of influence over both magazines and television to this day. it's insensical, incredibly uninsightful (the assumption that advertisers' interests are so varied as to create a system of checks and balances on one another's influence is market mythology), and just plain incorrect. have a modicum of critical thinking when reading or listening to your sources and balance them against common sense, opposing viewpoints, and the real world. thank you. 173.57.93.140 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing newspapers are influenced more by ad cancellations than subscription cancellations, it's probable viewer input (as some have argued) has far less influence on programming decisions than advertisers'. It isn't as direct or obvious, or (arguably) as total, but nevertheless is there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki projects

Could we add this to Wikiproject:Physics, too? And don't they watch TV in China and Australia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

video cassettes, laserdiscs, DVDs and now Blu-ray Discs

In my humble opinion, the above topics don't belong in the article. Television means viewing at a distance, so it is inextricable linked to broadcasting, or at least to telecommunication (CCTV). The fact that television sets can be used for other purposes (including computer display) has nothing to do with television as such. Rbakels (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Please remove "{{main|Amateur television}}", currently located immediately above Television#History. The {{main}} template is designed for use at the beginning of a section about the specified topic, and in addition, the phrase "Amateur television" is already wikified at the beginning of the previous paragraph. Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.137 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jimbo alone knows what obscure template-tweaks I'm supposed to do to acknowledge this, so I'll just comment out the gaudy template. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

minor point

would some worthy with an account add the necessary " ) " in the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.31.24 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cultural/social impact?

I'm surprised there isn't a dedicated section on the tremendous impact television has had on society. Add one maybe? 173.162.46.90 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! Good things - care about events in distant countries, enjoy sports in real time. Bad things - mass culture, propagandizing on behalf of media conglomerates, advertising and consumer society. It's enough for a book by itself. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kathcoram, 2 September 2011

U.S. advertising rates are determined primarily by Nielsen ratings.

"Determined" should be removed and replaced by "influenced".

Kathcoram (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The Neilsens govern how networks judge the number of viewers, which determines their ad rates. (Not the only factor, but a major one.) It's a clear relationship, & significant enough to say "determined". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, unless consensus favors the change. Also, "influenced primarily" is awkward. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should the lead begin with "The T(t)elevision (TV).......", or have it just the way it is? Tinton5 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is. I doubt that will ever be the last thing keeping this article from "featured" status. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

I request to have the following content added to "television" immediately following the conclusion of the first paragraph and preceding the second paragraph. The following content ads to the legitimacy of the article and provides an alternative observation of "television". The content intended for addition to "television" is: (Television, however, is not solely a technology, limited to its basic and practical application. It functions both as an appliance, and also as a means for social story telling and message dissemination. It is a cultural tool that provides a communal experience of receiving information and experiencing fantasy. It acts as a “window to the world” by bridging audiences from all over through programming of stories of triumphs and tragedies that are outside of their personal experiences. ) The source is the book The Television Will Be Revolutionized by Amanda Lotz. The publisher is New York University Press. Copyright date is 2007. USBN# is 13: 978-0-8147-5220-3. Mhughes38 (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, the content suggested appears to have already been added to the telecommunications article. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The above referenced content was added to the telecommunications article by myself in lieu of being able to add it to the television article. If permitted to add it to television (which I strongly believe is a better suited platform for the content) I will delete it from telecommunications. Mhughes38 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

In the list of commercial-free television, add:

• Denmark DR

195.242.55.209 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Done --Six words (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Image not useful

The "Television introduction by country" image is unusable to 10% of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.135.24 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Phonovision

"Remarkably, in 1927 Baird also invented the world's first video recording system, "Phonovision": by modulating the output signal of his TV camera down to the audio range,"

No, the signal was audio range from the start, no frequency conversion took place. Tabby (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Does TV actually brainwash Americans?

"There's evidence to suggest that the mere act of watching makes them more passive and accepting of authority "

• Does TV actually brainwash Americans? salon.com.91.39.123.121 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pacification of young audiences who previously socialised in physical recreation

When I was growing up in Australia in the late 1960's and early 1970's a sizable portion of children became passive consumers of television entertainment from when they arrived home from school, often until bedtime at 10.00PM or later. Previously children played and socialised out in the open after school. Although some of my childhood after school times were spent in the latter way, far too much was spent in the former way.

Programs I watched included cartoons such as the Bugs Bunny Show, Astro Boy, Gigantor, Kimba and various mass-produced Hanna Barbera productions, childrens' variety shows such as the Channel Niners on Channel 9 hosted by Jim Iliffe and occasionally drama and adventure programs such as Lassie, Rin Tin Tin and Skippy.

The quality or otherwise of these is secondary to the harm they caused to me and other children by having turned us into passive consumers.

In 2012 television has been replaced for many with entertainment on the Internet or on game machines. Whilst these forms of entertainment require somewhat more mental interaction that television, most have little relation to the real world and teach little of value. Furthermore they still require little more physical activity than does televison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Griffin (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Television. Taxation or license

Hello tv is awesome, I found the 'Television' page very interesting. I had no idea so much was achieved as far back as the mid 1920s!
There is one section which is very incorrect and will lead to problems for those attempting factual research.
In the Taxation or licence section for the UK, there is:
"....is funded by an annual television license paid by all households owning a television."
which is universally known to be incorrect.
There are many millions of UK households which do not hold a UK license; but keep television sets for use with recorded viewing, such as video, DVD etc.
(as well as the use of online access to catch up with programmes, after they have been broadcast live).
It does Wikipedia no favours, showing such incorrect and misleading data.
Also, why has the error not already been corrected......? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero&co (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Cicero&co,
I totally agree with you, this data is incorrect. I believe the sentence:
"(...)is funded by an annual television license paid by all households owning a television."
Could be changed to:
"is funded by an annual television license paid by households who wish to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 26.8 million UK private domestic households own televisions, with approximately 24,963,799 TV licenses in force as of 2010."
This last sentence should link to the source http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-figures-AB18/

Many thanks,

Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording, "households who wish to watch or record TV as it is being broadcast" is clumsy in the extreme; "households receiving TV broadcasts" would suffice. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Nick Cooper. Does this mean I can go ahead and correct it to "(...)is funded by an annual television license paid by households receiving TV broadcasts. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 26.8 million UK private domestic households own televisions, with approximately 24,963,799 TV licenses in force as of 2010." ? Regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

24,963,799 is not an approximate number. It's as precise as it can possibly be. We should either leave out the word approximate, or say "approximately 25 million". HiLo48 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, I put it like that because that is how it is mentioned on the source. However, your point does make sense, "approximately 25 million" is indeed a better fit. Zalunardo8 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the number of licences issued is for all premises, not just domestic households, i.e. it covers retail premises, educational instututions, offices, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello All, Thank you for following up on this; also to Nick Cooper for your update regarding the general public needing to think in terms of ‘premises’, rather than simply domestic ‘household’. With respect, I do believe that in this case the phrase: “households receiving TV broadcasts” falls a long way short in clarity; especially considering so many seem to find it hard to understand license aspects relating to their own situations, which has been shown to open the door to mischief-makers on forums who seem to enjoy confusing the issue further. My suggestion would be: “households receiving live TV broadcasts”, or even: “households receiving TV live-broadcast”. As the original is so wrong, either of those would make things abundantly clear, without adding any excess to the phrase. Cicero&co (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I agree with Cicero&Co about including the word 'live' and think it could now be changed to: "(...)is funded by an annual television license paid by households receiving live TV broadcasts. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 26.8 million UK private domestic households own televisions, with approximately 25 million TV licenses in all premises in force as of 2010." What do you think? Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zalunardo8, It looks as though you had best make yourself comfortable, if you are waiting for a response. Your proposal seems reasonable enough to me, although I think this may be the best opportunity to replace ‘households’ with ‘premises’, in view of the extra information which Nick Cooper has introduced. Seasons Greetings & a Happy New Year to all. Cicero&co (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Hope you all had a good holiday! I will carry on and edit the page to "(...)is funded by an annual television license paid by premises receiving live TV broadcasts. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 26.8 million UK private domestic households own televisions, with approximately 25 million TV licenses in all premises in force as of 2010.". Any comments or follow ups, let me know. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I dunno if the word live has a different meaning for UK television from the meaning it has in Australia. Here it generally refers to broadcasting something like a sports event (sometimes a concert) as it's actually happening, rather than recording the event and broadcasting it later. Is that not the meaning in the UK? Even it is different, we need to clarify that. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48, I understand what you are saying, however in this corrective exercise the context is in relation to when a program is being broadcast in the UK, by the network to the viewing and license-paying audience (nothing to do with when the action actually happens ‘in the flesh’). We have not been dealing with any other regions which will all have their own, specific local regulations. The situation in the UK requires a license to be held, when viewing programs as broadcast. Whereas viewing programs from archive, for example: when subsequently made available online (usually a couple of hours after the original –live- broadcast), may be watched without a license. A large percentage of British people choose to do this now, using their TVs linked to computers, or using phones. On the other hand, many don’t bother watching online ‘catch-up’ at all; instead just watching videos or DVDs, which is why the original: “……funded by an annual television licence paid by all households owning a television….”, was completely wrong and implied that owning a TV requires a license, which is not the case (in Blighty). The BBC enforcement agency take the, rather polarized, view that any premises showing TV-like light (seen by an agent through the curtains) 'must' be watching live-TV and should be licensed, which as you might imagine is raising much conflict and unjustified legal action. Thank you for your help, Zalunardo8! Cicero&co (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understood what you were trying to say, and thank you for explaining it again, but you haven't convinced me that "live" is the correct word. Does the formal language in the legislation help? How does UK English differentiate between current events televised as they actually happen, and those recorded and televised a short while later? And remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. It's good to avoid language that you know has a distinctly different meaning from the one you intend in countries other than your own. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It means a television broadcast, whether via terrestrial, cable, or satellite signal. It is not a differentiation between the broadcast of a live event, as opposed to a pre-recorded programme. Access a "catch-up" streaming service would not be considered to be a broadcast in the same sense. To be honest, I would question the need to include more detail on the UK licence, when we could simply have a link to Television licensing in the United Kingdom, where the whole issue is covered appropriately. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's "not a differentiation between the broadcast of a live event, as opposed to a pre-recorded programme", so we can't use language that suggests it is, can we? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a fudged answer to your question of, "How does UK English differentiate between current events televised as they actually happen, and those recorded and televised a short while later?" The former would be specifically called "live" but the latter simply "a broadcast." Most TV is pre-recorded, so only really the live stuff has to be differentiated by specifically calling it "live." As I said, I think we can probably cut out all this confusion by simply linking to Television licensing in the United Kingdom, and not having some potentially ambiguous compromised summary here. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cicero&co, ou seem to have some very strange ideas about how UK TV Licensing works in practice. A case of alleged evasion wouldn't go to court simply on the basis of flickering light against a curtain. This supposed "much conflict" as a result doesn't seem to be very prevalent. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, I believe the website below may help resolve this discussion. According to it, 'You need a valid TV Licence if you use TV receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV.' So, it doesn't actually matter if the program is being transmitted live, as long as it being watched as broadcasted on TV. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3/ Hope this helps, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Zworykin

Zworykin is mentioned extensively on the History of TV page, but not in the History section here. Why???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Television introduction by country

attention: Television introduction by country, colors do not match graph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.54.37 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2013

please change iPlayer to netflix because iplayer is unknown to most people and netflix is known quite a lot.(plus its better haha) 2602:306:37E0:5F0:131:54C3:5B56:BBE3 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. It doesn't seem that the definition of Internet Television includes Netflix. Also, iPlayer is used in the UK, so plenty of people know about it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Invention categories

Can anyone justify saying TV was invented in Germany, Russia, Scotland, Britain, and America? If I go and read a history book on television, does the author actually say "Television is a German, Russian, Scottish, British, and American invention"? If a technology has that many fathers, shouldn't we remove all the categories and admit that something as complex as television was the result of combining many advances over time from many places? Putting these near-meaningless categories on subjects like television isn't doing a service to Wikipedia's readers, it's sowing confusion at best. A reader who looks at, say, Category:American inventions could be forgiven for thinking TV was invented by Americans and nobody else. The category page doesn't tell you that the article is also in four other invention categories. Which means it's spreading misinformation. The first rule should be "do no harm".

The category system is simply too blunt an instrument for this kind of subtle question. When in doubt, leave it out, and thereby encourage readers to to read the prose and get the complete picture.

The same could be said for many other Wikipedia articles; the "invention" categories are highly prone to misinformation. But I can only fix one thing at a time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree - it's fine with me.--IIIraute (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Method of control

I think this shows extensive control of TV over our lives which I'd like to see added in some way, because if we don't like to ever watch TV there's nothing else to do, which makes me miserable & probably many other people, & many don't even think of it in that way; they actually think they enjoy doing nothing else, which is control: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html Hillmon7500 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2014

Within the beginning text of this article, before the "Contents" box, the third paragraph [written as follows: In 2009 78 percent of the world's households owned at least one television set, an increase of 5% over 2003.] should be changed to: "In 2009, 78% of the world's households owned at least one television set, an increase of 5% over 2003." This is for ease in reading and eliminating a possible run-on situation. ClubAtlético (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --JamesMoose (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored picture in lede

I just restored a picture in the lede which had been replaced with one from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. That picture was taken at a major center of world controversy that has nothing to do with conveying the concept of a television. It is a distracting choice for inclusion in this article, although I am sure it was suggested with good intention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

There needs to be a small grammatical change, but it would greatly clarify the sentence. The section on "History." Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 Currently reads, "From this period forward, scanning in one form or another has been used in nearly every image transmission technology to date, including television." Would be changed to, "From this period forward, scanning, in one form or another, has been used in nearly every image transmission technology to date, including television." Ebbhyen (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

The etymology section in the summary seems a bit tautological. I think it would be clearer if we removed "from French télévision, meaning "television"; " entirely. Catacomb007 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I believe any monoglot can figure out that Fr. télévision = En. television, and I have removed the latter. It does make sense to leave {{ety|fra|télévision}} in. Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

TV is bae

69.65.85.85 (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier TV experiments 1909

Could anyone please add this section from the History of Television section? The first successful, instantaneous transmission of images - with scanning and refresh - were performed not by Baird in 1925 but by Rignoux and Fournier in Paris in 1909 - with documented evidence. This paragraph should be inserted between " each hole captured a horizontal "slice" of the entire image.[7]" and "Nipkow's design was not practical until advances"

The first demonstration of the instantaneous transmission of images was by Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier in Paris in 1909. A matrix of 64 selenium cells, individually wired to a mechanical commutator, served as an electronic retina. In the receiver, a type of Kerr cell modulated the light and a series of variously angled mirrors attached to the edge of a rotating disc scanned the modulated beam onto the display screen. A separate circuit regulated synchronization. The 8x8 pixel resolution in this proof-of-concept demonstration was just sufficient to clearly transmit individual letters of the alphabet. An updated image was transmitted "several times" each second.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another reference - in English

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

In 1911 Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton was the first man to come up with the envision of an electric television. He was an Scottish electrical engineer. He composed the idea of using cathode ray tubes to capture light and to display an image. Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton idea was similar to Boris Rosing model in 1907, but Campbell-Swinton used a modified version of the cathode ray tube as the transmitter. Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton version was later used as a starting point for the first workable electronic television system. BradHages (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2014

Someone added a totally unrelated image and link to some "Dr Birbal Jha" amidst the text... please someone remove it!

179.159.43.5 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. ... discospinster _talk 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Please Change

Until the 2000s, broadcast television programs were generally transmitted as an analog television signal but over the course of the following decade, several countries went almost exclusively digital.[citation needed]

To

Before 1996, broadcast television programs in the US were exclusively transmitted as an analog television signal, but when Congress authorized additional broadcast channels for full-power TV stations, digital and analog ran side by side. This continued until June 12, 2009 when full-power stations were required to stop broadcasting analog signals. In Europe, countries started transmitting digitally from 1998 on, and in 2005 declared it would attempt to have all stations digital by 2012. With 22 countries achieving the deadline, and more changing thereafter, several countries went almost exclusively digital.

Anatelo (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anatelo, thanks for the suggestion. My opinion on this is that it is too long for the lead paragraph of the article. Can you think of a version that is the same length as the current sentence? Stickee (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I agree that it is too long for a lede. Please discuss this further and once a consensus is reached, feel free to reactivate this edit request if needed. Thanks for your interest in contributing to the English Wikipedia! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Boris Rosing: “Selenium cell” ?

Currently the article quotes Vladimir Zworykin as stating that in 1911, Boris Rosing could not produce moving images because he was using selenium cells as light detectors and selenium responds too slowly to accurately reproduce motion. This statement is incorrect.

Therefore the sentence – "Moving images were not possible because, in the scanner, "the sensitivity was not enough and the selenium cell was very laggy." " – should be deleted.

It is true that Rosing used selenium detectors during his earliest experiments (he began his experiments with television in 1902); however, by 1911, he did not use selenium cells.

In his U.S. patent of 1911 – Boris Rosing, "Art of electric telescopy," U.S. Patent no. 1,161,734 (filed: April 5, 1911 ; issued: November 23, 1915). – on page 6 of the text, he states that in his experiments, he used two different types of photocells:

One photocell was a Becquerel cell. This was an electrolytic battery whose output voltage was affected by the light striking it. (See: Photoelectric effect: History: 19th century )

However, the other photocell was based on the “Hallwachs phenomenon” (i.e., photoelectric effect). (See: Wilhelm Hallwachs.) This photocell was a vacuum tube in which light struck a piece of alkali metal, causing the metal to release electrons, which were then collected by an electrode. It was invented in 1893: Julius Elster and Hans Geitel (1893) "Ueber die Vergleichung von Lichtstärken auf photoelectrischem Wege" (On the comparison of light intensities by photoelectric methods), Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 3rd series, 48 : 625-635. A Russian biography of Boris Rosing states that Rosing used such photoelectric cells. See: Сергей В. Истомин [Sergei V. Istomin], Самые знаменитые изобретатели России [The most famous Russian inventors] (Moscow, Russia: Вече [Veche], 2002), pages 87-91. From page 89:

"Зная, что селеновое фотосопротивление непригодно для этой цели из-за большой инерционности, Розинг занялся исследованием фотоэлектрических свойств других веществ. Следствием этого явилось решение применить в передающем устройстве щелочной фотоэлемент с внешним фотоэффектом."

Translation: Knowing that a selenium photoresistor is not suitable for this purpose [i.e., generating signals from moving images] because of its slow response, Rosing began exploring the photovoltaic properties of other substances. This resulted in his decision to use in the transmitter an alkaline photocell with a surface photoeffect.

Indeed, if you examine Figures 5 and 6 of Rosing’s 1911 U. S. patent, you’ll see that the lens focuses the image onto the electrode of a vacuum tube (represented with a circle – its glass envelope).

Thus, when Vladimir Zworykin said that Boris Rosing had used selenium cells in his television, Zworykin was referring to Rosing’s early experiments. By 1911, Rosing was using vacuum tube photocells that were based on the photoelectric effect. Such tubes have a much shorter response time and are therefore capable of accurately generating signals from moving images.
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015 There are more methods of television transmission than OTA, cable and satellite.

Please change the following sentence in the opening from

In addition to terrestrial transmission, television signals are also distributed by cable (digital transition is ongoing) and satellite (digital transition completed) systems.

to this

In addition to the original terrestrial transmission method, television signals are also distributed by Co-axial cable, satellite systems, Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), Optical Fiber, Microwave transmission and the Internet.

Beatles1959 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam ^Sing! 12:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

In the History section it says, "Invention of the television was work" I suggest adding a "the" before Invention, and a "the" after television. Skate Shady - talk to me 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Done thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It was no problem. Just glad I could help.Skate Shady - talk to me 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

"World War II, an improved form was popularized in the United States and Britain, and television set became commonplace in homes, businesses, and institutions." should either say 'television sets' or 'a television set'.

"Frederick Bakewell demonstrated a working laboratory version in 1951." Should most likely be 1851.

"Although 3D TV sets are quite popular for watching 3D home media such as on Blu-ray discs, 3D programming has largely failed to make an inroad with the public. Many 3D television channels which started in early 2010s were shut down by mid 2010s." Instead of 'an inroad', should say 'inroads'. Also should say 'the mid 2010s' or even 'mid-decade'.

"The addition of color to broadcast television after 1953 further increased the popularity of television sets in 1960's, and an outdoor antenna became a common feature of suburban homes." Remove '1960's'. Shinap (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rahat (Message) 05:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Need to change CRT description

Retroworks (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 5/20/2015 "As a matter of safety, the face is typically made of thick lead glass so as to be highly shatter-resistant and to block most X-ray emissions, particularly if the CRT is used in a consumer product." FALSE

The CRT is manufactured in two parts. The "face" is called the Panel, which is made with non-leaded barium glass. The part of the CRT which is not visible (the Funnel) is made with leaded glass. Both the barium and the leaded silica do protect the consumer from cathode rays. The panel glass (face) has more expensive barium because barium is more transparent.

Leaded glass was used in both the panel and funnel prior to the 1960s, but was eliminated by the mid 1970s.

Price

I'm not aware of a source for this... but I think it would be very useful to see a graph of the average price paid for a TV set over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130807220013/http://ewh.ieee.org/r2/johnstown/downloads/20090217_IEEE_JST_Trivia_Answers.pdf to http://ewh.ieee.org/r2/johnstown/downloads/20090217_IEEE_JST_Trivia_Answers.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314070853/http://www.scitech.mtesz.hu/52tihanyi/flat-panel_tv_en.pdf to http://www.scitech.mtesz.hu/52tihanyi/flat-panel_tv_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005045049/http://www.barb.co.uk:80/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=multichannel&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=multichannel&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720232457/http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/paca/minefi_relais_sociaux/impots/fiche21.html to http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/paca/minefi_relais_sociaux/impots/fiche21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

VandrariSkogen (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120828072528/http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/28169/337639/version/3/file/Riseofthemachines.pdf to http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/28169/337639/version/3/file/Riseofthemachines.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

In the last sentence of the third paragraph of the article, please change "are beaome" to "became". Jsspiegel7 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Internet TV Services

The end of the 2nd paragraph introduces Smart Television and Internet Television but it confuses the Roku and Chromecast devices with services such as Netflix and Hulu. I'm also not sure iPlayer should be cited as an example given it is not well known, being restricted to the UK. 73.184.68.239 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of an encyclopedia was to spread information, and make it available. I don't want to read about things I already know about TV, or simply have things I think might be true, confirmed. At least I try (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Blu-ray hype

The availability of storage media such as VHS tape (1976), DVDs (1997), and high-definition Blu-ray Discs (2006) enabled viewers to watch recorded material such as movies.

Someone please tell me, what precisely did Blu-ray enable, "watching recorded material"-wise, that DVDs didn't? — MaxEnt 04:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One could say the same about DVDs vs. VHS. VHS vs. Betamax. The point is that they all enable the viewing of recorded material. At least I try (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The social aspects of the article is too brief

I think for the most of people, they want to see more information which has relationship with their daily life. While the social aspects of the article is too brief. I suggest that more information about television’s social effects should be explained in the article.

References

You might be right, but I think most people probably want to know who invented TV, how, how it developed, how it works at a basic level, and how advances in technology have been applied to steadily improve it, and how those improvements work. At least I try (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request regarding lead

The lead currently says:

"Television became available in crude experimental forms in the late 1920s, but these did not sell to the public" The italicised phrase should be deleted, because pre-1945 sales are not discussed in the main article. 86.170.121.215 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101180643/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/p05/ to http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/p05/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89048352892%3Bview%3D1up%3Bseq%3D568
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622000000/http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/philo.html to http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/philo.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Ms0648.xml/complete
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304131236/http://625.625-net.ru/files/587/511/h_665921be9883776271895912fb8bb262 to http://625.625-net.ru/files/587/511/h_665921be9883776271895912fb8bb262
• replace dead link http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_255-portrait.pdf to http://freestuffwww.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_95.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cra.ir/FTD/Static/RRC/RRCFile10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424162531/http://www.tvmuseum.ru/attach.asp?a_no=1018 to http://www.tvmuseum.ru/attach.asp?a_no=1018
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bambooav.com/information-about-interlaced-and-progressive-scan-signals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724082049/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/130318/3d-tv-sales-growth to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/130318/3d-tv-sales-growth
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217104116/http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/cea-study-says-seven-percent-of-tv-households-use-antennas-/220585 to http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/cea-study-says-seven-percent-of-tv-households-use-antennas-/220585
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218160139/http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/nielsen-broadcast-reliance-grew-in--/217217 to http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/nielsen-broadcast-reliance-grew-in--/217217
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/corporate/about_us/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718174822/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/index-e.html to http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/aboutstrl/evolution-of-tv-en/index-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025200852/http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/timeline/1940-1949.html to http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/timeline/1940-1949.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116224556/http://astronautix.com/craft/intlsat1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intlsat1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112153322/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ekran.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ekran.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917000611/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_50.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_50.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

103.229.82.138 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Ivecos (t) 11:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

earlytelevision.org/california_television_society

• http://www.earlytelevision.org/california_television_society.html

According to a 1930 newspaper article, the "California Television Society, a small group of men largely connected with pictures, has been organized to study the past and current development of television and kindred subjects with headquarters at the Warner-Kelton Hotel. An experimental laboratory will be built and Dr. D. Morandini of the University of California is conducting an extension class for the club. Lee Jason, film director, is president of the organization."

69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

pooooooooooooooooooooop 2605:A000:160C:89A7:6041:637D:722A:604B (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Danski454 (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Henry Sutton and his 1885 telephane system

It seems kind of weird to not mention Henry Sutton who created the Telephane system in 1885, or even that Tesla used it to trasmit images wirelessly... Source: https://ethw.org/Henry_Sutton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.158.206 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"History of television" article is desperately needed

It's a pain even to find out when and where TV was first developed, in this article. Tony (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Too late. We already have an article called History of television. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

helo

vis iss wikipeedeeea ai webite dat olows uo tu looc eup informashen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1420:CC6:FD52:16B9:922F:6505 (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Jumping box" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jumping box. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 14:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

Please look for the word "televison" and replace it with "television." It's underneath Social Aspects. 2601:5C6:8080:100:C57C:814D:88F4:C953 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. I just removed the link outright since it was a bit easter eggy and was duplicated by the {{main}} section hatnote anyway; thanks for pointing it out! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

TV - рулит !!

"Анна Каренина со стрип-шоу в морге !! )))

176.59.197.31 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Television: History

"The first demonstration of the live transmission of images was by Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier in Paris in 1909." This is incorrect. The device used by Rignoux and Fournier was in fact a 'visual' telegraph that transmitted impulses from individual selenium cells over individual wires, that is similar to the Wheatstone telegraph that used individual wires for separate data. Images had been transmitted via telegraph from as early as the 1840s. "As far back as 1843 people had tried sending pictures over telegraph wires." Infoculture, The Smithsonian Book of the Information Age by Steven Lubar, page 64. additionally, Nipkow had transmitted images over a wire with his Nipkow disk in the 1880s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautardy (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

T.V. and TV

The article, and several dictionaries, are missing "T.V." as an abbreviation. Growing up, a lot of folks used "T.V." or maybe even "t.v.", but "TV" came into vogue, as did a lot of removing of periods in abbreviations. It seems like it would be a good HISTORICAL NOTE to include "T.V." here and elsewhere, lest this change in writing and history gets lost in the revamping of the English language. :) Misty MH (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussionnыe corporativы ..

и клубы по интересам каких-то полных неадекватов ..

213.87.242.64 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Genres section focuses too much on television genres in the United States

I saw the template citing this issue and since there was no section here discussing it I've decided to start one. I'm a Canadian and most of our television programs are also aired in the US so my knowledge of what's on TV outside of North America is limited. So I'm not sure of how much help I can be, but I do have some ideas on how to improve this section and I'm open to feedback.

We could find sources that list popular TV shows in various countries or areas of the world and see if there's any similarities we can pull together into a cohesive whole. e.g "In the United States and Canada, the most common/popular genres are [______], [______] and [______]. In India... [etc.]" Of course this would proceed a general description of the wide range of television genres there are.

Even if this makes this section a lot shorter and focus less on the subject of the genres themselves, I think that will be okay. I feel it will fit better with the rest of the article and television genres are kind of their own topic because of how much there is to cover. So in that regard I thought we could also add a "See also:" link to the film and television section of the List of genres page.

EmmaIsTemporary (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Fernsehen" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fernsehen. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Fernsehen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Eyesnore 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CorrieBrending.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Original The drover's wife movie

Where can l find information about the original black and white movie The drover's wife? I remember seeing it over 50 years ago, but can't find any info about it now. 121.216.103.10 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe try asking at the reference desk. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

television

girl 160.238.72.94 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Every Statement in This Article About English-Language History of Terms Is Wrong

Every statement about English-Language datings in the Etymology section of this article is wrong. Someone should take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.198 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a need for a section on the future of television?

Maybe something about whether television will be obsolete? Millsteacher (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to include only verifiable factual information, not speculation about what may happen in the future. JBW (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LCD generic tv.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

la

2607:FEA8:2A26:3300:9499:A083:3E3E:DB7E (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

there is an error in this page where "la" appears on top of the page, I was going to edit this but I can't so please fix this.

 Done small jars tc 19:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)