Talk:Numbers station

Numbers station was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 1, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Numbers station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Mid‑importance Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Military history: Intelligence / Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Intelligence task force Military science, technology, and theory task force

The Gongs or Chimes (numbers station) article was blanked on January 13, 2025 and that title now redirects to Numbers station. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history.

Power numbers.

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

References in media

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]

Could numbers stations be considered illegal?

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]

2025 example

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

'In popular culture'

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. 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.

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]