Talk:Television/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 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 "

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Boris Rosing: “Selenium cell” ?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

Need to change CRT description

Price

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

Internet TV Services

Blu-ray hype

The social aspects of the article is too brief

Edit request regarding lead

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

earlytelevision.org/california_television_society

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

No mention of Henry Sutton and his 1885 telephane system

"History of television" article is desperately needed

helo

"Jumping box" listed at Redirects for discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

TV - рулит !!

Television: History

T.V. and TV

Discussionnыe corporativы ..

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

"Fernsehen" listed at Redirects for discussion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Original The drover's wife movie

television

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

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

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

la

"Most television sets sold in the 2000s were flat-panel, mainly LEDs."

EIM

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

Until the end of the 2000s, there were still many countries where CRT TVs were still popular

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI