Talk:Ring Indicator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Proposed merger
I'd support a merge too, but RS232 is already 30KB long - this separate article treats the Ring Indicator pin in greater detail. Reswobslc 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- But this article is pretty redundant with the description of RI in the RS 232 article. The whole troubleshooting section on floating RI wiries (which is unreferenced and appears highly anecdotal to me) doesn't even belong in a Wikipedia article and should be moved into the Wikibooks realm. Good heavens, we're not going to have an article about every pin of every connector. --Wtshymanski 16:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant? Not true at all. The only thing RS-232 says about RI is "Asserted by DCE when it detects a ring signal from the telephone line". This article says far more than that. And good heavens, if someone can write a useful article about every pin about every connector, then that is a good thing - just like having an article for every element in the periodic table. Wikipedia is not paper. You may not care, but those of us who are tasked with writing the software and implementing the hardware that utilizes these pins happen to find information like this plenty useful. Regardless, I'd support the merge, though RS232 is still over 30KB and doesn't seem to be shrinking. Reswobslc 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Still needs references for all this. And look how much redundant context you have to give to explain that it's not a paired pin like CTS/RTS - why does this even matter? This should definitely be part of RS 232. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting point - redundancy is in the eye of the beholder. I would guess, by looking at your edits, that you're an experienced electrical engineer. Much of the stuff I've explained is intuitively obvious to you from your experience, or what you are referring to as "redundant". Wikipedia's audience is a general audience, not one of experts who already know everything and therefore wouldn't find the information useful. If the "skill level" for this article is too low for you, that is fine, you are welcome to ignore it (or improve it). But wiping it out or merging it just because you feel that just because it isn't helpful to you it can't be helpful to anyone is counterproductive to the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. I would thoroughly be thrilled to wipe the article for Paris Hilton since I believe she is of no meaningful importance in the world, and I suppose I could suggest we don't need an article about water since everybody knows what that is anyway. But I'm not welcome to attempt either. Also consider playing fairly. Your attempts to wiping my work for no other reason than you feel it is not helpful to someone with your experience, without any community consensus to go ahead and do that, is perhaps why I am behaving as though somebody is stepping out of line and on my toes. Reswobslc (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every time you pop up an edit box you see If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.. It's not that "Ring Indicator" is intuitiviely obvious, it's just that it's so out of context on its own. As a couple of lines in rS 232 it would be fine, but to re-explain the whole context here doesn't serve the Wikipedia reader.
- A general audience is not served by minutia - we're all drowning in facts, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to give you the important context. If I'm looking for a History of England, I almost certainly don't want a list of all the Lord High Chamberlains of the Royal Backscratcher. You might even agree that of the nearly 2 1/2 million articles now on the Wikipedia, about 1 million are personal vanity projects that will never be seen by human eyes again after their primary editor loses interest. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but this isn't a personal vanity project, and your "royal backscratcher" reference has absolutely nothing to do with a technology standard present in the vast majority of computing devices in existence today. Now if you want to seek a consensus that agrees that this article is a waste of Wikipedia paper, then go for it. Until then, I suggest you either contribute, or take a hike. Reswobslc (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting point - redundancy is in the eye of the beholder. I would guess, by looking at your edits, that you're an experienced electrical engineer. Much of the stuff I've explained is intuitively obvious to you from your experience, or what you are referring to as "redundant". Wikipedia's audience is a general audience, not one of experts who already know everything and therefore wouldn't find the information useful. If the "skill level" for this article is too low for you, that is fine, you are welcome to ignore it (or improve it). But wiping it out or merging it just because you feel that just because it isn't helpful to you it can't be helpful to anyone is counterproductive to the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. I would thoroughly be thrilled to wipe the article for Paris Hilton since I believe she is of no meaningful importance in the world, and I suppose I could suggest we don't need an article about water since everybody knows what that is anyway. But I'm not welcome to attempt either. Also consider playing fairly. Your attempts to wiping my work for no other reason than you feel it is not helpful to someone with your experience, without any community consensus to go ahead and do that, is perhaps why I am behaving as though somebody is stepping out of line and on my toes. Reswobslc (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
