Talk:IEEE 802.15.4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone add the alternative UWB PHY added in http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG4a.html ? I don't feel comfortable enough with the topic so far to do this myself. UWB mentions this as well already. Noleti 09:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Error: See on IEEE 802.15.4 specs, page 29: There is only one channel, not three as mentioned in this wiki page. I corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.250.87 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MiWi at IEEE 802.15.4

To Cburnett: on the MiWi link, I wasn't clear in my edit summary...that was a conversation with User:Atomsmith, who works for the company that uses the trade name MiWi. I removed the link because it doesn't appear that there can be a MiWi article, yet...there are no links at all on a scholar.google or news.google search that support notability. I've asked him to try to dig up some reliable sources. I'll leave the dead link where you put it for now, but if I don't hear anything positive from Atomsmith for several days, then I'm going to assume there's no MiWi in WP's future and remove the link again. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is BS (it's a guideline) and WP:V, WP:NOR, & WP:NPOV are policies. And they apply to articles not links to articles. The absence of a link means a random person can't notice the article doesn't exist to look for themselves if it should exist. This is the same argument for any red link. MiWi is a valid link in the context that it is used. User:81.240.250.87

Is wikipedia better for having this red link gone? Absolutely not. Cburnett (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go turn some of my past arguments with admins into essays so that you two (and others) will see I'm "on your side" in this...I think Wikipedia would be a better place if people relied more on expert Wikipedians (and there are lots) for subjects that require experts, and less on rules. (That doesn't put me in the WP:FAIL camp, because I don't see anything that has a hope of competing with Wikipedia ... but it would be better.) For reference, here's the guideline, from WP:Red link: "Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about a notable and verifiable subject. Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles...". So, if someone wanders along and removes the link, we'll have to come up with at least a plan for how we're going to justify a MiWi article. But, I'm in no hurry, and you two seem to like the red link, let's keep it. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)