Talk:Digital data/Archive 1

Concept of symbols
I like the terminology of digital being a transmission of symbols. - Omegatron 21:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The human eye
The article currently claims
 * the human eye may be able to detect tens of thousands of different intensities of pure green

Really? I've been told that humans cannot distinguish even 256 intensities of pure green. See "How many bits do I need to smoothly shade from black to white?" by Charles Poynton. (Should this be posted on the eye article ?) --DavidCary 09:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, and changed the example. But the article misses an important point, and I'm not sure how to best add it in: Compared with digital, analog has higher resolution but lower accuracy (due to noise, amplifier distortion, etc.). Compared with analog, digital has lower resolution but higher accuracy. In a sense, using digital sacrifices resolution for accuracy. --Rick Sidwell 17:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed text
I removed the following text because, while probably true, it doesn't really apply to the subject at hand. --Rick Sidwell 01:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that photographic film is not perfect, being subject to aberrations. Losses in analog systems are often modelled as a noise spectrum and modulation transfer function (MTF). The MTF of many analog systems, including film, typically "rolls off" with increasing frequency.

Nits, and the picking thereof
I think the article accurately reflects the way the term is most commonly used, but the comparison of digital to discrete and the comparison of digital to analog are flawed if you're being very precise.

The problem is that there is a tacit assumption when calling digital "numbers" and that is the assumption of fixed length representation inherent in computer system design.

In the limit, digital and analog systems have the same resolution and the same accuracy. In practice, most of the time, people are more familiar with situations, like audio recording, where analog systems behave as described above. But there are other, less common situations, like solutions of certain partial differential equations, where the analog systems are both higher resolution and more accurate. The most extreme example of this is the use of a windtunnel versus a computer to simulate fluid flow. Both are models. The first is analog, the second digital. The analog system is more accurate and of a higher resolution than the digital system.

Confused
The entry begins with:
 * A digital system is one that uses numbers, especially binary numbers, for input, processing, transmission, storage, or display, rather than a continuous spectrum of values (an analog system) or non-numeric symbols such as letters or icons.

The entry then concludes with a catalogue of non-numeric symbols, which are identified as "Historical Digital Systems." Isn't this a bit incoherent? I think the entry would over-all benefit by concentrating on the discrete nature of digital encoding (as opposed to the non-discrete nature of analogue).

I'd also like to query the supposition that digital encoding necessarily implies some form of numerical representation. I may be out on a limb here (I'm not a mathematician) but - while strictly speaking it's true that any enumerable quantity is a number - isn't it a bit misleading to say that "digital" fundamentally or necessarily implies the representation of number? Doesn't that privilege one possible interpretation of a digital encoding? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that number can be represented digitally; i.e. the "digital representation of number," but that a digital encoding can easily represent a letter in the alphabet (ASCII), part of a sound recording, etc?

I agree that the quoted text is confusing and likely not useful. I believe the point they were making is that the values encoded in a digital format will be discreet values. These values can be called numbers or anything else, but the point is that in, say, a digitally encoded signal, the signal will represent a discreet value, i.e. either 1 or 2, and the recieving device will so-interpret it. This is in contrast to analogue signals which will be interpreted as a particular value (limited by the degree of the recieving devices percision in measuring that value) along a continuous set of values. So the analogue signal could be interpreted as, i.e., anything from 0 to 1.

The point is that analogue may be interpreted as a number as well, but it can be interpreted as any number within the range, and it will not be perfectly interpreted as perfect percision is impossible. So its only a particular number by virtue of the limits on the percision of the interpreting device, in reality it is a value not expressed by any number of finite length, just like the weight of a pencil. So the analogue signal interpreted as, say, 1 isn't really 1, but rather rounded to 1 at some degree of percision, whereas the digital interpreted as 1 is just that number with no rounding or percision to worry about. In that way, digital is a discrete value, and analog is an approximation of some point on a continuous line. --24.29.232.2 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused? Me too!
I think the "confused" entry is making a great point. We really need to talk about the fundamental differences between digital and analog in this article; and we have not achieved this yet.

The concept of digital is very well defined and very straight forward. It has nothing to do with numbers, computers, binary numerals, transmission, storage, or display of data or signals. This is a laymen's definition. And that might very well be ok for this article since it's a high-level definition of the term. But something more is needed.

The opening three paragraphs are, in fact, inaccurate. Most digital systems so not use binary numbers to represent data. And the first sentence of paragraph two is just wrong. 'The distinction of "digital" versus "analog"' has nothing to do with the "method of input, data storage and transfer, or the internal working of a device." Though, "internal workings of a device" is a vague term for sure. These terms are all so vague.

Can't we talk about the concept of having a pre-arranged alphabet of symbols, which reduces randomness in the system? And that REGENERATION of the original data, rather than amplification, is really what makes a system digital. Analog systems can only amplify and reproduce. Digital systems can RECREATE the original data. These are fundamental concepts that are at the heart of the definition of digital.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dje (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The comment you're reacting to is over a year old. If you have a good improvement over the present definition, let's see it. I agree that the especially binary numbers is quite lame; the rest is not bad as general-audience definitions go, I think, but I agree it can be improved.  Note that your complaint about the distinction having nothing to do with input, output, etc., is a bit off base, since it does not imply that those uses are part of the distinction. Dicklyon 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'Unreferenced' tag
An article such as this should be capable of being written by a reasonably competant engineer without refence to other material. Unfortunatly, this article is very poor in it current state. It tries to be too complicated.

It has a number of major problems. For example, there is a section on noise being introduced to the digital signal, but it totally fails to mention the single largest source of noise - the digitisation process itself.

It also gives an example of a digital system - the smoke signals. Fair enough, the smoke (or absence thereof) is a fair example of digital communication. But it is spoilt because it refers to the smoke itself as "an analogue carrier". It is not an analogue carrier precisely because it does not represent anything else (i.e. it is not an analogue).

For morse code it refers to five digital states. Not so. There are two digital states, the presence or absence of an electric current or carrier. What the various intervals represent is purely a matter of interpretation.

For the modem it refers once again to an 'analogue carrier signal' that is most definitely not an analogue. This discussion is by no means exhaustive.

Should I get the time, I will try to provide a better article, but it won't be anytime real soon. I B Wright 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think both the analog and digital column need pictures. Show a smoothly varying soundwave, and then show a discrete approximation of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.59.217 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A "digital" system is more abstract than what is presented in this article. John Haugeland defines a digital system as a "set of positive and reliable techniques (methods, devices) for producing and reidentifying tokens, or configurations of tokens..." I think someone should start from something like this, and then move into examples of more concrete digital systems, and digital vs. analog... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.30.127 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Цćф —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.8.211 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Morse code - symbols or states?
The Morse Code entry claims that there are five states, which is incorrect. There only two states, on or off, but they are used to represent 5 symbols - dot, dash, intra-character gap (between each dot or dash), short gap (between each letter), medium gap (between words), and long gap (between sentences).

These symbols are then grouped into larger symbols - letters, numbers, etc.

On another topic - I also think it would be worthwhile describing the difference between quantizing time (discrete-time systems) and quantizing signal (A/D conversion etc.)

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.36.107.146 (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources
The reason why there isn't many sources (if any) to the way digital is being referred to on the wikipedia is because "digital" is being used to describe raw data and not data processing. First we have to understand that "digital" is meaningless if it doesn't pertain to information. All data in it's purest form is analog, and is only made digital by the way it's processed. The difference between analog data and digital data is the same difference between data and information. Therefore, data is only digital as it pertains to information, not raw data. It makes perfect sense when you see digital data as the subset of analog data that it is. But when you try to reverse it and treat analog data as if it somehow intersects or is a subset of digital data, it's no wonder that it's vague and confusing. It's contrary to logic. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

digital network
What is a "digital network" ? Currently digital network redirects to digital electronics, which never mentions the term "digital network".

I typically use the phrase "digital network" to mean something like this:


 * digital network: a digital telecommunications network, where the information travels from one enclosure to another in digital form. Such networks sometimes use non-electronic components -- for example, Erbium-doped fiber amplifier -- as well as digital electronics.

While the terms "digital" and "network" may apply to the way digital components are connected in digital electronics -- for example, the way logic gates and hardware registers are connected in a electrical network inside a single IC, perhaps represented as a and-inverter graph, to make a microprocessor -- I don't know anyone that would call a single integrated circuit a "digital network".

Should we define "digital network" in the digital article (and redirect digital network to digital), or define "digital network" in some other article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Start by distinguishing digital network from analog network. That will make it more obvious which article the term should be redirected too. If there is none, consider whether or not the term "digital network" serves to clarify anything or is merely another buzzword. My guess is that computer network would be the closest thing. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA
I strongly disagree that DNA is a proper example of a "Historical digital system." With the exception of DNA, all the other examples are of digital systems designed and created by humans. DNA, on the contrary, is a product of a mechanistic, natural, unplanned, undesigned, and purposeless process, namely biological evolution. The other examples given of historical digital systems were planned and created for a human purpose by an intelligent process, that is, they are teleological. DNA, however, results from a teleonomic process, one that operates naturally without planning, forethought, purpose, or intelligence. Teleological and teleonomic systems are different in kind or quality, not degree or quantity, so DNA is a data or information system different in kind from a historical data or information digital system created by humans. Thus, it should not be used as an example in a digital context.

The significant difference is that DNA is not digital, contrary to the intent of the DNA example, which is not written incorrectly if read outside of a digital context. Digital means using data in the form of numerical digits, or data expressed in numerical form, or representing or operating on data or information in numerical form (three typical definitions of "digital" in the context of data or information storage, transmission, and manipulation). DNA is not data or information in numerical form, but discrete or discontinuous data in chemical form. Although DNA can be described in numerical form, i.e. a triplet codon, this is not a real numerical attribute but rather an artificial one applied to it by a human description long after its first appearance and the subsequent human discovery of its structure. DNA is a code that stores and transmits data or information. The DNA code consists of discontinuous and discrete nucleotide bases arranged in unique sequences but without a real numerical (and therefore digital) quality. Having the properties of being discrete and discontinuous does not automatically give a system a digital quality or structure; this can only be provided by possessing a numerical property. DNA has no relationship with digital information using ones and zeros or the base 10 numerical system. DNA stores and transmits information using non-numerical and non-digital information using molecular chemical compounds. The nucleotide bases can be symbolized numerically by purposeful application of a human-created alphanumeric system, but the DNA coding system itself has no original and inherent numeric property. So, a molecular coding system is significantly different from a digital coding system. In both substance and origin, DNA is not digital.

Since this is the case, I suggest that the DNA example is incorrectly included in the list of "historical digital systems." It should be removed. I plan to remove it but will wait a week to see what arguments are presented here in the discussion section. If someone can convince me that I'm wrong, I will not remove it. If others write here with more arguments to agree with me, thank you. If an administrator or sysop who monitors this section agrees with me now and wants to remove the DNA example, please be my guest. In the meantime, I ask a WP editor or admin to place the appropriate "controversial" or "disputed" icon in front of the DNA example (simply because I don't know how to do this!). Steven (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steven's principle claim that DNA is not digital. Even if an argument can be made in favor of its inclusion, it can reasonably be argued to the contrary as Steven has done. Therefore, based on the useful, ample, and unambiguous list of examples already provided, the article in no way suffers having DNA removed. Its inclusion, on the other hand, begs the question at best and is speculative at worst; and, therefore, dilutes the quality of an otherwise informative and concise article.Wolfworks (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a sense in which DNA is digital. In fact, there has to be in order that desirable traits are maintained for thousands of generations (whereas analog copying would cripple the descendants). However, there are lots of ways in which DNA is not digital per the comments above, and the topic is not helpful to this article (and DNA does not claim "digital"). I have removed the item. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The information of DNA is digital but it is encoded using chemicals rather than electrical signals or binary or base 10 digits. However, I do not know if that is enough to constitute a system in the sense of this article. Richard Dawkins and other geneticists and biologists have also described DNA as digital information. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=DNA+digital+richard+dawkins&source=bl&ots=vU7nw8KLs3&sig=eIKe5YVu6GU84OPh-ZWK0WKLdy8&hl=en&ei=jXKSTanaHdG3tgeun5Rv&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false - Anon 29 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.68.166 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Modem
There is an obvious problem on Modem that most people think a Modem converts digital signals to analog signals. The modem article is already too long to include a tutorial on the difference between analog and digital signals, and there isn't any good place to reference -- so any suggestions would be welcome.203.206.162.148 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Representations
I changed the link of representations to Representation (mathematics) in consideration of Jmccormac's feedback. However, in that context, I think mathematical representation maybe an oversimplification of the type of information that can be digitized. I'm thinking there might be a better link that's broader in scope on the representation disambiguation page. I'm soliciting feedback here before changing it again. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The mathematical term is more precise and in keeping with concepts and accuracy of the article. (The use of the term 'Language' instead of 'Protocol' later in the article is also a bit iffy.) It looked like a typical Techie/Arts clash over terms and the use of Representation/arts was wrong. This is a technology article rather than an Arts article. Because the same term or word exists in Technology and Arts it does not necessarily follow that they are equivalent. Jmccormac (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should rename this article "Digital (mathematics)," because digital has broader uses than mathematics. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an article about Digital systems as they apply to technology. The opening line is about a 'digital system'. The confusion is in the title which is just 'Digital'. There is a link to the disambiguation page for the term 'Digital' at the top of this article. Jmccormac (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that you categorized this usage of the term "digital" as information theory and information systems, calling digital representations "mathematic" representations implies that information theory and information systems only use the term "digital" when representing quantifiable information. This exclude statistical classification. How do you reconcile this? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
It just saddens me to see people misuse the term "digital" as much as they do. Basic facts about digital need more attention. Not all digital information processing is electronic. Not all uses of the term "digital" pertain to math. I just edited the disambiguation page to expand the scope. But I doubt that will be enough. I'll bet half the links to this article would rather link to a more accurate article if they only knew how narrow the scope of this article is.

There's a ton of room for improvement in this article. "Digital" is probably the current most misused word in the English language. This article could potentially do a great service in clearing up some confusion, but it needs much more work. I suggest one of two directions for this article.


 * Proposal #1: Rename to a more specific use ("digital systems" or "digital mathematics") and make the "Digital" link to the disambiguation page the primary link, not the secondary. That would stimulate wiki community participation in linking to the more accurate and specific articles. That would be the least amount of work.


 * Proposal #2: Broaden the scope and reorganize this article to more sensible sections such as "Digital Mathematics/logic," "Digital Electronics," "Digital Information," "Digital philosophy." Make it as broad in scope as it's own "see also" section. That would be more work then Proposal #1, but could make for a much more interesting general information article.

What do you think? Oicumayberight (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Around here, I usually think incrementally. I have fixed the discrepancy between the title and the description in the lead. I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in the article but I don't think that renaming the article or redefining its scope are first steps towards improving it. ~KvnG 14:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, rather than broader the scope, you narrowed it basically to IT, while the previous lead sentence was much broader and used a keyword 'digital system' which is more acceptable to WP standards for article titles. The article should be renamed, strictly it must be renamed, as WP thinks adjectives are poor article titles, and I agree. A general article on 'digital' concepts, should still at least have a noun in its title. If the adjective for title is really needed, it should be a disambiguation page.  Kbrose (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think what I added on the front of the lead narrows things. I think it gives context. It is arguably redundant. I'm sure there's room for improvement. ~KvnG 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. digital systems still redirects here, so this article is expected to explain the meaning. I just looked at what links to digital and noticed almost every other link had to do with digital electronics or digital signals. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a Digital signal article but it is a bit more narrow than what is discussed in this article. I am not opposed to using one of the article's redirects (Digital system, Digital systems, Digital processing, Digital system, Digital formats, Digital information, Digital input, Digital works) as the title (on the grounds that nouns are better titles than adjectives) and then sorting out what should link where. ~KvnG 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Digital information would probably work best. It seems to be the broadest in scope with the most recognizable meaning, yet explicit enough to tame any scope creep. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is mainly a challenge of how to tame the scope creep. There are two ways to tame it. One way is to broaden the scope to it's broadest possible meaning, proposal #2. The other way is to narrow it to a specific explicit meaning, proposal #1. If we choose the latter, this article should be renamed, and should not be the primary link to the single use of the word "digital" even if someone thinks it's the most common use. It's easier to let the disambiguation page be the primary link and let the editors decide what they mean when they use the term. Ideally, nothing ever stays linked to the disambiguation page because someone will eventually specify every link of the word "digital" to the most relevant article.

Analog vs digital is a concern of data, slightly broader in scope than computer data processing and slightly broader in scope than electronics. It may not be broader in scope than technology; but technology has an intersecting relation with information. Not all matters of information are matters of technology. Defining and interpreting information wouldn't always be considered technology. Using digits to represent data is more than just employing technology. Technology limits the scope of information and excludes some potential uses of digital information as a means of communication. Counting with fingers is not a technology. In symbology, using a digit to symbolize status is not a matter of technology initially if at all.

Mathematics is slightly narrower in scope than information and has an intersecting relationship with technology. Not all technology is based on mathematics. Regarding Mathematics is only a language and method for refining technology aside from calculating machines. Mathematics often has little or nothing to do with using technology and wasn't always used in inventing or refining technology. In other words, "mathematics" oversimplifies technology almost as much as "electronics" oversimplifies technology.

Do we want the article to be broader in scope than both technology and mathematics? That would be proposal #2. Or do we want to limit the scope to either technology (limiting the potential of digital information) or mathematics, which limits the potential of both digital technology and digital information? Oicumayberight (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it math, or is it technology?
The first sentence calls digital a "technology." Calling it a technology seems to conflict with calling it math. Math is applied to technology, but is considered a separate entity than technology by most academic definitions. The dictionary doesn't use the word "math" in any definition of the word "technology" and doesn't use the word "technology" in any definition of the word "math." Oicumayberight (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mathematics is the basic language of technology. It is how systems and rules are generally described. This may not be immediately apparent to non-technologists. The opening paragraph has cleared some of the initial problems and it specifically mentions Information Theory (a branch of Mathematics). Jmccormac (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had 2 years of technical training learning how to troubleshoot communication equipment down to an analog electrical component level including an 8-week course in "digital" and 4 years professional experience. I'm not exactly what you'd call "non-technical." To say that something is "a language of technology" means that people use math and language to share information about technology, design, engineer, and troubleshoot technology.  To say that it's "a technology" is saying that the language or the math itself is technology. I disagree. Language is language and math is math. Both are used in technology, but are not defined as  technology.
 * Calling it "a technology" narrows the scope of the article. If it's an information format, then it can be used in non-technical communications as well. I suggest: "In information theory and information systems, digital refers to discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works in a discontinuous manner." Then you can follow that with mention that it's most often used in technology. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohm's Law, Boolean Logic etc. Mathematics is integral to Electronics and technology. It is used to design equipment and to fault find equipment. When a circuit is modeled for analysis, mathematics is used - not English or any other ordinary language. That's the point - Mathematics is the language of technology and that circuits and systems can often be expressed mathematically. Narrowing the scope of the article is, perhaps, a good thing as it makes it more precise and less prone to error. That way it does not have to be all things to all people. Jmccormac (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's a narrower scope, it should be renamed digital (information) or "digital (Information theory")" or "digital (information systems)" or digital (information technology). And it's still not clear the way the first sentence is worded that it's the system of representing information (more accurately data) that it is. If it were a technology, it wouldn't fall under the category of information systems. As Kbrose said, it would fall under the category of information technology. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not mathematics is a language for anything is completely besides the point here. The contrasting topic to 'digital something' is 'continuous or analog something'. This needs to be explained before any applications to specific fields. Mathematics is used to describe both topics. Kbrose (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added to the suggestion for improvement section in response to this issue. In addition to my suggestion for improvement comments, if we chose option #1, we could name the article "digital technology" and merge digital signals into it. The article would be slightly broader in scope because it would include digital information that doesn't require electronics to process. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Digital data. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Digital → Digital information – noun better than adjective and better distinction from other uses of the term Oicumayberight (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest using the ordinary move request process to have a discussion about this, rather than processing it as an uncontroversial technical request. The suggested name seems like it may be confusing because of its use of the term 'information', which has a special interpretation in terms of information theory. It may be better to keep the current name or find some other alternative. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "digital" has uses outside computers :: in anatomy and land vertebrate biology it means "belonging to a finger or toe". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about moving it to "digital data"? That might resolve both issues. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that "digital data" is currently a redirect to "digital signal". I think the content of this article is a better fit for the term than that one. (A content merge might also be an option.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, there's already a complaint on the Talk:Digital signal page saying that it is really not appropriate for "Digital data" to redirect to "Digital signal". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess "digital data" would work just as well. I couldn't think of any case where digital data wouldn't be information, but I imagine it's possible. In either case "data" is as broad as "information" if not broader. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Digital information does not appear to be a good substitute that encompasses the generalized concept. There are machines, logical constructs, or perhaps even natural processes that operate on a digital, rather than analog basis, and information does not cover that. Information is ambiguous as even analog systems are described using digital methods to approximate an analog condition. System would be broader, as a system could be just about anything, a logical construct or a physical entity. Kbrose (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you get digital anything without a data conversion process from analog? Oicumayberight (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The nature of being digital or analog is different from representing instances of a system in digital form. Of course when using discrete digits, almost everything becomes digital in representation, but that doesn't make the workings of a system digital. A sun clock remains analog no matter what increments one uses to measure or represent the position of the shadow.Kbrose (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm asking is that: is anything digital before it's represented as digital? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of all the nouns discussed, I suggest we use the one thats broadest in scope to avoid scope creep. What's the broadest in scope between data, information, and system? Oicumayberight (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the previous article lead already used, digital system is probably the right one. Kbrose (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with any of the above since (to me) they are mostly synonymous if not completely synonymous. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on "Digital systems?" Oicumayberight (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate that nouns are better than verbs for titles, the proposals on the table all have issues so I don't see any of these proposals as a clear improvement over the current title. ~KvnG 13:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with digital data? Oicumayberight (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That could work if someone is willing to rework some of the article text. As a start, I have changed Digital signal Digital data to redirect here because that had already been requested. I'm still on the fence though. ~KvnG 17:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean digital data. Thanks, though—that just makes the case for moving there stronger. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Digital data, the best all-encompassing term. It's a bad redirect for now, as has been discussed. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to Digital data for reasons stated above. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to Digital data (in case there was any doubt, after I suggested it above). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the next step? Oicumayberight (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we just wait for an uninvolved admin to come and formally close the discussion and take care of it. As far as I can tell, the consensus (to move to Digital data) has been reached, but we're just waiting in the backlog on the processing of move requests. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved
I closed the above discussion and have found consensus to move the article to Digital data. Can someone look at the incoming links for 'digital' and see if they need updating? Also the hatnote on Digital data now seems to be obsolete, given the new name. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No real consensus and wrong title
The consensus to move this is bogus. The new title in no way reflects the content of the article. The article is NOT just about data, but digital systems in general. Please move it. It should be digital system, a term that is widely used for this topic. Digital systems engineering or design is typically the title of books and university courses that treat the subject matter. Kbrose (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where were you for the last two weeks? Regarding your suggestion, "digital system" seems to say that the whole system is digital. Some systems have both digital and analog elements. And the article (or at least most of it) does not really seem to be about entire systems or about system design. In my opinion, the title we now have is certainly better than the lonely adjective we had before. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * System is a general term that could mean method, machine, way of operating, representation, data, and others, consult a dictionary. Digital data is just one example of a digital system. While I was the one who pointed out the impermissible use of a single adjective, at least it was far more general in scope. Whether a system has digital as well as analogue components is irrelevant in explaining the concept of being digital, or the opposite. Pick purely digital systems for examples, not more complex ones. Indeed in today's digital world almost everything has a digital component, and even analog systems may have digital readouts, as it is only natural for humans to count on fingers. However, as control system theory shows readouts are not always necessary. Kbrose (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I consulted the Collins Concise English Dictionary and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. The primary meaning of is "a group or combination of ... elements forming a collective entity" or "a complex whole: a set of things working together ..." To me, this supports my view that to refer to a "digital system" would imply referring to an entire system (i.e. a complex whole thing) that is digital. I think that would (or should) be a different topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)