Talk:Telecommunications engineering

Poor article quality
As far as I know, Telecommunication is just a subset of communication. 10:25, 20 February 2006 User:Githin


 * Telecommunication is not "just a subset of communication", it is the same thing, but the latter is just shortened by dropping the "Tele" (from Greek tele-, combining form of tele "far off, afar, at or to a distance,"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a very very inaccurate article - it looks like it was written by a technical operative (or not very technical technician) in a telecommunications company who would like to call himself an 'Engineer'. It describes the work of a general operative in a Telecommunications operator, for which there can be very little actual 'Engineering'. Trying to describe a telecommunications engineer as encompassing civil and structural engineering, book-keeping ("being accounting assistant"), and general clerical work ("keeping the records") is just plain wrong. The people described in this article may work on equipment designed by Engineers, but they are not Engineers. Perhaps the confusion may be because it might have been written by someone in Britain, as this is the only country in the world where they (erroneously) refer to technicians & technical operatives as 'Engineers' (this is especially obvious where they write the following: "Outside plant (OSP) engineers also often are called field engineers [sic] as they often spend much time in the field taking notes about the civil environment, aerial, above ground, and below ground" - this clearly describes not the work of an Engineer - as understood around the world - but that of a technical operative, and possibly that of a technician if there is something more intellectually-technically demanding) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be written completely to cover the broad field of modern Communications Engineering as outlined for example in "Communications engineering desk reference" by Dahlman et al. Isheden (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that the article is very poor. Note that the "Communications engineering" and "Communication engineering" articles are redirects to this article, which is a pretty bad situation. I suggest to find a serious engineering professor that specializes in Communications Engineering and show them the article – e.g., one of the winners of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal or a leader in the IEEE Communications Society.  If you don't get kicked out of their office immediately for showing them such garbage, just write down whatever they happen to say for the next few minutes and completely replace the article with that. It would be a big improvement. —Megalibgwilia (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources and an informal interview with a professor doesn't really qualify. Rather than griping about how bad the article is, let's have some suggestions for improvement. What should be removed? What reliable sources should we be using? What's missing? ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
User 109.67.136.212 tagged this article in August 2012 with the proposal to merge it with telecommunication, but without motivation. SchreyP (messages) 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't think this is a good idea. I agree that the article is currently of bad quality, but I found enough evidence to keep the article focused on the profession of telecommunications engineering; while the article telecommunication is focused on the field itself. SchreyP (messages) 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There's more than enough material to require a separate article for telecom engineering, and squeezing it together with the main article would just do both a disservice. HarryZilber (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telecommunications engineering. 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/20080302071329/http://www.atis.org/tg2k/ to http://www.atis.org/tg2k/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cellular network
Cell phones are a huge piece of telecommunications today and this goes unmentioned in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

History Section
I wonder if anyone feel the history portion of this article delves too far into the scientific experimentation and invention of telecom methods rather than focusing on the application of those inventions. Engineering is more about applying known science rather than experimental development. Engineers take those inventions and apply them to a societal need. Engineers almost never “invent” things. Should this section of the article be better presented in the telecommunications article? It’s almost voluminous enough to deserve its own article. Just my thought on this, if anyone is even watching this article anymore. Thoughts? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 07:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)