Talk:Fibre to the office

Quoted sources

The references/quoted sources are barely WP:RS: they consist of manufacturer and distributor claims, no 3rd party statements given. Imho, 95% of the article is just marketing babble and completely exaggerated figures which this isn't the right place for. Please prove me wrong and provide RS. Unsourced, challenged content may be removed. --Zac67 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a {{Notability}} tag to the article. We need to see some independent coverage of this concept. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Additonally, the graphs used in this article provide no source at all. I hereby challenge these, too. Please provide reliable sources or we'll need to remove them. --Zac67 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I am in total agreement, please feel free to remove them as you see fit. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zac67: It may also interest you that there seems to be some very close paraphrasing or in some cases ("New users, services or applications can be easily accommodated into the network"), outright copying from here, presumably where the graphs also came from. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have managed to find some other references regarding FTTO:

1. LAN Concept of the Federal State of Baden Württemberg, Germany [1]; 2. Weisemann, Ronny: Empfehlung einer Ergänzung der Norm DIN EN 80001-1 für ein umfangreiches Risikomanagement im Bereich der Dokumentation strukturierter LWL-Verkabelung – ein praktischer Ansatz; 2015, [2] (research paper in the databank of Donau University Krems in Austria); 3. Planungsrichtlinien für Kommunikationsnetze beim Freistaat Bayern, [3] And many more! Unofrunately, all of them are in German. All in all, in Germany there are a lot of publications about FTTO, it is mentioned in public LAN documents as an alternative, alongside traditional copper based cabling. I am afraid, the problem is that FTTO is not so well known outside of Germany... Proteq11801 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

German sources are hard to be accepted as WP:RS here – only a small minority of the editors would be able to verify them. Making them somewhat acceptable would require a high quality translation of the relevant parts imho. As the yet unsourced claims are quite bold in part, the sources should be pretty good.

Additionally, as you're most definitely an editor with WP:COI, you're required to document this. --Zac67 (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

[..] The sources you propose in detail: 1. doesn't talk about FTTO at all; 2. doesn't detail special advantages or properties, just describes a project; 3. doesn't talk about FTTO at all — please note that this article isn't about fiber in general but about FTTO in particular. Actually, I can't find from my own experience that FTTO is especially popular in Germany, so there should be plenty of English sources as well if there are any. --Zac67 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Zac67 I agree with the most of the above, but please note that the assertion that non-English sources are hard to accept is incorrect per WP:NOENG. They're fine. Practically, German isn't even obscure anyhow, even considering the overlapping subsets of editors with networking and German. Widefox; talk 11:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just suggesting to find English sources as the present ones aren't adequate anyway – given the alleged popularity this shouldn't pose a problem, should it? --Zac67 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)