Talk:Base26

2013
There needs to be a base26 page, because most of the cipher machines used in the Western world during the 1930s to 1960s used base 26 rotors and keyboards.

Examples of these machines -- 03:09, 6 September 2013‎ 174.21.130.11

Proposed merge with Hexavigesimal
The articles, Base26 and Hexavigesimal, seem to contain separately written information regarding the same topic. GuyHimGuy (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree; this article is a sketchier and less adequate version of the other one... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree Base26 should be merged into Hexavigesimal, not the other way around. In fact, I think Base 11, Base 13, Base 24, Base 27, Base 32, Base 36, and Base64 should all be moved to Undecimal, Tridecimal, Tetravigesimal, Duotrigesimal, Hexatrigesimal, Septemvigesimal and Tetrasexagesimal respectively to be consistent with the other number base articles in List of numeral systems. If not, the next best option might be to call the base using the word 'Base' followed by the number for all those and only those bases higher than 20, but even so, Base64 should be moved to Base 64 to not be different from the other articles about a base higher than 20. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging with Hexavigesimal is wrong
Do not confuse "Character Encoding" with "Number Encoding" ... the merger idea is wrong because of this confusion.

Eyreland (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't think "Base26" is a character encoding at all, but rather a transfer encoding like Base64 -- but a transfer encoding which seems to be largely hypothetical and speculative (as opposed to Base64 which is in actual real use).  In any case, if the article is not to be merged, then it needs to be radically overhauled, because its current state is extremely unsatisfactory. AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Codegroup and its relations
There is a Codegroup project on the web, and the Modern Enigma proposal with both Base26 and Base36 (for which there is no Wiki article at all).

Base32 and Base64 may be computer net friendly, but I doubt these encoding schemes could survive intact in a radio transmission (via shortwave) over a polar path. Yes, there is propagation research that has proven this already -- and several transmission formats like MT63 that can cope with such difficulties.

Base26 and Base36 are also less censurable as well...

Eyreland (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The more basic question is why this article should even exist at all?? It's certainly not commonly used by modern software in the form in which it appears in the article page.  As for WW2 cryptographic machines (Enigma, etc.), they predominantly had 26 parallel electrical circuits, and therefore didn't have any "character encoding" in the modern sense, as far as I know.  There's nothing in the design or operation of the Enigma which directly implies a specific assignment of particular alphabetic letters to particular mathematical base-26 digits.... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the AnonMoos, this article seems to be intended to mimic the format of Base32 and Base64 but is incomplete, adds very little original information, and cites zero references. This page should probably just be deleted since it doesn't really have any valuable, credible information.