Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestion: Category:Data transmission rename

Currently the categorization of communications and networking topics are very non-systematic, and is a mess.

I suggest that category data transmission is renamed to "communications technology" and most of the technical articles from category Telecommunications moved there or rather its subcatergories (which have to be created). Data transmission is a very wide and not a well defined term, and it is in many ways equivalent to (digital) telecommunications. I would suggest for example following subcateories:

• physical layer topics:
  • Category: Analog modulation topics
  • Category: Digital modulation topics
  • Category: Line codes
  • Category: Channel access methods
  • Category: Communication media (fiber, twisted-air, coax, wireless)
  • Category: Communication theory (Nyquist
  • Category: Communication channel topics (noise, multipath etc terms.)
  • Category: Synchronization
  • Category: Equalization
  • Category: Transmitting hardware components (?)
  • Category: Receiving hardware components (?)

• Link layer topics:
  • Category: Error detection and correction

• Network layer topics:
  • Category: Quality of service
  • Category: Queueing

• Higher layers are contained in Category:Computer networking

• Other stuff:
  • Category: Communication systems/standards (Ethernet, ISDN, DVB, SDH, etc)
  • Category: Voice

Applications and society-related topics should stay at the Telecommunications level. Perhaps OSI layer categories for corresponding general (non-protocol) topics should be added? What do you think? Alinja 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good initiative to start this discussion! But please wait a while and let everyone have a say in this issue. The suggestion would also affect WikiProject Computer networking, so it is important that we ask them before major changes are done.

Note that to rename, delete and reorganize many categories would require a lot of work.

Please clearify your suggestion. Which of today's categories should be deleted, renamed, merged, deleted and splitted? Today's category structure (or a quite recent status) is listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Telecommunications/Categories . How would that look like after your suggestion?

To start out from the 7 OSI layers or the 5 TCP/IP model layers is good, but isn't that already done? I have created several of the layer categories, and tried to map most of the communication issues to them. Is renaming of "x layer" to "x layer topics" really worth the job?

Note that the category structure does not have to be a spanning tree. Several issues are delt with at several layers. Error detection is carried out at every layer from physical to applicaiton. Error control and flow control is today normally carried out at the transport layer, and not only on the data link layer.

I have no problem with keeping for example the data transmission category in paralell with OSI-mapping - it is a well-established academic subject, synonymous to digital communication - and the category may still exist in parallell with other categories.

Mange01 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My main point was to add categories for the classical telecommunications topics (as covered by books such as Proakis: Digital telecommunications an Carlson: Communication systems). This field has a lot of thoretic knowledge about modulation methods, channels, RF blocks, coping with reception issues, but don't really fit in any layer's protocol category. Also any of the analog communication articles don't really fit in the OSI model at all, nor is it data transmission.

I guessed that manual renaming would be a lot of work, as it seems that there's no automatic way to do such thing (to fix the article references). I didn't mean to touch the OSI layer categories, and in fact anything under computer neworking as it seems fairly organized.

Thanks for the catergory tree article, I hadn't found it before. There are some patterns in it that I find unintuitive. For example, Telecommunications is subcategory if Telecommunications engineering, Electronics directly under Telecommunications. Telecommunications also quite a big category with subcategories from societal topics to technical details and theories.

I made a suggestion at User:Alinja/Comms for an alternative categrization scheme, which should clarify my original idea. Don't take it too literally, as it was done largely by brainstorming, and copy&pasting from the original. I tried to use existing category names as much as possible, but especially the new names need attention.

Any comments? I may have misplaced something as I didn't browse thru all the categories. I didn't find a good use for "Data transmission" in this scheme, but probably there will be something for it too. Also, is "Computer networking" too artificial in this scheme? I don't think it necessarily is.

Alinja 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone got anything to comment?

Alinja 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

categories for deleteion

Category:Claude Shannon, Category:Norbert Wiener are up for deletion at WP:CFD 132.205.44.134 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Apologies if this is not the appropriate place for this, but an AfD within your scope is underway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matsui 1409T and the article: Matsui 1409T. DarkSaber2k 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted, time for a clean up? - Figarema 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Please write the scope of this project. Another note, there is a wikiproject that is a descdent of this project is about to be formed. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Mobile Phones. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Radar FAR

Radar has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phone stub, and merge of category:mobile and category:mobile telephony

i think there should be a mobile phone stub category within the wireless category.. there sure are enough mobile phone stubs out there.. 131.111.24.187 09:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We could use help maintaining Category:Mobile. I'd like to merge Category:Mobile Telephony into Category:Mobile. Telephony seems to be an abused term. Mathiastck 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both suggestions. Mange01 13:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree I don't see how one could say they are different. Figarema 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

On the main WikiProject page, the following is related:

WikiProject Deletion sorting

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting is a new effort that attempts to classify various articles nominated for votes for deletion by major categories. The Telecommunications-related articles at VFD are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Telecommunications.

Which is already red linked? Nothing there or this never happened? -- Figarema 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion about whether this notification method will be pursued by this WikiProject?

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't beleive so, normally we are lucky if some one notices an article for deletion and mentions it on this talk page. If we put the page on our watch list we could see if something appears on it. SO I think its a good idea. I have noticed that projects are often unaware when one of their pages are destroyed by the deletion process and then complain on the deletion review requests. Graeme Bartlett 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tower Mounted Amplifier

Tower Mounted Amplifier - up for AfD in May 2007, is unsourced. The result was Keep and Cleenup.

Given some big changes and looking for feedback, is it ok now? - Figarema 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiproject Telecommunications! The article looks now a lot better, I think the sources are adequate now. Other feedback: I would re-order the article, starting with the benefits (integrating the drawback chapter in it), then moving on to technical details. Also, I think the article doesn't need to repeat Friis formula and that part could use some compacting. The top image could be cropped and pointed out whichbox is the amplifier (I can guess which ones, but it's betetr to be explicit). Just some suggestions if you still have ambition for further improvement. Alinja 08:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, regarding your suggestions. Re-order, I agree - it may make it less techie to have the math at the end-, benefits/drawbacks would be too crowded if they are integrated and having it separated is more friendly towards newer contributions. Pointing out the TMA in the pictures, yes. The reason to repeat Friis Formula is to be able to run through the two worked out examples: with and without TMA; I'm happy with the content but perhaps there can be some "style"/"better looks" of showing that content, the article is not repeating the whole demonstration of how to arrive to Friis formula (thats in the Friis article) so I would not call it "repeating", more like "quoting" a mathematical formula before doing a demonstration. – Figarema 09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RuBee

Please have a look at the article RuBee. The article has some content ("RuBee Feng Shui" etc.) that a few editors consider nonsense, while another editor (chairperson of IEEE 1902.1, according to himself) thinks that this makes article easier to understand for others. If you're knowledgeable about the topic, you might wish to help in improving the article. utcursch | talk 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

About television networking and syndication

I have noticed the word "syndicated" when I read about television series. As I don't understand that word I read the article Broadcast syndication. I was a long well written article but since I don't live in th US, I still don't understand what it is. So I went on to read the articles Broadcast network and Television network to get a clearer picture of television networking and syndicated television. But they are, unfortunately, written with the assumption that everyone knows something about how television is organized in the US or at least in Northern America. I don't, I live in Sweden where we, as I understand from the articles read, don't have television networks. The point is that the articles are good, and they state clearly that they describe how it works in the US (some kind of global perspective), but they do not explain HOW it actually works and what it is. That information is still missing. Åsa L 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem. But I'm from the same country as you. In the U.S. they don't have Teracom... I suggest that you write the same comment on the Talk:Broadcast syndication page. Mange01 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic telecommunication topics
• List of basic Internet topics
• List of basic computer science topics
• List of basic information technology topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD on Error-correcting codes with feedback

Error-correcting codes with feedback has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error-correcting codes with feedback 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible duplicate articles

On the article talk pages, User:Colin99 is wondering if Mobile Telephone System and Mobile Telephone Service should be merged. Also, I am proposing that Advanced Mobile Phone Service be merged into a history section in Advanced Mobile Phone System Discuss at Talk:Advanced Mobile Phone System. Jason McHuff (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Any thoughts on {{FS1037C MS188}} template

Hi,

I've placed a comment on Template talk:FS1037C MS188, questioning the validity (or usefulness) of this template. I thought I'd just leave a note here, as I imagine members of this Wikiproject might have some thoughts on the matter, and any comments would be appreciated.

Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For me it is a good warning sign, since this source is old and i.m.o. nonacademic and incomplete. However, people might interprete it as some kind of quality guarantee. The template should be removed from articles that are rewritten. Mange01 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)