Talk:Encoding/decoding model of communication

Does this warrant it's own article? Why can't Hall's discussion of reception theory and his coding/encoding be either on the reception theory page or on the Hall page? It's unclear why it would be spread across three pages. If the reader wants to get a good understanding of his stance, they have to click all over the place. Can this page be deleted and the information merged with the "reception theory" page, where Hall can be accorded fair space? Thanks. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I think it's worth it's own page so long as the theory is properly defined, so I updated page with another source and added more content. -- Nathanaelbassett 11:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section on this theory in Stuart Hall's article that explains it better than this one, without reference to Mr. Terni. This article seems wholly superfluous.WQUlrich (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This model has had an impact on a number of studies so it goes beyond Hall's. I am currently working on improving this page and will be including case studies that other theorists have done based off of Hall's work, and will be adding it to the page soon. Tang.ca (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]