Improper use of 'media' in section heading
User:Kbrose, you need to review the multiple dictionary definitions of 'mediums'. Try reference.com which will bring up 6 sources which list mediums as the English plural of 'medium'. In the very first source from Random House, you'll find a note near the bottom:
- "Can be confused: media, median, medium, mediums (see usage note at media1 )."
Refer also to the usage note for media:
- "Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the meaning “an intervening agency, means, or instrument” and was first applied to newspapers two centuries ago. In the 1920s media began to appear as a singular collective noun, sometimes with the plural medias. This singular use is now common in the fields of mass communication and advertising, but it is not frequently found outside them: The media is (or are ) not antibusiness.
Presenting information clearly and concisely to our readers, many of whom don't possess an intimate grasp of English, is what Wikipedia strives for. Edit warring over the use of 'mediums' by continually changing it to the more confusing 'media' is clearly counterproductive. Kindly stop edit warring. HarryZilber (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding Oliver Heaviside. An very influential character in the history of telecommunications. Particularly with respect to theories regarding the telegraph and the derivation of maxwell's equations yeaggermiester (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeaggermiester (talk • contribs) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Addition to Notable networks
Project Cybersyn should probably be added into the Notable networks section. I would also have suggested OGAS but it was never realized so it probably doesn't qualify as a "network". 2A01:CB08:8B3E:6B00:1073:BE75:6E05:8B0B (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)