WikiProject iconTelecommunications Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Spread spectrum and Pulse modulation[edit]

What about Spread spectrum, isn't that also modulation ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R U Bn (talkcontribs).

I added those. --HappyCamper 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) is based on pulse-amplitude modulation. Frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) could be based on any modulation scheme.
Should the various Pulse modulation methods be included here? Mange01 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the latest revisions to the Modulation template. For example, OFDM should be considered as a modulation technique![edit]

Topics in Modulation techniques
Analog modulation

AM | SSB | FM | PM | QAM

Digital modulation


Digital multiplexing


Spread spectrum


Regarding the latest revisions to the template: (See the 7 June 2007 version to the right)

Mange01 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OFDM is a tricky one. While it really isn't a different modulation from QAM (from performance analysis point of view), but more like an especially nice implementation, it is not a multiplexing or medium access technuque either. But of these categories, it should be in the digital modulation section (or could there be use also for discrete-time analog OFDM??).
If the template contained only pure modulation schemes, it would be a bit a bit small and that's why I think there is room for more. On the other hand, multiplexing and medium access are wide topics and not always even related to modulation (although sometimes they are). So I think we shouldn't include them. Spread-spectrum could be related enough to keep here. Alinja 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have affectuated your suggestions! Mange01 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Template[edit]

I think we should think of creating another template to complement this one. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actally I have alread created ((Multiplex techniques)):
Feel free to improve it.
Perhaps there should also be a ((Channel access techniques)) or ((Multiple access protocols)). However, that would be really large. See channel access method for a list. Mange01 07:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Has some kind of error been made in this template's category? For one thing, I don't think this template talk page is supposed to show in the template category and more important surely nobody intended that all the articles with a modulation template be automatically categorized as being about templates. Anybody understand the formatting involved? Something about a noinclude anchor or something? Jim.henderson 14:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fixed - noinclude was required. Thnx for pointing it out. Mange01 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Analog/Digital/Hierarchal split the right way to organize this template?[edit]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert in modulation techniques. But from an organization-of-information perspective, I can't help but notice:

Merely looking to spark discussion, and as I said I'm no expert. The redundancy gives me pause, and makes me wonder if there isn't a better way to organize things so that those articles are represented singly in a way that covers all relevant bases. ("Hybrid modulation"?) But I'm happy to be told "it's fine the way it is" if, indeed, it is. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is WDM?[edit]

In this template, "WDM" links to the stub article for "Wavelet modulation", which makes no sense as a TLA.

But elsewhere "WDM" links to "Wavelength-division multiplexing". Should this template be fixed? Rich Rostrom (Talk) 01:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]