Talk:TCP

Red links

With respect to the guy who removed all the red links; I hate pages bloated with entries representing fancruft and/or (more likely "and") unlikely search terms as much as the next guy. However, I believe they were overzealous in removing all red links. See the MoS on the subject of redlinks within disambigs.

It's our aim to show all the entries that (a) Anyone could *reasonably* expect when searching for a term and (b) That could support an article entry (or at least notable subsection).

The "it's a redlink, remove it" rule works when deciding whether to give the benefit of the doubt to fancruft and dubious entries. If it's not got an article *and* it looks like an unlikely search term.... bye bye. But not all redlinks are bad.

Personally, I consider the blue-linked Top Cow Productions a more dubious entry than a lot of the red ones...

Fourohfour 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I read the MoS section you cited. It says, Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. What makes you think an article could be written, for example, on Trajectory Change Point. I happen to be a commercial pilot and flight instructor, and am thus quite familiar with Air Traffic Control jargon. I've never heard the term. I just checked the Pilot-Controller Glossary and don't see it listed there. I did find some other references in google to some air traffic procedures design documents, but that's digging pretty deep into esoterica. It seems unlikely to me that anybody could write an encyclopedia article about that which was anything more than a dictdef. I left the Top Cow Productions entry because the first sentence of that article starts Top Cow Productions (TCP); while I know nothing about the topic, I took that to imply that people familiar in the field commonly use TCP to refer to the company. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain.

As I said, redlinks are useful evidence when deciding whether to give already questionable entries the benefit of the doubt or not. However, (as the MoS states) that an entry is redlinked isn't in itself sufficient justification for its removal.

I wasn't the person who added Trajectory Change Point, just the one who stopped it being removed, and there *is* a difference.

Your sole reason (going by the edit summary) for the removed entries was that they were redlinked. Although I couldn't say for sure if they belonged or not, they weren't obviously dubious, so this wasn't sufficient justification for their removal.

Now that I've read your explanation here, I accept your reasoning, but this wasn't clear at the time.

As for Top Cow Productions... I wasn't having a go at you for leaving it in, just saying that I thought it was still of more questionable utility than many of the redlinks. Fourohfour 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TCP/IP Layers

Just out of curiosity, why is there individual wiki pages for each OSI model layer, yet none for the TCP/IP model? I think we should create these pages as soon as possible- I'm surprised they haven't been already. Or is there a particular reason they were left out? zac439 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

traffic control point

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/army_escalation_handbook_070328/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.90.184 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

TCP, has what to do with the music industry?

Sorry, I'm not into all the protocol here, but there must be some question area, Wiki always seems to leave me with a question of the experts. Hope this is OK (Newmans2001 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)).

TCP - Three Countries Protocol

I attended working groups under the TCP "Three Countries Protocol" (aka "Travelling Cocktail Parties") in the 90s. The three countries are/where Canada, UK, and US. This was in relation to governmental defence bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed

• Tumour Control Probability, the chance a certain dose of radiation will effectively irradiate a tumour.

Widefox; talk 07:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

TCP → TCP (disambiguation) – satisfies at least popularity as a criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per evidence below. Widefox; talk 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC) - Primary topic
I propose making Transmission Control Protocol the primary topic - so moving TCP to TCP (disambiguation):

• By article popularity, Transmission Control Protocol is more popular than all the others combined by about factor 3x (Stats TCP has been viewed 5037 times in 201307.)
  • Transmission Control Protocol has been viewed 74957 times in 201307. This article ranked 2136 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
  • Tocopherol has been viewed 13448 times in 201307.
  • TCP (antiseptic) has been viewed 3607 times in 201307.
  • Three card poker has been viewed 2805 times in 201307.
  • Top Cow Productions has been viewed 1351 times in 201307.
  • The Children's Place has been viewed 1184 times in 201307.
  • Telephony control protocol has been viewed 41 times in 201307.
  • Text Creation Partnership has been viewed 111 times in 201307.
  • rest are also very low

1. Google "TCP" -> first is this article, and topic is 70% of the first 10 hits
   1. Transmission Control Protocol - Wikipedia
   2. TCP - Wikipedia
   3. TCP (antiseptic)
   4. TCP Lighting
   5. What is TCP? - A Word Definition From the Webopedia Computer ...
   6. News for TCP
      1. Computer system automatically generates TCP congestion-control algorithms
      2. TCP postpones urea tender: PPRA rules violated: TI Pakistan
   7. RFC 793
   8. What is TCP (Transmission Control Protocol)? - Definition from ...
   9. TCP/IP Tutorial - W3Schools
   10. TCP Aerodynamics
   11. TCP - D. J. Bernstein

• A redirect to the primary is not a factor in determining per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Widefox; talk 22:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Doubt any of the others are commonly referred to as "TCP" often enough to beat out Transmission Control Protocol. Red Slash 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - "TCP is" and "Transmission Control Protocol is" get almost exactly the same hits in Google Books suggesting that the abbreviation isn't more common than the full term in running text in printed sources, so there is limited benefit from changing to the abbreviation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is not to move Transmission Control Protocol, so that is a tangential discussion. It is only about "TCP" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Widefox; talk 07:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it being proposed to make TCP a redirect to Transmission Control Protocol, or moving Transmission Control Protocol to TCP? If it is the latter, would it pass WP:ACRONYMTITLE, i.e. is "Transmission Control Protocol" known primarily by the abbreviation "TCP", and that abbreviation is primarily associated with that subject? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the former. Widefox; talk 07:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – a primary topic claim on a TLA that is not well known to the public is crazy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

it is "topic sought"/"usage" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, rather than general awareness which is more like WP:ACRONYMTITLE and a red herring. We're not moving the article. Dick, PRIMARYTOPIC talks about usage and long-term significance - I take it there's no disagreement about relative usage of the term? According to primarytopic, the other potentially competing factor is long-term significance, resolution requiring consensus. I don't see reasoning based on either yet, is your concern WP:Systematic bias? Widefox; talk 07:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:Systematic bias. Most people on the net have no idea how the net is run. Unlike DNS, you do not have TCP errors popping up in annoying windows all the time. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

can we keep an eye on the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to help. DHCP is a primary topic, the same applies there, and to many primary topics. Widefox; talk 07:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not a well known term to the public at large. The first thing I think of is the antiseptic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: The large number of hits on Transport Control Protocol is irrelevant: what we're talking about here is what topic the vast majority of people who search Wikipedia for "TCP" will be looking for. The fact that the second sense in the dab page is so similar to the first makes it seem likely that a dab page will be useful. To me TCP is the stuff of childhood grazed knees and current sore throats. PamD 13:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would have said the antiseptic was closer to a primary topic, but there clearly isn't one here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

TCP dab page

Hallo Widefox, Please note that MOS:DABENTRY says In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.. Thanks. PamD 07:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup sure PamD, of course it's not objective but subjective. Undoing that edit [1] removes other fixes:

• Internet protocol suite has a meaning, so is a more accurate description (following the article) than "fundamental", but my use of two "protocol"s was sloppy, so this is better:
• "Transmission Control Protocol, of the Internet protocol suite"
  • and it is vital to somehow dab the two protocols as per my edit summary
• TCP is a brand (the active ingredient having changed) so it's not a chemical as "(antiseptic)" would imply, hence a tiny description to keep it real (in fact, we arguably could spell out the original acronym of trichlorophenylmethyliodosalicyl but that seems OTT
• "Plasma" would be nice to specify that it's in physics with some wording so it's obvious it's not a plasma#Biology so in the wrong section (which at least helps me when I cleanup dabs, so may help others)
  • Also, it's not a type of plasma, but a type of plasma source, so for me it's more clear with a small description (although as the only physics entry it could be argued that it doesn't need dabbing from other entries)
• TCPalm - I see you've now restored that

Regards Widefox; talk 08:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• oh, and despite MOSDAB, the idea of attempting to preserve one entry without a description when all the others have one is somewhat hopeful (in my opinion/experience), as I think it's natural for editors to come along and add one if they consider it missing given all the others have one, so I'm quite laid back about attempting to go against the tide on a list entry outlier, and would prefer a minimalist one than leave for a newbie, but that's just my personal opinion that's not guideline based. Widefox; talk 08:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

User:PamD ? (just to clear that up, I don't agree with my primary topic proposal above, nowadays) Widefox; talk 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: My main objection to your edit was that in your edit summary "(cleanup according to WP:MOSDAB (overview WP:DABYESNO) - need text to dab two protocols -restore it)" you seemed to be saying that WP:MOSDAB required text for each dab entry, while MOS:DABENTRY is quite specific that text is not required, so that you seemed to be claiming an authority for your edit on the basis of a misreading / misremembering / whatever. PamD 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Ah, just realised I think I misunderstood your edit and edit summary - I was reading "two protocols" as referring to MOSDAB and DABYESNO! It was because your edit added text to a couple of text-less entries, as well as annotating Transmission Control Protocol, so I read the edit as being determined to add text to every entry and mis-citing MOSDAB to justify this. Sorry about that. PamD 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad you explained. Yes I was just restoring the TCP protocol entry description to the wording of the article. Hehe. Anyhow, the wording is better now you've questioned my edit (per my mistake), as long as you agree with restoring the modified edit? Widefox; talk 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)