Talk:Numbers station

The article mentions somthing about being able to spot the cooling facilities of the transmitting stations on satelite photos. I strongly think that this is not the case.

A standard truck has a diesel engine producing some 200kW of output power at 30% efficiency. It has to dissipate some 500kW of power, and does so in the size of a big truck's motor.

"Big cooling tower" is something associated with a powerplant, working in the 500 to 1000 MW range. We're talking 0.5 MW for the transmitter, requiring 0.2MW of cooling power. -- Roger Wolff, april 16th, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.26.61 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 16 April 2007‎

Imagine if the article on Beer listed every book, movie, and TV show ever made where beer had a noticeable presence. Should we really have this sort of cross-reference/concordance? Seems like an indiscriminate list to me. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:IPCV addresses this handily. We should only be listing items that have been discussed by third-party sources. DonIago (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

All due respect, this is a bit not esoteric than beer Thisisjoelee (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Thisisjoelee Please read MOS:POPCULT. There's no criterion based on how esoteric the subject is. Largoplazo (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Feels inconsistent based on the other references but fine. I cleaned up the other reference with no source to keep things pure. Thisisjoelee (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's good! Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Most numbers stations do not have a callsign. Radio stations need to have a callsign and a valid license or else the station is unlicensed and pirated. Can numbers stations be pirated stations in that case?

I also say this when the stations were likely broadcast to agents to decode numbers, which is illegal, which concerns me. 66.190.244.82 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you elaborate on how your concerns relate to making edits to the article? DonIago (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Considering that number stations could be operated by intelligence officers (who work for the military), I would say that the government probably has an exception for government-related operations. Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 09:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone-123-321 (talk • contribs) [reply ]

Would this be a modern example; there is also a YouTube video on such transmissions. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm of mixed feelings on the matter. I actually largely agree with Largoplazo, in that the vast majority of pop culture references have slim to no relevance to the actual topic of the article. (削除) What I saw was editor Thisisjoelee making 'petulant' removals because their preferred irrelevant pop culture reference wasn't being accepted, so I was countering those edits based on their having been properly cited. (削除ここまで)

Ultimately, I'd be perfectly delighted if the whole section were, to put it colloquially, shit-canned. Things in the world get described in popular media - it's hardly 'breaking news' or of lasting relevance. I'd remove the whole section myself, but I have a feeling there'd be a hue and cry about it, which I haven't the patience to slog through. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy pings to mentioned editors Largoplazo and Thisisjoelee. @Editor Anastrophe: when mentioning other editors by name, you should always ping them; they may not be watching the discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're right. Sometimes laziness overwhelms my better angels. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I heartily support wholesale removal of Numbers station § In popular culture (and adding a hidden note to say that the pop culture section should not be recreated). Everything at §In popular culture seems to be nothing more than brief inclusions or mentions of number stations, their broadcasts, etc as samples / plot points / fictional-what-have-you; nothing there of moment. Delete it all.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll look through them at some point to see if any are of value, though I won't be surprised if none are. Looking at the current list and remembering that we've just removed a couple, I realize that even if Thisisjoelee's comment about being esoteric were relevant, with 20-ish cultural references across a variety of media the subject isn't looking so esoteric after all. Largoplazo (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I initially read those removals as possibly meant to make a point but also as possibly sincere, taking into account the newly acquired guidance. Either way, I agreed with them. I said as much above under #References in media. Largoplazo (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My two cents here is the point of pop culture references is to draw in a wider audience with topics they normally wouldn't engage with, all through a more friendly/familiar lens. That said, I understand the policies and guidelines - even if I think strict adherence misses the point - so am not putting up a stink about removal of mine but surely the rules should be consistently applied to the others.

So, as far as intent, absolutely yes to both to what @Largoplazo said. Thisisjoelee (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the clarity on that. Much appreciated. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I "shit-canned" (not my words) the section in this article and spun off into a draft Draft:Numbers station in popular culture, since I personally like rummaging for cool references in culture artifacts. D33PK3RN3L 09:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have a concern about that as an article. Even though you didn't begin the title with "List of", it's a list article, and I don't know that it meets WP:NLIST. Also, should we do that for everything else? Would it be encyclopedic to have an article listing every film and TV episode where a dog appears? A car? A hamburger? Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes you're right @Largoplazo, it's unfortunately in the nature of pop culture reference 'articles'. See WP:POPCULTURE for reference (this is a common and very discussed topic, and I think exactly in this instance it could be good enough).

(削除) Of course, if you have the leisure to rewrite the draft into something more interesting than just a list, go for it :) (削除ここまで) I just spun it off as in my eyes it's even less encyclopedic to have it inside the numbers station article... We'll see what the review gods think if we let it D33PK3RN3L (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm realizing that, as often as I've invoked WP:POPCULT, I've never read the whole thing, focused only on the part discussing the guidelines for choosing whether or not an entry should be included. WP:IPCA, I now, see, covers In Popular Culture articles. WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN would be in addition, and is included among arguments made for deleting such lists among the discussions archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture/archive. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You are right, it probably doesn't come up to a pop culture article Wikipedia bar. I rewrote the whole thing into a cohesive article, based on the listicle. You are much more experienced than I am, so feel free to either put it back and delete the draft or adjust it to your liking (or even delete the damn thing). I'm not unhappy any way, I just love browsing Wikipedia for exactly these niche things instead of a clean encyclopaedia (I grew up reading Brockhaus as my favorite after school activity, weird kid don't even start 🙈) D33PK3RN3L (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Radio articles
• Mid-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class intelligence articles
• Intelligence task force articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles

• Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Intelligence articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military science, technology, and theory articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military history articles needing attention only to referencing and citation