Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:04, 15 April 2019

Latest revision as of 13:31, 30 July 2025

(36 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talkheader|search=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Computing|network=yes}}

{{todo}}

{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=90|dounreplied=yes}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer networking/Archive index

|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer networking/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force/Archive %(counter)d

}}

Line 25 ⟶ 20:

Thanks. — [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]]&nbsp;{^{[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;[[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

== WikiProjectWanted cleanup listingpages? ==

I have created together with [[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for [[User:WolterBot|WolterBot]] and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of [[:Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions]]). See [[User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing|the tool's wiki page]], [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListing.php?project=Computer_networking this project's listing in one big table] or [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=Computer_networking by categories] and [http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/Index.php the index of WikiProjects]. [[User:Svick|Svick]] ([[User talk:Svick|talk]]) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

== IOS ==

A request has been made to move Apple's iOS to [[IOS]] indicating that Cisco's IOS lacks the heft to dispute primarity.

This is now being discussed at [[Talk:IOS_(Apple)#Requested_Move]] -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.71.179|65.94.71.179]] ([[User talk:65.94.71.179|talk]]) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

== [[Template talk:Citation#Implementation|Citation templates now support more identifiers]] ==

[[Template talk:Citation#Implementation|Recent changes were made to citations templates]] (such as {{tl|citation}}, {{tl|cite journal}}, {{tl|cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place {{para|id|{{tlx|arxiv|0123.4567}}}} (or worse {{para|url|http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567}}), now you can simply use {{para|arxiv|0123.4567}}, likewise for {{para|id|{{tlx|JSTOR|0123456789}}}} and {{para|url|http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789}} → {{para|jstor|0123456789}}.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

*<nowiki>{{cite journal

|author=John Smith

|year=2000

|title=How to Put Things into Other Things

|journal=Journal of Foobar

|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4

|arxiv=0123456789

|asin=0123456789

|bibcode=0123456789

|doi=0123456789

|jfm=0123456789

|jstor=0123456789

|lccn=0123456789

|isbn=0123456789

|issn=0123456789

|mr=0123456789

|oclc=0123456789

|ol=0123456789

|osti=0123456789

|rfc=0123456789

|pmc=0123456789

|pmid=0123456789

|ssrn=0123456789

|zbl=0123456789

|id={{para|id|____}}

}}</nowiki>

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 02:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== RfC on the use of terminology like “[[GiB]]” (gibibyte) on Wikipedia ==

'''Notice:''' An RFC is being conducted here at '''[[Talk:Hard_disk_drive#RFC_on_the_use_of_the_IEC_prefixes|Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes]]'''. The debate under consideration is the use in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_disk_drive&oldid=423180773#Capacity this table] of the “[[Hard disk drive]]” article of nomenclature such as “KiB”, “MiB”, and “GiB” to describe capacities. The governing guideline on MOSNUM is [[Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits|Quantities of bytes and bits]]. The quality of the discussion can be improved by broadening participation of the discussion. This will hopefully more fully achieve a consensus. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L|talk]]) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

== Network computer ==

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Thin client#Network computer]]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} [[User:Trevj|Trevj]] ([[User talk:Trevj|talk]]) 13:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) <small>(Using {{[[Template:pls|pls]]}})</small>

== What is "cyberethics"? ==

The [[WP:LEAD|lead]] to [[cyberethics]] didn't define the subject, so I rewrote it. It's better than it was, but it still seems a bit off. Something's lacking. Please take a look. [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The Transhumanist</i>]] 06:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

== Suggested improvement ==

I'm an old-hand at wired networks and have used a variety of residential routers but have never used a wireless bridge. When I saw that you consider the "router" section complete I decided to learn how to change one of my wireless routers to a bridge. (I didn't find that information.) Along the way, I read several topics that might benefit from a simple diagram like the one for a basic router but covering, say, bridged LANs.

Other than those two points, you've done a very good job. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.183.134.245|68.183.134.245]] ([[User talk:68.183.134.245|talk]]) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== WikiProject restructuring ==

Compared to some other WikiProjects, the WikiProjects related to computing in a broad sense have been split into a large number of small projects:

{{User:Ruud Koot/WikiProject statistics}}

I believe this fragmentation of the community is not productive. In essence a WikiProject is just a shared talk page where people with similar interests can meet each other. This project is fairly small and inactive. Would anyone object to it being merged (as a task force) into [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing]]? —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

:I '''support''' making WP computer networking a task force of WP computing. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

:To be clear, I support (1) moving the talk page underneath WikiProject computing, similar to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force]] and (2) making computer networking a task force in [[Template:WikiProject Computing]], and ultimately eliminating [[Template:WikiProject Computer networking]]. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' this motion. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]], I see you've started this move. Before you go further, I urge you to use [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force]] instead of starting a new naming scheme. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::: I can move it there if that's preferred. I vaguely remembered {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} using this naming scheme, but I can't see this in the current version, so I may actually have misremembered. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::::It would be consistent with the pages we already have, which I don't think you proposed moving. Consistent with [[WP:MILHIST]], too. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:'''Big oops''': You guys forgot about [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel]], child-wikiproject of Computer networking. Now we have a WikiProject descending from a task force, which seems... weird. --[[User:DanielPharos|DanielPharos]] ([[User talk:DanielPharos|talk]]) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'd forgotten about that project and didn't notice Telecom wasn't in Ruud's list. WP Computing is related to Telecom but doesn't contain it, and I think Nortel's parent should be Telecom, not computer networking. How about we propose at Telecom that it be moved underneath that project as a task force, and consolidate the banners? --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 21:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Fine with me (indeed makes more sense to put it there). Don't forget to update the WikiProject Directory after the move. --[[User:DanielPharos|DanielPharos]] ([[User talk:DanielPharos|talk]]) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In related cleanup, do either of you think we should keep {{cl|WikiProject Computer networking}}? I'll request deletion otherwise. I created {{cl|WikiProject Computing task forces}}, but I don't think we need separate subcategories for such a small collection of pages and categories. --21:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:I'd say no; computer hardware doesn't have one either. (Also, don't forget to update this page when the rename comes through: [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Computer networking articles by quality statistics]]) --[[User:DanielPharos|DanielPharos]] ([[User talk:DanielPharos|talk]]) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

: At least the categories related to article assesment should be housed somewhere before this is deleted. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 12:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

::They're all in {{cl|WikiProject Computing task forces}}. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

== Adding a report to IPv4 Exhaustion ==

Please tell me what you think about adding http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/ to the external links on [[IPv4 address exhaustion]]

There is some talk about it on the articles' Talk Page. [[User:Tenretnieht|Tenretnieht]] ([[User talk:Tenretnieht|talk]]) 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard]] is the correct ___location about discussions about ELs and a discussion was opened there about this: [[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/]]. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

== CIDR Calculator ==

:What do you think about adding http://ipduh.com/ip/cidr/ to [[Classless Inter-Domain Routing]] ?

:It is discussed on [[Talk:Classless Inter-Domain Routing]] [[User:Tenretnieht|Tenretnieht]] ([[User talk:Tenretnieht|talk]]) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

* [[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard]] is the correct ___location about discussions about ELs and a discussion was opened there about this: [[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/]]. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

== [[Host address]] and [[network address]] ==

I have a bad feeling about the [[host address]] "article", and [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Host address]] confirms, not surprisingly, that virtually nobody knows that definition of a "host address". On the other hand, I am not happy to see [[network address]] a disambiguation page, not a [[WP:CONCEPTDAB]] article somewhat like [[address space]] (or, possibly, even redirect to a dedicated section in the latter). [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|talk]]) 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

:I see a bit of mess in the articles you've linked to. What can be done to improve? What's your definition of host address? --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

== Metro Ethernet ==

The [[Metro Ethernet]] article is in dire need of attention. Anyone available to help clean up and expand it? I've started a section on the [[Talk:Metro_Ethernet|talk page]]. —[[User:Danhash|danhash]] <small>([[User talk:Danhash|talk]])</small> 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:I think the first step would be to have editors weigh in on the [[Talk:Carrier_Ethernet#Merge|longstanding merge proposal]]. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[DAG Technology]] ==

[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]

The article [[DAG Technology]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32; because of the following concern:

:'''non notable, spam-like article. all references are from the company developing this'''

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:DAG Technology|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Dixy flyer|Dixy flyer]] ([[User talk:Dixy flyer|talk]]) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

=="T-carrier"==

FYI, a reorangization of the data communications articles is being discussed at [[Talk:T-carrier]] (and [[User talk:TCBallister]]/[[User talk:John F. Lewis]]) you may be interested in participating -- [[Special:Contributions/76.65.128.43|76.65.128.43]] ([[User talk:76.65.128.43|talk]]) 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

==[[Portal:Computer networking]]==

[[Portal:Computer networking]] has been nominated for deletion. But it seems to be leaning towards merger with [[Portal:Computer science]] (this is a different portal from [[Portal:Computing]]) -- [[Special:Contributions/65.92.180.137|65.92.180.137]] ([[User talk:65.92.180.137|talk]]) 06:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

:[[Portal:Information technology]] and [[Portal:Telecommunication]] are also under consideration as merge destinations. There does not appear to be a consensus yet. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

== datalink security AfC ==

Hi folks, I came across [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Network Interface Layer Security]], and was wondering what you think (and if you think something strongly, remember to be bold). The format as it stands seems to be less than ideal. I think this might best take place as [[List of data-link vulnerabilities]], which we don't have yet, and creating a separate article for each vulnerability (like the [[ARP spoofing]] we already have). I'm far from a network specialist, and the taskforce here might be better equipped to decide what's best here. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

== Packets ==

There are at least four articles describing data packets: [[Datagram]], [[Protocol data unit]], [[Frame (networking)]] and [[Network packet]]. I know different terminology is used for different circumstances and that's covered to some degree in the articles but, for the reader's benefit, there needs to be some overview of this terminology landscape somewhere. I'm not sure a merge is the solution or better crosslinking of these articles or if all will be good if the existing articles are sufficiently improved. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 13:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - at least four. I believe it's important for networking technology topics to be discrete and cross-linked. This makes it easier to update and write about new technologies that cause a wholesale rearrangement of how the different technical puzzle pieces come together. I also think the articles have a much better chance at improvement if they remain separate and are cross-linked. Maybe each topic can include a common section called

:--Relationships between datagrams, packets, and frames

:--PS - If this task force is still active, I would like to join it.

;[[User:Maura Driscoll|Maura Driscoll]] ([[User talk:Maura Driscoll|talk]]) 16:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

:Feel free to add yourself to the membership roll at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force#Participants]]. Welcome!

:Why do you thing separate articles have a better chance of improvement? My experience is that when there are multiple articles, editors are less likely to coordinate their efforts. -—[[user talk:Kvng|Kvng]] 04:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

==Example Image 2009 UTM.PNG==

[[:file:Example Image 2009 UTM.PNG]] (Universal Threat Management firewalls) has been nominated for deletion -- [[Special:Contributions/65.92.180.137|65.92.180.137]] ([[User talk:65.92.180.137|talk]]) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

== [[Technological convergence]] ==

I've added [[Technological convergence]] to this project and marked it as high importance. Over the past couple years, I've combined overlapping and repeated material from at least three different articles. It is now time to remove cruft and improve organization. Any help is appreciated. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 14:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

== 192.168.1.1 ==

<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/114.79.58.180|114.79.58.180]] ([[User talk:114.79.58.180|talk]]) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:What about it? Could you elaborate please? [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

==Work on research networks==

If anyone has not noticed yet, I am developing a {{T|American research and education networks}} to help link these kind of articles together. At first I thought of one for all research networks in the English Wikipedia, but there are more than I thought. The question is where to stop? Perhaps a compromise would be one for Europe (and Asia?) and this one for the Americas (North and South?) [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:Would a worldwide scope be unmanageable? ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 08:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, got distracted on other issues. A single world template was an obvious idea, but the issue is Europe. The idea of "regional" vs. "national" is the other way 'round there, since there is one European net and dozens for each country. At least I finally got around to merging [[GÉANT]] and [[GÉANT2]] for example. Then there is all of Asia and Africa, which are not really covered yet as far as I can tell, mostly due to not many sources. So still not sure. [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

== Octets vs. bytes ==

Many networking standards use [[Octet (computing)|octet]] to describe 8-bit quantities. Readers are probably more accustom to [[Byte]] than Octet. Some argue that Octet should be used for 8-bit quantities because early on different machines used bytes of different sizes. This is no longer the case. Today a byte universally refers to an 9-bit quantity. Some will argue that Octet should be used to describe network protocols because thats what is often used in sources. Do we want to make a policy on which term to use and when? ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 14:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:Above you said "9-bit" but probably mean "8-bit"? Unless there is some new secret innovation I have not heard about yet. :-) Probably very few of us left who remember storing four 9-bit bytes in a PDP-10 36-bit word (or five 7-bit bytes!), or the CDC approach of 10 6-bit bytes in a 60-bit word.... seriously, this distinction seems fairly minor to me. We always need to paraphrase sources anyway. For example, in other subject, older historical documents might have called certain people "savages" or use other terminology that we would consider offensive or at least anachronistic by today's standard. Much of my time in this project is spent now translating articles written in the standards (or corporate!) styles of using undefined acronyms and jargon, Not to Mention Grandiose Upper Case Letter Conventions, into normal English. So saying "byte" (lower case) should be considered a case of this, even if the Official Document says "Octet". A current pet peeve is the many mentions of [[cloud]] [[solution]]s, sigh. On the other hand, octet is more precise and less ambiguous, so seems a fine choice too. Especially with the wikilink so someone unfamiliar with the term can get a clarification by following the link. Generally Wikipedia should not be the definitive place to define protocols in their total precision for that matter: IETF, IEEE, ITU etc. are the more appropriate places. A high-level overview of the protocol is useful, but the added value of Wikipedia is to put the subject into more accessible English without the jargon, but with Wikilinks to related articles, and give historical context and neutral points of view of its development and deployment etc. In a few cases like [[Wi-Fi]] vs. [[IEEE 802.11]] there can be separate articles for the context and details (or if the group defining it has enough to say, as it does in this case) but those are few. At least my opinion, of course. Thanks. [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 16:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:I would advocate avoiding Octet wherever possible because it is not normal english outside network standards development. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

:: The word used for about 40 years by several respectable standard-makers belongs to the “normal English”. 8 bits constitute a “byte” only when stored in a memory cell in such way that CPU or other devices can manipulate them as a single entity. When 8 bits are transmitted through a network, they are not a byte. They are only an octet. In context of network-related programming it is acceptable to refer to “bytes”, but not in discussing purely protocol matters. [[User:Incnis Mrsi|Incnis Mrsi]] ([[User talk:Incnis Mrsi|talk]]) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

:::+1. Byte is a unit of data storage, octet is a unit of protocol data unit size. When discussing network protocols, "octet" is the standard word. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 08:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

::::I am well aware of the technical definitions. My contention is that engineers are generally unaware of this until they start reading network standards. We can't expect WP readers to be engineers or to have experience reading network standards. ''Byte'' can get the job done so I don't think we need to require that readers learn new terminology in order to understand the WP articles. See [[WP:JARGON]]. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== Layer muddle RFC ==

Is [[IEEE 802.3]] a [[network layer]] technology? {{u|Tarian.liber}} claims that it is and prefers to discuss it at [[Template_talk:OSIstack#Network_.2F_Link_Layer_Muddle]]. Please visit there and help us sort this out. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

: Actually, he claims that IEEE 802.3 is a family of standards which defines a stack of protocols, going from the physical (OSI Layer 1) to the network (OSI Layer 3).

:[[User:Tarian.liber|Tarian.liber]] ([[User talk:Tarian.liber|talk]]) 08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

::Then {{u|Tarian.liber}} is largely correct. On a template talk page their contributions will be a waste of time, though. Have provided a comment there. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 11:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

== I need help with a draft about a Tactical Data Link system ==

My ignorance of the subject is inhibiting my ability to turn [[User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Link-ZA]] into a reasonably decent article. I fear I might skip over fundamental basics and/or give undue weight to minor details because I do not know enough (read "practically nothing") about data links and communication systems and protocols to competently paraphrase sources. (I can just barely manage a rough explanation of the difference between TDMA and CDMA!). Thus I would appreciate it if a technically knowledgeable editor (or two or three) might join with me in creating the article. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 12:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Event Enrichment]] ==

Dear networking experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that's worth improving? &mdash;[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 14:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

:Deleted now. A little more time to review would be appreciated next time. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

== Ethernet naming ==

We need some input on how to punctuate and capitalize the names of different [[Ethernet]] variants. Please visit [[Talk:100-gigabit_Ethernet#Wots_in_a_name]]. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

== Reward ==

I'm offering a [[Wikipedia:Reward_board#Networking_article_improvements|reward]] for most improvements to networking articles over the next 90 days. A separate [[Wikipedia:Reward_board#Audio_networking_improvements|reward]] for the first new GA audio networking article. Knock yourselves out! ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

== [[Juniper Networks]] ==

Was wondering if there was anyone here with enough familiarity with the subject to tell if [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CorporateM/Juniper_Networks my draft] shared [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juniper_Networks#Draft here] is basically a neutral representation. I have a disclosed COI. I'll also ping {{ping|SamWilson989}} here, since they showed an interest in the [[List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks]] page. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 20:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

:I'm currently on a Wikipedia editing hiatus, as you can tell from my editing history, but I'll have a look tomorrow, probably. Thanks for letting me know, [[User:SamWilson989|SamWilson989]] ([[User talk:SamWilson989|talk]]) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

:Looks like a complete rewrite of [[Juniper Networks]]. Is there some reason you chose not to try and improve the existing article? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

::I did start out working on the current article off-line, but I found it was overloaded with primary sources or sources that did not support the article-text, so I ended up just mining it for acceptable secondary sources, to make sure those were preserved. I realize this makes it difficult to compare the two versions and presents other problems, but I know of no better way to create a GA article without bold edits per WP:COI, other than to work on a GAN-ready version offline and propose it. One way to go about something like this is to discuss it section by section if there are editors with enough interest to go through it. As mentioned on the Talk page, the size and scope of the article is such that it's unreasonable for anyone to thoroughly vet the whole thing, but I know of no better alternative than how I'm doing it. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the explanation. I've had a look at the lead and made some NPOV improvements there. I will try to review more of the draft when I get a chance. Though, as you say, it is difficult to compare your draft with the current article, based on a quick skim, your draft does appear to be an improvement over the existing article and so I would support replacing the existing article and doing further improvements to your draft in mainspace. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

::::Thanks {{ping|Kvng}}. I made a few more edits to the Lede and uploaded all the freely licensed images after having just received a Declaration of Consent from the copyright holder (Juniper). Currently WP:COI requires that I request a disinterested editor merge my draft into article-space, rather than do so myself, so I have submitted a Request Edit. Was wondering if you would like to do the honors? Or should we wait to hear back from {{ping|SamWilson989}}. Sam said he would take a look and may want to review it prior to it being in article-space. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::I can try to do this in the next day or so. {{u|SamWilson989}} said he was on break and since we haven't heard anything more from him, it looks like he wasn't kidding about that. If {{u|SamWilson989}} comes back and doesn't like what I've done, he can always revert the changes; That's the way it works around here. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

::::::Ah, sorry guys, I'd said I'd take a look then it went straight to the back of my mind. I'll slowly go through and add to the talk page for the draft what I think needs changing. If I don't end up finishing this, don't wait on my behalf. {{u|Kvng}}'s right, you should just move it into article space and wait for other editors to revert, that's what [[WP:BRD]] is for. Thanks, [[User:SamWilson989|SamWilson989]] ([[User talk:SamWilson989|talk]]) 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} [[WP:COI]] requires that I ask someone else to merge the draft into article-space, rather than do so myself. It's quite unfortunate the rules aren't written with a stronger common sense element, but I am obligated to uphold them nonetheless. If either of you want to do the honors, I think we're in a good spot now that both of you have reviewed it and support the article overhaul. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

{{done}} by {{u|Guy Macon}} ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 04:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

===Request Edit===

{{ping|Guy Macon}}, {{ping|Kvng}}, {{ping|SamWilson989}}. I have also pointed out some factual errors on the Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juniper_Networks#Small_Request_Edit here] through a Request Edit. Some of these errors were made by me and others were recently introduced by an IP. I tacked it to an original Request Edit that's more than three months old, so I thought I'd come back and see if anyone has the time to take a look. Unfortunately Request Edits tend to languish indefinitely in the queue unless I find a willing body to review them. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

== [[CobraNet]] RfC ==

Please [[Talk:CobraNet#RfC_on_manufacturer_list|contribute your thoughts]] on a dispute regarding inclusion of a list of licensed manufacturers in the [[CobraNet]] article. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

== [[Wireless bridge]] ==

There is a reasonable request for coverage of wireless bridging topics. [[Wireless bridge]] is currently a redirect. See discussion at [[Talk:Bridging_(networking)#wireless_bridging]]. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 16:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

== Assistance requested at RfD ==

The page {{noredirect|user:192.168.1.1}} has been nominated at RfD, and input from people knowledgeable about private networking and related subjects would be most useful. Please comment at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 22#User:192.168.1.1]] rather than here. Thanks, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

== 8P8C vs. RJ45 ==

In the context of Ethernet ports, {{u|Zac67}} can been replacing some occurrences of "RJ45" with "8P8C". I think I appreciate that 8P8C is technically correct and that RJ45 is "wrong". On the other hand, I expect few readers are familiar with [[8P8C]] and so these changes potentially run afoul of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

: Perhaps instead of replacing the occurrences of "RJ45", adding "8P8C" in parenthesis? I'm in favor of common names but I would also like an encyclopedia to be correct. [[User:Tommiie|Tommiie]] ([[User talk:Tommiie|talk]]) 09:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

== [[Wire protocol]] ==

This article has one reference, [http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/54750/wire-protocol a definition], which is not particularly clear or unambiguous. Is anyone familiar with this term? [[Wire format]] redirects to this article. I understand [[Wire format]] to be the form the communications takes "on the wire". That doesn't appear to be what's being discussed in [[Wire protocol]]. I found [[Wire data]] and have changed [[Wire format]] to redirect there. Any comments or help untangling this would be appreciated. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

: Hello and thanks. I personally think all could be merged and edited down. In a way it seems a similar concept, just at first glance, perhaps [[Wire data]] from a more telecommunications perspective, while [[Wire protocol]] is from a more modern "web services" kind of perspective. Or maybe [[Wire data]] is more of a marketing perspective since it sources are Gartner, which sells "marketing reseach" which always says that X is going to be the next bazillion dollar market blah blah. [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 19:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

:: When you suggest merge, do you have any suggested target(s). [[Wire format]] and [[Communications protocols]] seem like candidates. Like I said, the material and sources are a bit ambiguous so there is a possibility that merging may degrade, not improve the target article(s). I'm not excited about doing that kind of a merge. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 23:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::: Right, my first thought was that a merge would not fix the main problem of inadequate citation and, maybe, notability. I am not sure that [[Wire format]] should redirect to [[Wire data]], a definition of [[Wire format]] should be found. From the one citation, it seems that [[Wire protocol]] could be a class of [[Communications protocols]], but gut feeling says that [[Wire protocol]] is probably obsolete. [[User:IveGoneAway|IveGoneAway]] ([[User talk:IveGoneAway|talk]]) 02:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

== [[List of TCP and UDP port numbers]] ==

There is a big cleanup in process for this list. You can help. See the [[Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers|talk page]] for to-do lists.

----

My personal objective is to get this list to somewhat equivalent of B-class or GA-class that articles have, if not as a featured list. [[Special:Contributions/80.221.159.67|80.221.159.67]] ([[User talk:80.221.159.67|talk]]) 07:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Statistics ===

I posted some statistics of the past year to <cite>[[Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers#Statistics of cleanup efforts so far]]</cite>, which this WikiProject may be interested in. Seeing how I made 71.06% of all edits in the past year, this list is indeed a bit shorthanded and could use more volunteer help. [[Special:Contributions/2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1|2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1]] ([[User talk:2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1|talk]]) 11:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

== Layer names caps ==

Back in 2011, we had [[Talk:OSI_model/Archive_1#Capitalized_layers|a discussion]] that concluded that layers were not proper nouns. We then went through and cleaned most of this up to use lowercase when referring to network layers by name or number. This work and resolve appears to be slowly rotting out so I would encourage editors to either hold the line on capitalization of these terms or reopen the general discussion before making further changes. Here are some recent infractions: ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data_transmission&diff=792558178&oldid=788720453] by {{u|Saqibbandar}}

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multicast_address&diff=792377814&oldid=787940281] by {{u|150.101.179.66}}

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_layer&type=revision&diff=792386965&oldid=792179440] by {{u|150.101.179.66}}

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data_transmission&diff=792558178&oldid=788720453] by {{u|Saqibbandar}}

:Thanks, this is a most interesting read and I continuously wonder what to write with uppercase and what not. When writing an article on computer science, it sometimes seems ''all'' words start with a capitcal letter, and if not, they abbreviate it so that they can use capital letters anyway. [[User:Tommiie|Tommiie]] ([[User talk:Tommiie|talk]]) 18:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

::The caps everywhere thing is definitely a writing style we see in datasheets, patents and sometimes research papers. I am myself a recovering perpetrator of this style. [[WP:MOS]] is different, more consistent and less distracting. In many cases there is translation to do when using cappy sources for a WP article. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

== Ethernet over twisted pair template proposal ==

NormallyAre Iany wouldof justthese doredlinked somethingterms likepreviously thismentioned [[WP:BOLDin {{tl|boldly]]Area butnetworks}} workingpotentially withnotable. tables can be time-consuming so I would appreciate a comment or two first if possible -See [[Template talk:Ethernet over twistedArea pairnetworks#TableWanted sizePages?]] ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 2104:4125, 1016 AugustFebruary 20172022 (UTC)

== Fate of [[Network topologyDraft:Tranalyzer]] ==

BeforeHere's Ian goabandoned about doing any more workdraft on this,a canpotentially Inotable pleasenetwork gettopic anotherif voiceanyone orwants twoto intake [[Talk:Network_topology#Topology_content_in_Computer_network|this discussion]]it on material repeated in [[Computer network]]. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 19:1133, 821 NovemberJune 20172022 (UTC)

== Please come and help...Template:IoT ==

Hey there,

{{RM notification|Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}} &nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|^{put'r&nbsp;there}]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)</small>

I'm drafting an [[User:François Robere/sandbox/Template:IoT|infobox on IoT]]. [Many] additions and corrections would be welcome.

== TCP/IP layers ==

Cheers,

Please see [[Talk:Internet protocol suite#IP stack connections diagram]] regarding layering in TCP/IP. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

== GUN protocol ==

:Left some comments at [[User talk:François Robere/sandbox/Template:IoT]] ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Please have a say at [[Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers#GUN protocol (port 8765) – notability dispute]] if you know anything about the GUN protocol or are able to assist by providing reliable sources. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/84.250.17.211|84.250.17.211]] ([[User talk:84.250.17.211|talk]]) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

== AreaRFC networkslinks ==

Please see [[Template_talk:IETF_RFC#Discussion_at_WP%3AELN_§_Templates_being_used_to_embed_external_links_into_articles]] for a discussion about external links to IETF RFCs in article bodies. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

{{u|Hl}} has moved [[Wide area network]] to [[Wide-area network]]. Seems plausible from a grammatical POV. But what about [[Internet area network]], [[Metropolitan area network]], [[Storage area network]], [[Local area network]], [[Near-me area network]], [[Personal area network]] and [[Body area network]]? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

: All of them ought to be hyphenated, really. [[User:Hl|—Hugh]] ([[User talk:Hl|talk]]) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

::Well (playing devil's advocate here) [[Local area network]] is much more frequent than [[Local-area network]] in sources and elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It may be a stretch but you can also think of this as an ''area network'' that is ''local'' in which case ''local area'' is not a [[compound modifier]]. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 12:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

::: I don't think there is a devil to advocate here -- I should think the WP style is to have actual common usage trump grammatical precision. Not that I can say that I have paid attention to this, but I can not recall the area networks ever being hyphenated in use. But the point of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wide-area_network&oldid=882861593 Hl's 11 February 2019 edit] was to hyphenate ''all'' of the area network terms. This, in theory would mean not only hunting down and hyphenating all of the area network articles, but every usage anywhere in WP. Because the real life convention is to not hyphenate,<ref>{{cite book |author = Jack G. Ganssle & Michael Barr|title = Embedded Systems Dictionary|isbn = 978-1-57820-120-4|year = 2003 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zePGx82d_fwC }}</ref> the instances of unhyphenated area networks is somewhat large in WP. I do not think it is helpful to hyphenate them. To Kvng's list I would add [[CAN bus|Controller Area Network]] and [[Local Interconnect Network]]. [[User:IveGoneAway|IveGoneAway]] ([[User talk:IveGoneAway|talk]]) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

::: See also [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1983 RFC1983 Internet Users' Glossary] (no hyphenation). [[User:IveGoneAway|IveGoneAway]] ([[User talk:IveGoneAway|talk]]) 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

::::It sounds like [[User:IveGoneAway|you]] would support reverting {{u|Hl}}'s addition of the hyphen. I would too. Anyone else? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

::::: I would hope to convince {{u|Hl}} to revert it themself. [[User:IveGoneAway|IveGoneAway]] ([[User talk:IveGoneAway|talk]]) 20:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::This discussion has been open 2 weeks and {{u|Hl}} has been pinged 4 times now by it and, despite being active elsewhere, we've heard nothing from them here. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 02:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::::I am for reverting it without further input from {{u|Hl}}, under a presumption of good faith tacit acceptance by them of our comments. Would have been nice to cite the Policy for using common practice punctuation if I could have found it. [[User:IveGoneAway|IveGoneAway]] ([[User talk:IveGoneAway|talk]]) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) 13:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Reverted. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}