Talk:Path loss

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge, but agreement that better linking between related articles, and removal of duplication, is needed. Klbrain (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere is essentially the same thing and should be merge here. Pierre cb (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I approve that you merge those articles.--Allforrous (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Invited to comment as a recent editor, but I have no opinion on this proposal. I merely fixed a link to a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm very far from an expert on the subject, but this article already has three "See also" links that refer to separate articles on various "Model"s of path loss. At the very least this one needs a new "See also" link to Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere and that one needs to refer back to this one? Personally I'm not a big fan of making an article really, really long with lots of details -- I prefer splitting in such cases. -- Dough34 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I also never did serious radio work, and today I'm slightly in a rush to go and coach new editors, but yes, there seem to be several related articles including Free-space path loss that are not even adequately linked to one another. They show me no sign of their various editors paying attention to each other. So, figuring the right way to go seems a somewhat complex question. A quick look at Wikipedia:Summary style suggest to me that Path loss might serve as the general article, linking to the others as detail articles, which should also be cleansed of excess redundancy. And some probably ought to be merged rather than survive as separate articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Generally agree with Jim.henderson, and I have done serious work in this area. The different articles focus on different aspects of the phenomenon (practical, theoretical, regulatory, etc.), with no apparent deliberate intent, or strict adherence thereto. Any merge or cleanup should clearly delineate all those aspects. algocu (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't expect a good clean merger until the relations among the various articles are clarified. This suggests a multi-step process. First, establish links among the various articles. Second, get rid of redundancy, moving material to the appropriate article as per Wikipedia:Summary style. This process can also establish the hierarchy of mother articles, daughters, grand-daughters and so forth. That will most likely cut the total size of the articles, perhaps even down to half. Trims would presumably be unevenly distributed, pointing to the smallest survivors as candidates for merger and further cleanup of each aftermath. All this is a long complex process, preferably with much cooperation to take advantage of our various talents. Next week my March busy season of coaching newbies will wind down and leave Wikphotographic work and other smaller things I have been scanting all month, but eventually smaller things will also quiet down, leaving some time for this big project. I hope someone else will suggest a simpler but still comprehensive path, or else get a good start on something approximating this idea. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere is not the same thing as path loss--it is a type of path loss in a specific medium and specific frequency range. Merging in the prose of this specific type to the general article would seriously unbalance the article. The radio propagation model article shows that there are many different kinds of propagation models, all of them having some implications for path loss. Probably the path loss article should be a broad concept article listing and classifying the different kinds of path loss and path loss models: indoor vs outdoor, frequency band, medium (air, water optical fiber, etc.) akin to what is done in the radio propagation model. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.