Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Telecommunications, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Huawei Honor 8 Pro

Resolved

Over the past few weeks, I've been working with Honor to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article. I've submitted an edit request with a suggested infobox and "Specifications" section. I'm looking for a neutral editor to review this simple edit request, which can be found on the article's talk page (I won't edit the article directly because of my COI), and I'm hoping a WikiProject Telecommunications participant may be willing to help. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Audio converter RfC

Please consider weighing in on this RfC about Audio converter. ~Kvng (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Open Request: Technical help for article List of UMTS networks

Hi everybody. I've just started to improve List of UMTS networks by introducing a new table formatting and would be happy to have some help with this. There are already many entries in the list, compared to when I started introducing a new formatting for the LTE network list(s) List of LTE networks as well as List of CDMA2000 networks. I have been maintaining these for quite a while now. Even that seemed to have taken ages when I look back at it, but I believe it was a good thing to do.
Looking at List of UMTS networks: Is there anybody out there interested in helping me here? If this it not what you see yourself in - do you know anybody else who might be interested? Please take a look at the page and give me a short feedback on Talk:List of UMTS networks. Thanks. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability for electronic devices (including mobiles)

Hi
Since almost a month now, I have been having discussions about a notability guideline for electronic devices, which resulted in an essay.

Recently, the situation that I was describing came in effect, when an editor created 16 articles for cameras, all of which are being considered for deletion 3 PRoD, and 13 AfD.

The essay is almost finished, but I would like more opinions/suggestions on it. Maybe it will not become an official guideline/policy, but I think it should be treated at the least as an essay. The essay is currently in userspace, if consensus is achieved theb it can be moved in mainspace.

I have posted this same request to a few other talkpages of related WikiProjects, so I request all the editors to put their comments on the talkpage of the essay to keep everything in one place. Here is the essay: User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices).

Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Border Gateway

Could someone have a look at this one-sentence stub and tell me if it can be merged or redirected elsewhere? I know next to nothing about telecommunications and haven't the faintest idea what would be appropriate, if anything. It doesn't help that the similarly-named border gateway protocol has far more GHits. (Are they the same?) Or if it's unnecessary I could PROD it. Either way I'll take care of the work if someone points me in the right direction. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Could be related to Voice over IP, maybe some sort of Session border controller for Next-generation networks. I don't think it is related to Border Gateway Protocol. Google is not helping. Incomming links don't offer much of a clue. I have added a {{Context}} tag. I would consider WP:PRODding it.

Thank you, I will, with a reference here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Signature Roaming article edit

Hello, WikiProject Telecommunications members. The current state of the Mobile Signature Roaming article could use some work. Currently both the introduction and the "Entities involved" -section are direct quotations from ETSI TS 102 207 V1.1.3 p. 13-14 and not explicitly stated to be such. I would like to present my draft to a neutral editor for review. My aim is to word the article so that direct quotations aren't needed, and also expand on topics such as transaction flow and the state of MSS roaming in Finland.

COI Disclosure: I am a technical writer for Methics (an MSS solution manufacturer).

Methicskirmo (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Signature article edit

Hello, WikiProject Telecommunications members. I have been working on an overhaul of the Mobile Signature article in order to position its terminology more accurately, expand on related information, simplify the language and update outdated information and decrepit sources. I would like to present my draft to a neutral editor for review. The draft would split the old article into three distinct articles and move the original article's information under more appropriate topics.

Here is the draft I propose be copied over the old article. The section "MoSign project and standardization attempt" was not and couldn't be properly sourced, which is why it is removed from the draft. The information in the section "Mobile Signature with On Board Key Generation" is more closely related to Mobile Signature Service, which I have drafted into its own article here. The content of the section "Mobile signatures today" is more closely related to Mobile Identity as it discusses some forms of authentication adjacent to mobile signatures. I have drafted that too into its own article here.

COI Disclosure: I am a technical writer for Methics (an MSS solution manufacturer), and I am paid to write and edit these articles.

Methicskirmo (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "MoSign project and standardization attempt" section from Mobile signature. I could not find any references for this information either. I'm not convinced we need separate Mobile signature and Mobile identity articles and what you're proposing here is a bit more than a simple WP:SPLIT. Your Draft:Mobile Signature Service needs a little bit of work before it can be accepted. I've left a comment for you on that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt feedback. The current state of Mobile Signature looks better and Mobile Signature Service launched in a better state.

However, I would like to motivate the article split a bit further. One thing I hope my drafts get across is that the concepts of Mobile Identity and Mobile Signature are hierarchically related and not synonymous. While Mobile Signature is one way to implement Mobile Identity, other means exist and should be examined alongside it (eg. electronic signatures of lower Level of Assurance). For example, Austria’s Mobile Identity solution described on the Mobile Identity article does not conform to all criteria of Mobile Signatures.

On the other hand, defining and contextualizing Mobile Signatures on the Mobile Identity page calls for the definition and contextualization of all implementations of Mobile Identity on the same page; I believe it is more economical to give the implementations their own articles.

Additionally, thank you for bringing up the issue of the Mobile Identity Management page. Currently that page appears to make some incorrect assumptions (for example, Mobile Identity is not necessarily implemented with a SIM card, and Sweden’s Bank ID is restricted to banking only, which means that it cannot truly be considered a form of Mobile Identity). The draft on mobile identity takes some of Mobile Identity Management’s “By country” descriptions and attempts to fix these issues as well as add some new sources. On a related note, calling the article Mobile Identity Management seems misleading to me, as the focus doesn’t seem to be on the management aspects of Mobile Identity. Methicskirmo (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to update the Huawei Honor 9 article

Resolved

On behalf of Honor, I'd like to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 9 article, which is currently underdeveloped and inappropriately sourced. The draft I've proposed here very closely resembles the Huawei Honor 8 and Huawei Honor 8 Pro articles, and offers an overview of the model's specifications, release, and reception.

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review the draft for accuracy and neutrality, and copy over content appropriately. The draft is not very long and should not take much time to review. You can read more about the proposed updates within the edit request on the article's talk page. Thanks again for your consideration and help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Telecommunications

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Splitting public-policy from technical material at Computer security

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul.

Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts).

This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here).

I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought.

Telecommunications: One serious issue with keeping all this stirred into a one-article mess is that national and international policy matters of "cybersecurity" frequently involve telecommunications policy more broadly, but that isn't just "computers"; it's about entire systems of telecommunications infrastructure and how they are managed and controlled (and surveilled, legally or otherwise).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisting of move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Hutchison 3G#Requested move 17 February 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 20:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hughes Communications Page

Hi, I work for Hughes, a telecommunications company located right outside of DC in Maryland. I wanted to draw attention this this draft that I prepared. Link is below. I had submitted it about a month ago and was hoping for some feedback. We wanted to updated the accuracy of the page to better reflect our corporate history and product offering.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jschurtz/draft Jschurtz (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're hoping this draft will replace our existing article Hughes Communications, that's probably not going to happen. Given your conflict of interest, you'll need to submit edit requests for the existing article for any proposed improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section in Nortel article

I have started a discussion on the "Legacy" section" in the Nortel article, regarding the appropriateness of referring to a specific company. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

AFD

Hi,

I'm leaving a note to inform any interested parties that there is a telecommunications-related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coded set.

Thanks,

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Telepohone

Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Telephone, A Wikiproject on Area Codes, Country Codes, etc If you would like to get involved, just visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Telephone/Members.

There is some discussion about this project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telephone. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Google Pixel Merger Discussion

The articles Pixel (smartphone) and Pixel 2 could potentially be merged onto the Google Pixel article. Any feedback is welcome and encouraged. The area for discussion can be found here. Plantduets (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Plantduets: As far as I can tell from the activity of this specific Wikiproject, I think no one is going to care much if you just go ahead with the edits to merge the articles. I'm let down that since I've joined this project (a few weeks ago), the level of activity in this group is horribly low. So, in my opinion, have at it... Make the changes... --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a healthy discussion happening, that's what's important. Don't be discouraged by a lack of response here. You are welcome to do the merge WP:BOLDLY but that's potentially a lot of work that could get reverted if someone disagrees. That's why it is often good to discuss first. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Information engineering

Please help the discuss the focus for this new article at Talk:Information engineering. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make redirects for area code pages

Hello, all! Whenever I want to look at pages such as, say, Area code 708, I often type in the search engine "708 (area code)". The search returns no pages, but has relevant results in its search feature. Therefore, for me and other people who would search under such a sequence of words, I would like to propose that a [number] (area code) be created to redirect to Area code [number]. This way, it would be easier to navigate and research information and histories depending on the given area code. This would make researching area codes on Wikipedia easier and smoother for interested parties, as the redirects would lead directly to the demanded pages, instead of a search page.

Who here supports, opposes, or is noncommittal regarding this maneuver? You can state freely below. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear if you like the current results you see when searching on "708 (area code)"? If so, I believe creating the redirect will prevent this result from appearing, since you'll be directed to the Area code 708 page. Personally, I prefer to let search engines do their job rather than create redirects for purposes of searching, but I appreciate some people have different views. For this particular case, after searching for the first area code readers should know the naming convention and adjust their searches accordingly, particularly since it has fewer characters and less punctuation. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Area code 708 is the first result in an "708 (area code)" search. Search is doing its job. Maybe I'm not clear on what the problem is. There has been a 708 area code redirect since 2007. How many different variations are necessary? ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere

An article that interests the projet—Computation of radiowave attenuation in the atmosphere—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

5G

You are invited to participate in Talk:5G#Russian disinformation. R2 (bleep) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Verizon Wireless infobox

Hello! I posted a request on the Verizon Wireless Talk page to update Key people in the infobox to clear up potential confusion. Editors here might wish to review. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

CfR discussion on Category:Radio

FYI: there is a CfR discussion which proposed to rename Category:Radio to Category:Radio broadcasting. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_2#Category:Radio. I was among the editors who suggested 'Radio broadcasting' should be a new subcategory under 'Radio'. Some sort of reorg is likely to occur and I expect/suggest that discussion should come back to WT:WikiProject Radio. Ikluft (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Help trimming redundant content between 2 DISH articles

Hi, I'm Caroline, an employee of Dish Network (as disclosed on my profile page as well as the article's talk page). I've been working with editors at Talk:Dish Network to suggest updates and other changes to the company's Wikipedia entry. In my most recent request, I've identified significant redundancy between Dish_Network#Criticisms_and_controversies and Criticism of Dish Network. Much of this text was added by a banned editor who "abusively used multiple accounts." Since I can't engage in a discussion with this editor regarding possible changes to either article, I was hoping some editors here at WikiProject Telecommunications might be able to assist by trimming down redundant text and/or providing feedback on the talk page. Thanks in advance for any help. CK-DISH (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Verizon updates (5G)

Hello! I posted requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. Editors here might wish to review. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done VZEric (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking editor assistance for Ciena article

Hello! As part of my work for Beutler Ink, I've been working with Ciena to identify some updates and other improvements to the company's Wikipedia article. I've submitted a request here to add an Overview section (or Corporate overview, if editors prefer) to give readers a basic overview of the company before diving straight into history. I've proposed specific text for easy review and copying/pasting, and all of the claims are sourced by reputable secondary coverage. Are any members of WikiProject Telecommunications willing to review this request and update the article on my behalf? Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I left comments at Talk:Ciena#Overview_section. Other's are welcome to add their voices. ~Kvng (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

I have started a Peer Review of Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom with a view to getting this to Featured Article status. The review page is here. I would be very grateful if editors would leave comments there. I would be even more grateful if you come along and support the article when it gets put up for FA. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Request at Verizon Communications

Hello! I posted a request at Talk:Verizon Communications to include recently released 2019 financials in the Finances section. The article currently includes 2017 figures. I was wondering if editors here might wish to review the request and consider either replacing the 2017 information or adding the 2019 info as well. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my request and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Standard Article Structure Proposal

I have noticed that articles for non-flagship mobile devices often have issues with formatting consistency, presence and absence of different info and so on. To help with this issue, I am proposing that a basic article structure (currently at User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/Non-Flagship Smartphone-or-TabletComputer-or-FeaturePhone Standard Article Structure) be adopted for all such articles. This structure is meant to make it easier for editors to know what belongs in the article and how it should be presented, and is not meant to be strictly followed (the infobox is the only place where I believe that formatting conventions should be more rigid, but editors should rephrase sentences and rewrite paragraphs if needed). The structure is currently still being created, but I’d like community input on improving this structure in terms of grammar, technical accuracy and conciseness. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is also available on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. All discussion is expected to be in the section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology

Featured Articles

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom has been nominated for Featured Article. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1. Support is needed from more editors before it can be promoted. SpinningSpark 17:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Expanding 4ESS Article

Hi all, I would to expand the 4ESS article with more information. One of the issues I'm having in doing research is that everything about the switch is proprietary information. I would like to create a section specifically detailing the January 1976 cutover in Chicago of the first No. 4 ESS. In addition, maybe make mention of key individuals who contributed to the development of the 4ESS such as H. Earle Vaughan. There is very limited info about the Nokie N4E replacement, so any help on this front would be useful. Teglin333 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

gscholar comes up with quite a lot of papers and gbooks shows there are articles in several journals including Western Electric's and Bell Labs'. You can ask for copies of anything that looks helpful at the library resource exchange. SpinningSpark 23:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Telkom-4

I soft-blocked the creator of this article for a user name violation but in checking their edits did not see anything overtly promotional. Not knowing anything regarding the subject I could've easily overlooked something obvious. I'm asking for those that know more about the industry to check the article and take take any steps they deem necessary (copy edit, formatting, better sources...even AFD if that's indicated). Thanks for any help, Tiderolls 12:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing that jumps out is the crufty list of stations. Other satellite articles don't seem to have anything like it, and it is a maintenance nightmare as it is information that is likely to change frequently. There is already an EL to the source of this list so need for us to carry likely-out-of-date information. SpinningSpark 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nokia N91

Can I get some eyes on Nokia N91? A couple of IPs are insisting on re-adding language that is subjective and promotional, and pretty much unsalvageable as-is. hbent (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Flow (brand)

Flow (brand) was discussed during today's episode of Wikipedia Weekly. Figured I'd invite project members to help out by making any improvements to this article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know about Per-user unitary rate control?

This MIMO-related article is too technical/niche for me to make heads or tails of, but it needs some cleanup help if anyone here is familiar with the subject. (Also posting this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing). ~EdGl! 04:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph is a reasonable statement of notability but the claims there are uncited and don't appear to be supported by text in the body of the article. There do appear to be cited sources potentially supporting use in 3GPP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

"Internet" vs. "internet"

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Internet#Request for comment: should "internet" be capitalized as a proper noun?
There's some debate there about the difference between "the Internet" and "an internet", about what a proper name is, and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT#NEWS policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Finding consensus for VPN article repair

See sections 9, 10, 10.1 and 11 on the talk page (permalink, in case section #s change on the current talk page). Quite a few commenters comments support that it is and has been in a sorry state for months. Looking for some old hands to help with this high-importance article. It's a big job and I feel more hands are needed to get anything moving. I sense Kvng is acting as a page owner- avoiding discussion and defending turf. I could use:

• help/advice/another opinion
• or confirmation of / experienced support for what I read as a consensus for a particular direction for the article expressed in these sections
• or other help - maybe a quality scale review from this wikiproject?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SS7 Improved article?

There's a discussion over at Talk:Signalling System No. 7#Improved article? on a potential structure for a re-worked page. Opinions and contributions on a potential structure for the technical parts would no doubt we welcomed. Chumpih (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Media vs. Telecommunications for Country Specific Article Titles

Hi, I was thinking about making a 'Media in Guyana' redirect for Telecommunications in Guyana, but I'm not sure if there's some nuance between the two terms that I'm not aware of. The way I see it, media is generally directed to the public (or customers), and telecom includes private/personal communications. For Guyana, I think these topics overlap enough to warrant a single article at this time. The thing that's got me confused is from examining Canada and Japan: both have a Media in- and Telecom in- articles, and both show blatant overlap. (Convenience links: Media in Canada, Mass media in Japan, Telecommunications in Canada, Telecommunications in Japan).

TLDR: Is my redirect a good idea? Is there a distinction warranted for articles? Cheers, Estheim (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The question to ask yourself is, how does this redirect help readers? If you think someone searching for "Media in Guyana" would find what they're looking for at Telecommunications in Guyana, go ahead and create the redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia Online edit-a-thon

On February 19-21, 2021 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021 - Online and global about trade unions and technology ~ Shushugah (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Vendor profiles - help!

I'm getting a bit frustrated about telecoms industry vendor profiles. A lot of them are out of date, inaccurate or don't exist. I'm finding a lot of vandalism going on usually because rogue editors swoop in and decide because it's B2B software it "isn't notable" or the profile is "promotional". Promotional to these people means things like saying who the customers are. As a non-partisan reader I want to know who the customer is to understand where this vendor is selling. I had a vendor with 90 verified telco customers marked as non-notable. Clearly if this was a printer company 90 might not be much, but 90 telco customers makes you a reasonable player.

I wondered if we could fix this by agreeing a standard format for telecom software vendors which is then consistently applied? That would mean less wasted effort and we could point rogue editors at the template. I would suggest: (1) one sentence summary; (2) Company description: where are they based, when were they founded, what do they do in a nutshell (possibly a max length here) (3) Brief description of product set (4) How many customers, where they're situated and up to 6 egs of customers (5) Financials and commercials - how much money, how many staff, M&A activity, significant partners, inward investment (6) Awards - these are really controversial. I'd vote to not allow this as it is promotional IMHO. (7) No whitewashing of the company history. I've seen some dodgy history removed to "clean up" the profile. We need to see the good with the bad. I'd vote for a 'controversies' section which is applied if necessary | I think we do need to have a criteria for notability without this being biased against start ups and smaller vendors. But I suggest $5 million revenue and 3 named customers as a minimum. Otherwise you end up with a lot of 'projects' that aren't real companies. But if we set the bar too high it's biased against smaller firms.

I'd also like a simple "help" tag we can apply if a telecoms vendor article gets vandalised, so other people can arbitrate. This would also help us police PR and marketing spin.

I'm a telco expert not a wikipedia expert so I'd appreciate your thoughts. If we already have a template please point me at it and I'll gladly apply it. Best wishesSandrinaHatman (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Companies, telecommunications or otherwise, must meet WP:NCORP and, due to a history of promotional activity in this area, these are probably our most demanding notability guidelines. Also understand that one of the motivations for the notability guidelines is to assure there's enough WP:SECONDARY sources available on which to base a competent article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Guidance sought at Verizon Wireless

Please see Talk:Verizon_Wireless#No_longer_a_division. I am seeking guidance on the best way to update the Verizon Wireless article since the description of Verizon Wireless as a division of Verizon Communications is no longer accurate. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Some work has already been done on this, but it may also help the article to replace Template:Infobox company with Template:Infobox brand. More detail is available at Talk:Verizon_(mobile_network)#Infobox. Due to my conflict of interest, I would like to ask others to look at my requests and make the edits on my behalf if you agree. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor keeps on adding unsourced "related devices" fields on Nokia device articles.

I am referring to Keane Verneth Calimlim who kept on adding unsourced info on them phone articles. Could anyone look into this? Blake Gripling (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment re semaphore

Please consider commenting at [[Talk:Optical telegraph#Request for comment on meaning of semaphore. SpinningSpark 08:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Help creating article for Visible (owned by Verizon)

Hi, I submitted a draft for review for Visible, a telecommunications company owned by Verizon, in February, but the review is taking a long time. Can someone please help and/or advise?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Visible_(wireless_service)

Thanks!

Djb2183 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Draft has been accepted: Visible (wireless service). ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

COSMOS (telecommunications)

Was wondering if there's someone in WP:TELECOM who could take a look at COSMOS (telecommunications) and see if there's any reason for keeping it. It appears to have been nothing more than an unsourced stub since it was created. I tried Googling for sources but pretty much any search of COSMOS gets hits to other subjects of the same name. Perhaps this should be merged into some other article if no sources can be found for it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I found a bit of material, but as this was internal to the Bell system only (I think) its a bit sparse;

• Louis J. Scerbo, John T. Sibilia, "COSMIC II frame system: the solution to office growth", pp. 98-105
  • I thought this one was going to be about COSMOS from the snippet, but it only briefly describes COSMOS being updated for use on COSMIC II.
• There's something in this edition of The Western Electrical Engineer, but I can only get a snippet.
• This article in a 1974 edition of Telephone Engineer & Management seems to have something substantial, but again I can only see snippets.

There's a few others published in various Bell journals. You'll find them if you use the same search term, I haven't tried to find full view copies of those. If you do merge, Main distribution frame is probably the best target where it is already mentioned, but it might be WP:UNDUE to include too much. SpinningSpark 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably best to continue these types of discussions to the respective article's talk page. I have added a linkback. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've copied my comments there, but replying to Marchjuly's comment, if you can't find any sources for material then it shouldn't be merged anywhere. SpinningSpark 17:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Telecommuting#Requested move 3 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telecommuting#Requested move 3 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Telecommunication#Requested move 13 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telecommunication#Requested move 13 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Request: check suggested definition of baseband

I've stumbled on an indecisive discussion at Talk:baseband about definitions. It seems to have remained unresolved for years, with people talking about characteristics of a baseband signal in their own particular area without ever quite reaching a definition. Meanwhile, the definition in the article itself looks rather dodgy.

I've suggested a couple of potential definitions here, and would be grateful for comment. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Request: check updated definition of protocol-control information - footnotes added

I added four reference citations to protocol-control information as footnotes. Perhaps someone might review? At present, this article is rated as Stub-Class, however, this update may justify increasing its rating to at least B-Class Wikipedia:Content_assessment. WDYT? G a adams (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's still a stub, and not a good one at that. It's a raw definition, one of many mass created with an automated process from an out of date, and sometimes inaccurate glossary. SpinningSpark 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:BATM Advanced Communications#Requested move 27 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BATM Advanced Communications#Requested move 27 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Broadband, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about articles "Phase-shift keying" and "Very minimum shift keying"

Can Very minimum shift keying, an Orphan article, be mentioned/added into Phase-shift keying article? Asking for expert help here. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Very minimum shift keying, it looks like it might be bogus, there is no explanation of how it works, so it certainly should not be merged. It could be mentioned in the see also section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is fringe science, the whole idea is counter to basic laws of information transmission. Similar to perpetual motion proponents like Thomas E. Bearden with ideas based on a mixture of a misunderstanding of physical principles and wishful thinking. The claim is extraordinary, so needs extraordinary evidence, which is not present. A large number of the cites are dead and ref #2 gives a different meaning for the initialism VMSW so I am not even sure that paper is about the same thing. SpinningSpark 13:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett and Spinningspark: - Thank you for this input. Since writing this, I see there have been prior discussions at the "Very minimum shift keying talk page. Wondering if VLSK should be put up for Delete? JoeNMLC (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RF redirect

There is a proposal at Talk:RF (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 July 2022 to turn RF, which is currently a redirect to Radio frequency, into a disambiguation page. Further comments welcome there. SpinningSpark 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Open Verizon edit requests

WikiProject Telecommunications members may be interested in two open edit requests I posted:

1. Request to update CEO on the Verizon Business article
2. Request to include Verizon's broadband statement on the Verizon Communications article

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I am happy to answer questions about these requests on the article Talk pages. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Smartphones

A new discussion about a new WikiProject related to WikiProject Telecommunications. is currently being discussed. Share your thoughts here. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Digital Video Broadcasting#Requested move 31 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Digital Video Broadcasting#Requested move 31 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:IoT

Hey there,

I'm drafting an infobox on IoT. [Many] additions and corrections would be welcome.

Cheers,

François Robere (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Telephone line, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Reliability of CNET

This is a notice that per WP:RSN#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money", there is consensus that CNET is no longer considered a reliable source. Thank you for your attention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Country calling codes

There is a discussion at Talk:List of country calling codes#Removal of off-topic material that could use some fresh eyes please. It is rather going round in circles at the moment. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

COI request from Verizon

I have two outstanding requests that WikiProject Telecommunications editors may be interested in. The first is to update information on the history of Verizon Communications. The second is to help remove promotional language from the Verizon Business article.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I can answer any questions about these requests on the Verizon Communications and Verizon Business Talk pages. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Verizon history request

There is an outstanding request I have posted on the Talk page of the Verizon Communications article about the subsection Merger of equals (2000–2002) that WikiProject Telecommunications members may be interested. This subsection about Verizon's history is out of order and could generally benefit from some additional editing.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I can answer any questions about these requests on the Verizon Communications Talk page. Thank you VZEric (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been implemented. VZEric (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing promotional language on the Verizon Business article

Hi Wikiproject Telecommunications! Since 2021, the Verizon Business article has had a banner on it. This banner shows that the article has content written like an advertisement. I have some proposed changes to make the article more neutral and informative. They can be found on the Verizon Business Talk page.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Parameter update request for Template:Area code box

Hello, if someone knows how to update the |State= parameter in Template:Area code box to show a new overlay code; could you edit "910" to show as "910/472" for the state of North Carolina as the code was recently updated. Thanks for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Telegraph Chappe#Requested move 2 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telegraph Chappe#Requested move 2 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 11:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Dialling codes in the United Kingdom

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01489 was closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01207 (2nd nomination) has been initiated, and articles about 5 other codes prodded (I've deprodded them pending this discussion) despite there having been no discussion that I can find about these articles as a set. (Nearly?) every area code in the North American Numbering Plan area has an article, so it's clear that area codes can be notable, and 020, 0114 and 0191 were not nominated for deletion, so it seems that at least some UK codes are (likely) notable. What should a good article about an area code in the UK look like? What information should it contain (and not contain)? What makes one notable and another not (e.g. is the population of the area covered relevant)? What are good sources for the information the articles should have? When looking to find sources about an area code, what are good places to look? What search terms provide relevant results? I know this is an awful lot of questions, and I don't have answers, but until they are answered then I do not believe that it is possible to accurately evaluate the articles we currently have. (I will link to this discussion from the ongoing AfD and from the UK WikiProject). Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick comment that at least from here, 0114 and 0191 do appear to be PRODded. Flip Format (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now deprodded them as this discussion should conclude first. I guess I missed them as they didn't appear on the article alerts list that made me aware of the other prods. Do you have any substantive comments? Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd start by asking whether the current articles can be improved. At present, to take 01932 as a random example from Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom, it's just not a particularly good article. It doesn't make any assertion as to why 01932 is notable over and above non-notable telephone area codes, it's not well-sourced (most of the references are to lists of area codes that WP:EXIST), it contains a lot of WP:OR (see all the references where the information has been "deduced from" something or where it's just asserted with no source), and in its current state I don't think it should be an article.

So - can this currently very poor article be improved, by an editor with sufficient knowledge of the specialist area, into something that is properly sourced, verifiable and meets WP:GNG? If you take out all the unsourced and OR bits, you are left with an article with a map that says "01932 is the dialling code for Weybridge", which is very much WP:NOTDIR territory and doesn't leave us with a reason to have these articles rather than just entries in the List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom.

Even the articles that are about codes in major cities are not well-sourced. 0191 contains a lot of OR and what is sourced refers to a personal blog and a list of area codes that exist, along with a random recruitment agency website, a supermarket store locator and a church yearbook, apparently just to prove that these places have/had a certain telephone number.

The only one of these articles that clearly shows notability with good references to significant coverage is 020, and even that isn't really about 020, it's about the general history of telephone numbers in London and should be titled Telephone numbers in London or similar. Other than this, I just think UK area codes in general are the definition of WP:MILL and without major improvements and a clear assertion of notability, they don't warrant standalone articles. Flip Format (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That's an assessment of the current state of individual articles, and doesn't really answer any of the questions. What would an article about a notable phone code look like? What information should be included? Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You might have missed somewhere along the line that I don't work for you in any capacity, so talking to me as if you're my boss isn't an appropriate way to interact. I've spent time contributing to your discussion, and instead of a 'thank you', I get a snippy response saying I haven't done exactly as you asked and to try again.

Best of luck with your discussion. Flip Format (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to act as your boss or anything like it, and I appologise if I come across as snippy or anything, but I'm trying to facilitate a productive discussion about this class of articles for the betterment of the encyclopaedia long-term and the only responses other than silence have missed (deliberately or otherwise) the entire point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You might get better responses if you engage with people who respond to you as humans, rather than as if we're machines that haven't quite come out with the precise result you wanted. You are coming across as rude, snippy and impatient with the only person who has so far taken the time to engage in good faith with you on this. Once again, you don't get to talk to me (or anyone) like this - accusing me of deliberately misinterpreting your point is yet more negativity and bad-faith assumption from you. Flip Format (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Flip Format - I understand your point, but please also see that you formatted your text as a response in this thread, not as a new comment. So, the OP might rightly be frustrated that it's not at all addressing the questions they originally asked. Also, Thryduulf has apologised, so your continuous aggressive tone is simply a WP:PA. Please stop. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I've arrived here from an AfD on a number, where someone quite reasonably suggested that this discussion should take priority over a set of AfD's, and thereby determine the general framework for whehter (and if so which) area code articles should be retained. My view is that an area code is notable, and may be worth an article, if it has been written-about independently of the specialist, directly-connected sources. For example, the article about 01708 contains information about an area with the last Strowger exchange, which became a working exhibit in a museum. This fact is clearly of interest to the general public, and is wikipedia-worthy.

When I write "specialist, directly-connected" I mean telecom technical stuff. I don't mean a popular history of the telephone written by an ex telecoms engineer. In fact such a history would be the ideal secondary source for an article here.

What I don't think we should have is a set of near-identical plug-and-play articles each with an identically-laid-out map and info-box and near-identical information about what an area code is, defining the area corresponding to a code, backed up by the national telephone numbering plan and nothing much else. This would be an unnecessary duplication of primary information already widely available.

A further problem is that this is not the United Kingdom Wikipedia, and in any case we cannot assume that everyone in the UK is using it to find out information about the UK. 01634 is therefore the area code for Abohar in the Punjab as much as it is the Medway area of the UK. Which would we show in the article? Elemimele (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. I don't have time to fully respond now, but on your last point I fully agree and an article on the 01634 area code would be better titled something like 01634 (UK dialling code) or 01634 (UK area code) (and we should agree on a consistent disambiguator to use), the shorter codes particularly are likely to be highly ambiguous (e.g. 029 is already a disambiguation page). Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My overall view is that articles for dialling codes in the major cities should be kept whereas the articles about dialling codes which only cover small towns would not meet the notability threshold. Therefore, going by the articles Flip Format has asked to be deleted. I'd vote to keep the 0114 and 0191 articles but delete the 01527, 01633, 01708 and 01932 articles. Rillington (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The principle of dialling codes being notable appears to be established by all US area codes having articles, from the biggest cities to the most rural areas. Keep them all. MRSC (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion that has concluded that all US dialling codes are notable? Or has someone written articles (English Wikipedia is US-centric after all) and no-one has challenged this yet? Do US dialing codes just cover much larger, populous areas and generate more interest? I can easily imagine there is publicity and promotion when new codes are introduced, or old codes are changed, but is there ongoing coverage in reliable independent sources? For the majority of codes I would think it is unlikely and, at the very least, I would expect to be shown some evidence of wider interest than fan-websites and technical documents. Sionk (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

For example, I live in Cardiff (a reasonably sized city ...a capital city too) and remember the old 0222 dialing code had a strong identity (because of the 3 2's) with businesses, music and albums named after it, for example. It changed to 029 in 2000, though this has much less recognition and people in the city don't all quite understand it [1]. But all of this can be easily incorporated into the Cardiff Wikipedia article, without a standalone article filled with technical and non-notable data. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Came here from an AfD on an area number. I concur with Elemimele that there needs to be a longer discussion. At AfD, there has been discussions closed in the past due to a consensus that North American area codes are inherently notable. I haven't seen any discussion that proves this. That being said, the same does not exist for British area codes, and AfD discussions about this have been closed as no consensus or keep in the past.

If said larger discussion or RfC was to happen, ideally it would be in policy rather than a consensus. I don't know where you would put it, potentially, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NUM or WP:NGEO. None are perfect fits, but could work. It could just be a consensus if that doesn't work. I think there would be at least a few options, those being:

- All area numbers are not considered notable unless they meet WP:GNG.

- All area numbers are considered notable.

- Area numbers are considered notable if they cover a highly populated area (This came up in this AfD, "highly populated area" would need to be defined.)

- North American and British area numbers are considered notable, others aren't. (I've put this down because, as per Elemimele's comment above, area codes can apply for more than one area, and there only seems to be articles for North American and British area numbers as far as I know.)

Personally, I trend towards the former. I think we need a longer discussion, but I think the question is where and how. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My strongest feelings are that if some area codes in a given country/numbering area are notable then all the rest should redirect to a list and/or article about area codes in that country, and that if any individual code in a country/area are notable then the list of codes of which that is a part is automatically notable. As an initial reaction, I don't like the idea of defining automatic notability of area codes on the basis of population, but I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, and I agree with you about the redirecting and list notability. The reason I added the "highly populated area" option is because it came up in an AfD and I could see a substantial minority or compromise grouping of editors preferring that. If it was to happen, it would make more sense to define it around city status rather than population. I'm not a fan of it anyway, and I really don't see this happening. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What do the people here think of an RfC on the matter? I think it would be worth it, as it would be good to get a larger community consensus, and I'd be willing to open one. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It would need to be explicitly limited to articles about individual area codes, and would need to be clear about whether it applied globally or to just e.g. NANP, so I recommend drafting before launching but I think it would be worthwhile as this discussion hasn't attracted the participation I hoped or (or is required). Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:I've made a draft RfC, it's available at User:JML1148/Area codes RfC. Feel free to make changes. I suspect the issue with the lack of discussion is because we are in a Wikiproject talk page. Is it worth making a comment at WP:VPP to bring attention to the draft? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@JML1148, @MRSC, @Elemimele, @Kashmiri, @Flip Format and anyone else. Now the 01633 AfD has closed I intend to start this RFC using the draft at User:JML1148/Area codes RfC if there are no comments in the next few days. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I would say just go ahead with it now. This conversation has been dead for a week. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please do open it. Elemimele (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree – go ahead now, no need to wait. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I intend to do it later today (I haven't got time right now). Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding individual area codes

You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Area codes RfC regarding the notability of articles about individual area codes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TIM San Marino#Requested move 10 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TIM San Marino#Requested move 10 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Telecommunications

Telecommunications has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at 6G talk page

Discussion on a requested move is currently underway at 6G talk page. Members of this WikiProject are requested to weigh in. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 13:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at 7G talk page

Discussion on a requested move is currently underway at 7G talk page. Members of this WikiProject are requested to weigh in. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 11:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

PSTN switch-off in the UK

I've created an article on the forthcoming United Kingdom PSTN switch-off, which is already starting to happen with the stop-sale of some new copper network products. I'm sure my article is greatly over-simplified; if any proper UK telecoms wonks are reading, could you please fill in the fine technical and commercial details on this? — The Anome (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Code word#Requested move 8 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Code word#Requested move 8 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move GAN > Wi-Fi Calling

See Talk:Generic Access Network Chifonr (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WiFi calling and VoIP

Wi-Fi calling is in desperate need of references and a restructuring. We'd appreciate any contributors.

Also, we have Voice over IP and Voice over WLAN, which need improvement and also create additional confusion with Wi-Fi calling. Please help streamline the information to properly distinguish them.

We even (!) have a Mobile VoIP article, which is also in a poor state in terms of formatting and sources.

Perhaps at least one of these needs merging or redirecting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfsprt (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Voice over LTE#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voice over LTE#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Internet Relay Chat#Requested move 29 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Internet Relay Chat#Requested move 29 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Could someone help improve Communications in the State of Palestine

Hi all

I've started to improve Communications in the State of Palestine but this really isnt my area of expertise. Could someone who knows about this stuff also take a look, I know a lot is missing.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications#Requested move 22 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications#Requested move 22 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating accuracy between articles in Telecommunications and Internet

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors, as a newcomer, I've noticed that in various countries, articles on telecommunications and internet are distinct yet interconnected topics. I've been actively involved in editing in both areas. However, updating a telecommunications article can unintentionally lead to the related internet article becoming outdated, a situation I've observed with Estonia. Conversely, updating the internet article can have a similar effect on the telecommunications article. To address this for Estonia, I've raised a question in the talk thread regarding the interest in prioritizing efforts to consolidate, update, or cross-reference these related articles, considering the significant time commitment involved. This challenge isn't unique to Estonia; I've encountered similar issues in countries like Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, and Spain. I'm seeking advice on how to effectively manage updates to ensure both accuracy and efficiency in handling both the 'parent' and related articles. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How does updating one article make another article (more) outdated? Or are you just worried that updating one will make related articles look worse? ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kvng, I'd like to share an example of the issue I mentioned earlier, which involves the articles Telecommunications in Finland and Internet in Finland. I recently made updates to the "Internet" section in the Telecommunications in Finland article. However, I later discovered that there's a separate article titled Internet in Finland, which now contains outdated information due to those edits. I'm wondering whether it might be beneficial to merge the Telecommunications and Internet articles into a single comprehensive piece for each respective country. What are your thoughts on this? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable proposal but a quick survey finds this pattern of separate articles for telecommunications and Internet for many countries so I that doesn't seem to be a slam dunk. If we do keep separate articles, the way this is usually handled is described in WP:SUMMARY; Move the stuff that may need updates from Telecommunications in Finland to Internet in Finland and leave just a brief summary and {{Main}} link in Telecommunications in Finland. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Multilink Procedure

The article Multilink Procedure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

cursory reading makes it seem like the topic is a bit ill defined. Like there are multiple kinds of related procedures, and coverage of this topic is probably better served on other pages. additionally there isn't exactly a plethora of helpful sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)