Talk:SMS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SMS != Text messaging[edit]

Regarding this edit, text messaging and SMS are not the same thing. SMS is a specific protocol, and there are other text messaging implementations that are not SMS-based. Jpatokal 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the importance of the technical definition of jargon with the common vernacular of the English-speaking world. If Wikipedia were the GSM specification, or a technical reference for a technical audience, then you'd be absolutely correct in pointing this out. The vast majority of the world understands an "SMS" to mean a "mobile phone text message", without regard for the protocol or the implementation actually used on their phone. Reswobslc 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Reswobslc's changes, and I have done so for a very specific reason. Look back up in this talk section a couple of lines, and you'll see the requested split consensus. Basically, the original article here was an utter mess, mixing up the technical details with the social aspects. World wide (note, NOT N. American specific), the common term is texting, or text messaging. The Short Message Service is, always has been, and always will be, the means by which text messages are sent. There is a very deliberate stub template in the article for people who know about non-GSM implementations to come along and add their knowledge to the technical aspects. In the meantime, the Text messaging article is the place to talk about "texting", from a non-technical perspective, whereas this article is where the technical details should go. I've tried, at the top of this article, above the lead, to point people looking at the social aspects to the right place, but it seems not to be working. If this crap carries on, I'm inclined to just revert everything to the original article, and let everyone else sort out the resulting abortion of an article. Carre 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it's definitely worth clarifying "The Short Message Service is, always has been, and always will be, the means by which text messages are sent." is just wrong. In some parts of the English speaking world, texting/text messaging now means any form of mobile to mobile communication and is increasingly not SMS based (WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook are all increasingly common used for 'texting' and one of them are Short Message Service/GSM based. richardwhiuk 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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: No consensus EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short Message Service → Short message service – per Wikipedia:Naming conventions for capitalization 2607:FB90:5CE8:DE66:5DB2:40A9:A290:77CF (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It's a proper name. --В²C ☎ 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral For me,there is no reason to object and support.--Tr56tr (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose moving to SMS, who says "short message service" nowadays? SMS already redirects to the article. Timmyshin (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to SMS: As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 23 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short Message Service → SMS – per WP:COMMONNAME. This was suggested in the previous just-closed RM with no objection. There was a prior RM in 2009 that moved the article to "SMS", and I'm not sure how it got moved back to where it is. As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As far as I can tell, this article doesn't even really use "Short Message Service" outside of the lead. Appears to be the common name and primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would agree with both posters above. However I believe that WP policy then overrules all three of us, and not without reason. SMS is an acronym for Short Message Service. It is the function of the article title to be canonical, and thus the full form is what's needed here. SMS is, of course, already a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how often are they called "SMS"? If they're used in the "populist short form", that would be "text". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has been discussed before, and there is a different article at text messaging. SMS is not really synonymous with text messaging. Even on mobile phones, without using something like Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, or Viber, the text messaging often does not use SMS. For example, they may often use MMS, and as the article on that topic says, "MMS messages are delivered in a different way from SMS." As long as it is better known as "SMS" than by its current title, I think the move is appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the article on "texting" should be called "SMS", because SMS often isn't used?? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I never suggested that the article at "texting" (which is a redirect to text messaging) should be moved to "SMS". That doesn't seem like it would be a good idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ACRONYMTITLE says "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." I think that is the case here. Most people who are familiar with using SMS on their mobile phones probably don't know (or don't remember) the unabbreviated form of the term. Quick, without looking somewhere else, is it "Short Message System", "Short Messaging System", "Short Message Service", or "Short Messaging Service"? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

timestamp metadata[edit]

Please add information about timestamp metadata. What timestamps does a sent SMS contain? What timestamps does a received SMS contain? Many phone users are confused and frustrated by wanting the sent time for received msgs but being shown the less useful received time. Much of this limitation and confusion seems to be caused by the apps. But if we could have some clarity about the embedded SMS timestamp metadata we would be able to know what the apps could be making available to the user.-73.61.15.145 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 74 offline[edit]

The link at reference 74, about Flash SMS, does not exist anymore.

Itskieran (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Itskieran: Thanks for reporting this. I've linked an archived copy of this reference. —Bruce1eetalk 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SMS&oldid=1217196923"