Talk:Filtered symmetric differential phase-shift keying

OQPSK? Merge?
Isn't this just OQPSK? (Or GMSK or MSK, depending on the filtering). Suggest merge. Oli Filth(talk 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but it seems to be different to me. In OQPSK, the absolute phase is measured and used to determine bits transmitted, with the result that a constant sequence of identical bit pairs results (I think) in no phase transitions.  With what's described in this article, which is what I came to find out about, there's exactly one phase transition of exactly 90&deg; for every bit transmitted.  This seems to offer an advantage not mentioned in the OQPSK section that the sender and receiver don't need to agree a clock rate for the transmission: the sender can send bits as and when required and the receiver can determine when one has been transmitted.
 * If they are equivalent, then (1) the OQPSK section needs work, because there are clearly properties that are not obvious, and (2) this is a much simpler way of thinking about the system which should be described in the OQPSK section. JulesH (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OQPSK has four levels, whereas this stub article defines only two. I would suggest merging to Phase-shift keying instead. Isheden (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't look at the specifics, but there should be no opposition to merging this to Phase-shift keying, as suggested. Nageh (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge - Already covered in Phase-shift keying. We could redirect to Phase-shift_keying. --Kvng (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please clarify - do you support a merge (that is, copying content to Phase-shift keying) or just a redirect (that is, nothing gets copied over)? You say merge, but also say everything is already in the target page. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  00:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the detailed steps of a selective paste merger at Help:Merging. Isheden (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the question. It sounded like Kvng might be endorsing redirecting and merging nothing, which is different than a selective merge. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it would be a Selective paste merger but I don't immediately see that there's anything to copy in step 2. --Kvng (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing to copy, then it's not a merge at all, it's just a redirect. This is an important distinction for copyright compliance D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that affect the discussion the we're having here? I propose a merge where we end up with a redirect and no changes to the target article. The only question seems to be whether authors of the source article get authorship credit on the target. Can we be generous, do the redirect, put a merged-from notice on the target and be done? --Kvng (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ aside from procedural details, there appeared to be consensus for a merge. --Kvng (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)