Talk:Gillham code

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gillham code article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation Stub‑class

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The "Altitude Encoder" and "Decoding the Gillham Code" sections

These two new sections really don't make any sense to a lay-reader, they seem to require a whole bunch of background material to be added to aid comprehension first. The lack of refs leaves some doubt as to the accuracy of this as well as it is not verifiable. I had a search for refs but haven't found anything that explains what these two sections really mean. Unless someone with some expertise in this area can add better background and refs I propose they be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually different from the regular Gray code used to encode 100ft increments? The description implies so, but its not apparent from the data table allegedly coming from the spec. If its exactly the same code (the article says its modified, but I couldn't figure out how), then encoding/decoding discussion is irrelevant and can be removed. (I couldn't follow it, due to the strange bit naming used.) PaulT2022 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I think the explanation in the article, although somewhat backwardly written, is correct, but I can't help feeling that there's a much simpler way to describe it. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name

It's always interesting to learn about the history of a name.

An older 2009 version of this article had a section where it was claimed that the code was named in memory to someone named Ronald Lionel Gillham, presumably a UK representative to the IATA committee, who died in 1968 ([1]). It was (rightfully) removed for being unreferenced in 2011 ([2]). The article meanwhile demonstrates (supported by many reliable references) that the term Gillham code was already established in 1962, although apparently still relatively new at this time.

Since it is always possible that information gets condensed and dates mixed up in personal recollections after so many years, perhaps the bottomline of that story is just that someone named Gillham, who happens to have died in 1968 (possibly an important event in the life of the originally reporting WP editor?), was involved in the definition of the code a couple of years earlier.

While it may be difficult to find references directly supporting the statement, perhaps we can at least find sources indicating that someone named Ronald Lionel Gillham died in 1968 and/or was a UK representative to one of the commitees involved in the late 1950s or early 1960s?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found some biographical info bits on someone named Ronald Lionel Gillham in another WP article. While not about the code as is specifically, the pieces fit together good enough to at least make the good faith assumption (WP:AGF) that the core of the original contribution was not made up (although, perhaps, slightly confused in the chronology), that this is about the same person, who actually lived in the relevant timeframe, worked in this topic area and was influential enough that the code could have been actually named after him. Hence I reincorported some of the previously removed info, hoping that these new anchors will help to find further background information and proofs. Some bits (the family dinner story, and his sudden death in March 1968) are still left commented out until more information can be found on this.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In further assuming good faith I restored the family dinner story and Gillham's date of death as a footnote (that is, not into the body of the article). Hopefully, this will make these two still unsourced but not implausible claims more visible (in a way not as problematic as in the body of the article) to find more readers (possibly from the UK, and with access to archives) who could be able to find reliable references for these two statements. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]