Talk:Comparison of wireless data standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Criticism 2 Delete 3 Strict Reference Policy 4 Reference Collection 5 Table in Spectral Efficiency Article 6 Bandwidth table 7 Where is IEEE 802.15 on this page? 8 How local is Local? How wide is Wide?

[edit] Criticism

Well, as of yet, there is nothing in it. It is also titled rather badly. J Milburn 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and also, what is already there could be argued to be original research, especially when unsourced. Why has this article been created when there is, as of yet, no content? J Milburn 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to start somewhere, or must all wiki article appear fully formed? Do I have to do it all myself or can others work on my structure? Also your "original research" concerns are rash and misplaced: The idea is to gather existing information about the different standards in one place - I'm not creating any new information just consolidating it. Is this so challenging to work out? Also I state above that references are strictly required, obviously they will not be unsourced. Is this just your standard knee-jerk response to all new articles? Maybe you should read and consider before you respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

No, it is not my typical response. I do not expect everything to come fully formed, I expect it to come with sourced content- yours, if it has content, is not sourced. Also, the content that is there is not actually directly relevent to the subject of the article, it is not actually comparing them. I also expect it to come with a decent title- this does not have a decent title. Perhaps sections? Yeah, you have sections- shame they are empty and badly named. Something else that is nice- copyedited text and formatting. Perhaps original research was the wrong tag, I apologise, instead, I'll put {{expand}} {{unreferenced}} {{wikify}} {{copyedit}} {{move|Comparison of wireless data standards}} and perhaps a few others? J Milburn 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, I create an article with some structure, which you obviously don't understand, and within a few minutes you threaten deltetion and tagging. You go on about the title which you seem to think gives you some moral justification for your stance. You also don't like the naming of the sections, although you don't understand them. How are people supposed to collaborate with people as petty as you around? If you're bored or lonely, please go to another forum to take out your frustrations, other than my article. Darkov 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any need to be like that? I am threatening tagging only response to you hadling the fact I added one tag badly. There are numerous problems with this article, that is what I am doing- giving input. As you have realised, I know little of wireless data standards, and so, instead of editing the article, I offer my contributions on the talk page. I 'go on about' the title because it does not match Wikipedia policy. I cannot see how I am being petty- the fact that you resolutely stand by the article as it is, when there are blatantly numerous issues, is petty. As you have explained, it is not 'your' article, I have as much right to contribute to it as you have. The difference between what were are doing is that I am critisizing an article, which you happen to have written, and you are attacking me. J Milburn 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You showed up here with a bomastic attitude and without taking some care in what you were saying. You made unfounded statements and tagged accordingly. That's got little to do with the article and a lot to do with you. So I took you on becuase you were the problem at hand. Maybe you should give people who are working in good faith the benefit of the doubt and take some time before you jump to conclusions. Clearly this article isn't vandalism, it's not original research (how can restating specifications that are already known be original?), in fact it's a very good idea. Just as it's not "my article" it's not "your wiki". You should be more circumspect lest you bring attention to your own shortcomings.Darkov 12:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

If there is nothing more added to this article in about half an hour, I intend to nominate it for deletion. J Milburn 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'd the welcome the input of some reasonable people. I mean that's what this site is all about, isn't it - deleting articles unless you agree with them? Darkov 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of me 'not agreeing' with your article- there is little in it to disagree with- it is a matter of whether or not Wikipedia deserves an article on such a subject, and whether or not there is ever going to be any content. I cannot understand why you would save a page with just the sections. Perhaps if this was in a sandbox, but it isn't- you saved this article, saying that it was ready to be an article in the state that it was in. It wasn't. I can see that you are now trying to contribute to the article, and so I am not going to nominate it for deletion, I am going to wait and see how it looks later. J Milburn 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it for deletion that's your business. But I will address your query regarding why I'd want to do this: This subject covers alot of information which is not readily available, exactly the sort of article I'd like to see here. Now I have very little time and I can't create the article by myself. There are thousands of stubs around Wikipedia and they're accepted as a part of the process. Previously I've created articles or sections in articles with essentially no information which have later attracted many edits from users. It seems that people are a little shy about starting things, but once something is there they seem more willing to contribute. This article is being approached on a similar basis. I create the structure that I'd like to see, add some starting information that gives people an idea of what should be there, then let it incubate and attract edits. Over time you get a full article. My view is that is what this site is about and is a very valid, maybe the very best way, of creating articles. If this is against some rule or convention then by all means nominate it for deletion, then I will argue my point and take on what would be a broken system of article review. Darkov 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the irony of what you are saying? You talk about how this is not 'my wiki', yet go on to explain what you see Wikipedia as, and why that makes me wrong. You talk about giving the benefit of the doubt, yet when I add one tag from a list of many that could potentially be added, and just happen to choose a bad one, you mock me for it. We all make mistakes, and I made the mistake of thinking that there was any content. The reason I tagged it was that it was a 'comparison' article, I saw writing, and preumed it to be comparison, as that is what the article is meant to be, that had no cited sources. Comparison without sources should definately be tagged as original research. Also, people are not scared of creating new articles- it is just that most of the new articles are completely rubbish, and a fair majority of them should be speedy deleted. On the other hand, if something is tagged, needing attention for whatever reason, or as a stub, the cleanup/expansion process is long winded. Articles are created in an instance, issues within articles often go for a long time before being addressed. J Milburn 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is very clearly a work in progress that has only just started. To talk of deletion before even giving anyone the chance to work on it is extremely premature. I do not see any reason to propose deletion at this stage, and it's very disheartening to see it jumped on like this.

FWIW, I will be contributing over the next few days, if that helps. Squiggleslash 13:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am confident this article actually has some content now, and will continue to grow. I am removing it from my watchlist. J Milburn 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strict Reference Policy

Please note that the whole point of this article is to gather reference information about these different standards. In llight of that any edits that do not provide verifiable references will be reverted. You have been warned! Darkov 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See below for resources to help with this policy (or probably more correctly goal) Darkov 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, as a practical matter it's easier to get information from the Wikipedia entries for each of the standards, but if those articles have a reference please copy it into our reference section, otherwise a reference needs to be found.Darkov 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Collection

To encourange strict referencing of data from verifiable sources, I'm putting together a list of reference materials at the bottom of the article. I'm going to try to find at least one major source of information for each of the different standrds being discussed. Please consult these, or add your own, as you edit the article. Even if you can't be bothered adding data to the article if you know of a good reference please add it and it will be used. Ideally information should come from multiple sourced becuase there's almost certainly bias in the reporting of some comparitive data. Darkov 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table in Spectral Efficiency Article

In Spectral efficiency there is a table that would fit in nicely here. Maybe it would be a good idea to move it and replace it with a reference here. It needs work anyway. Darkov 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contain that much useful information in that most of the standards it lists do not overlap with the data standards this table is oriented towards. I would just clean up the one we have. Two additional columns that would be useful would be System Spectral Efficiency by site and by km², though the latter may be an issue where there's no reasonable way to determine the approximate number of cells per km². Squiggleslash 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe relating range and spectral efficiency makes more sense. Range is something I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate properly. It affects most performance figures, but it involves several data points at least. Maybe some graphs, but finding reliable data for single data points is hard enough. Darkov 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bandwidth table

This needs a little cleaning up.

1. I'm concerned about the "typical downlink" column. Yesterday at some point an editor added his or her own experiences of Sprint. While this is useful, it also violates Wikipedia's "No original research" policy, and I can see it being hard to keep that column free of original research as it pretty much encourages it through it's existance. Original research is also a problem because more congested networks will show up a technology as being poorer than it is. We probably should delete the column until a neutral third party actually does quotable research, and then add it with heavy emphasis on that (and other) reports.

2. The Major Users column is redundant (the information is available at the various pages relating to that technology) and strikes me as more PR than useful information. Why "Cingular and T-Mobile"? How are they significant compared to, say, Vodafone?

I think both columns should be removed. What do others think? --Squiggleslash 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with point 2. Column has been removed. Oli Filth 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is IEEE 802.15 on this page?

Is the 802.15 PAN covered somewhere in this page without using the term? I think perhaps the whole page may be in need of a bit of WP:cleanup.

[edit] How local is Local? How wide is Wide?

I came to the article because I am investigating what wireless standard to use for a point-to-point mesh covering a city of one million people. This is for use as part of a wireless community network. I believe the article would be improved if it explained the difference between Local and Wide. Obviously Wide is wider, but how wide? I lack the knowledge to add this. HairyWombat (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)