Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force/Archive 1

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing This page is supported by Networking task force.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I initiated a cleanup, most of the original content remains however many template elements have been removed. --Bruce 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is reserved for collaborative editing of computer networking related infoboxes. Eventually the individual infoboxes on this page would be converted into templates, contributions would be appreciated. --Bruce 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardware specific	Protocol specific
Network Interface Card (NIC) OSI Layer(s) 2. Data link layer

Add any additional comments

i propose we create a Networking_Protocol infobox based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Country_or_territory but clearly less big , fileds to be included should contain : layer , transport , ecapsulation , etc--Mancini 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

802.11e

I would like to propose that we add a bit more to the IEEE 802.11e-2005 article to include a picture of the altered OSI model and some extra info about the changes 802.11e makes. I can do this as I have all the references available as I have just finished my dissertation, which included material on QoS within 802.11. Is there anything else that anyone would like to add to this section? --Strikeback 15:58, 04 June 2009 (BST)

Sure, you're the expert. But please be aware of Wikipedia's no-original-research policy. Unless already published, results from your thesis should not be included. --Pgallert (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this will be my first edit, will my changes get reviewed? --Strikeback (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (BST)

If you want to, I can have a look at it. Otherwise, it will get a very brief check by recent changes controllers and by people watching the 802.11e page. WP:Be bold! --Pgallert (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Its on my watch page now since i just given it classing and improtance rating, i willr eview anything you add :), if problems i will revert an leave a message on your talk page with the rpoblems--Andy (talk - contrib) 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a message concerning this subject to the WikiProject Computing talk page, you can find it here. --Bruce 10:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. What are we waiting for? The WikiProject Computing is the obvious parent, allthough Wikipedia:WikiProject_Telecommunications also is related. The computing project seems to be much more active. What's the procedure for moving the computer network stuff from that project to this? Mange01 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now assigned it WikiProject Computing as parent. Hope you did not mind. And that I have not missed updating some instance with this information. Mange01 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that there are quite some pages under Telecommunications that actually fit under Networking , and ther are articles in both categories , i guess that is the way to go nowdays that telecom and networking entwine !? --Mancini 16:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One of my students approached me a couple of weeks ago with the (false) view that ARPANET was introduced in the 1970s. Source was Wikipedia. Quote: "Today's IP networking represents a synthesis of two developments that began in the 1970s, namely LANs (Local Area Networks) and the Internet, both of which have revolutionized computing." I have inserted "1960s and 1970s" - this is far more accurate as regards the Internet. Anything else is highly misleading.

(Dorgan65 (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made this template:--Prittglue 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Use the following code: {{cnproj|class=B|importance=mid}}

Great.

All articles have class B and importance mid. What other categories can we use?

Why is this still not mentioned on the project page?

I'm novice. why does the template refer to the protal and not the project page? Whats the difference between a portal and a project, and what should be on the discussion page and on the main page of a portal and a project respectively? Mange01 13:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited Bus.png to add transparency , too bad it will not show in IE , make a note to use gif format in the future--Mancini 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm is this the template we shoudl be using on network pages? i hough it was network=yes=network-importance=mid etc? from the comptuer template--Andy (talk - contrib) 09:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I created this user box that may be used on member pages. I thought it would be a nice touch to add and have. Listed this on the poject page as well.

You can add it to your user page with the following code: {{User WikiProject computer networking}}

--akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working on de-orphaning articles and I ran across the article on Up0-interface. Although the article is not tagged as part of your project, it appears as though it could belong to this project. If I am wrong, please let me know and I willt ry to find where this project belongs. Should this article belong to your project, assistance would be greatly appreciated in de-orphaning this article (introducing at least 1 link to this article in another wikipedia article). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the tagging to the WP:TEL project, and de-orphaned it. I am not clear on why it needs an expert - I see no controversy in it. Mange01 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my bad. I was a little confused on how to get another project to look at it. I am working on a project to de-orphan thousands and thousands of orphaned articles and did not have enough knowldge of the subject matter to find appropriate articles to link to it from. Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Should Search Appliance be added to this WikiProject? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been over at modem. It's part of WikiProject Computer networking. So it "should explain ... (what an IP address is) "? And the same would be true about an article on Netbios? I don't think that's a very good suggestion. If you want to have a project on IP networking, you should change the name. If you want to have a project on general networking, you should pull the IP stack and OSI layer out of the template. 218.214.148.10 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)(david)

Perhaps that is only an example in what a specific article might include, i.e. one dealing with routing, etc. I see on the project page it says:

"Networks rely heavily on protocols and that is the primary focus, but may also include models (e.g., OSI model), hardware and applications..."

So I assume it would depend on the article. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Segmentation and reassembly is a general concept, which in the article is instead linked to a particular instance of the problem, namely ATM. This is at least misleading if not plain wrong.

The information should be probably integrated into the Asynchronous Transfer Mode article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.75.157.145 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I read, that you have problem with protocol infobox. I created in RuWP an protocol infobox (example) with following fields:

• Abbreviation (as a caption of infobox)
• Full name
• Image (if exists)
• OSI Level
• Protocol suite
• When was started
• Port / ID
• Purpose
• RFC and/or STD
• Main implementations (clients and servers)
• Extensibility
• Main extensions

Sorry for my not very good english and thanks for cooperation. - Member of RuWP WikiProject Computer networking VasilievVV 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found this site at a .edu - though old, they are still relevant for the topics they cover - animations of various networking concepts see http://www.netbook.cs.purdue.edu/anmtions/anim20_3.htm - great visual of tcp sliding windows. animation is worth 1000 words.--Boscobiscotti 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After working on the articles, editors came and began to insert data into the wrong articles. I think this will always be problematic since people dont seem to get the concept of the wiki links as supporting articles. I would therefore suggest doing something like this on the article you cleanup so they dont get destroyed again. You can do this (if you would like) with a simple notice box:

Before making edits on this page, please understand that there is a cleanup going on concering Router, Routing and Routing protocol

Update the article Router if you are updating infomation about Routers, NOT routing protocols.
Update the article, Routing protocol if you want to update information on the protocols routers use.

Finally update the article, Routing, if you want to update this topic without discussing the protocols behind routing.

--- End of Talk Page Guideline example --- --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Invited two additional editors to join project. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is no Internet routing article, which seems like a major deficiency. We have many of the pieces covered like BGP, OSPF, CIDR etc. but I don't see one which ties it all together into one big picture. Anyone want to tackle that? --Nethgirb 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

we are preparing an interview at Wikinews with Robert Cailliau, all insightful questions are most welcome here: Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with Robert Cailliau.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Lynx (protocol) is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GroundWork Monitor Open Source (via WP:PROD on 2 October 2007) Deleted

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article here is very accurate except for the number of hosts. As you create more networks, both the broadcast and the network IP cannot be used.

For Ex:

If you have 4 networks (2²), you lose the first two, (.0 and .255) and the broadcasts, (..63, .127, .191) and the network domains (.64, .128, .192) making a total of 8 lost IP's. The more you split the network, the more valid IP's you cannot use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLanius (talk • contribs)

Which article are you referring to? Cburnett 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 16 October 2007 -- expires 21 October

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BT Home Hub —Preceding unsigned comment added by KelleyCook (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BT Home Hub at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BT Home Hub (16 October 2007 – 21 October 2007) Keep

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basenet (via WP:PROD on 21 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across these two in looking over Category:Wireless networking

*Fixed Wireless Data - This one bothers me - rubbish... *Fixed wireless

Comments welcome! E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonight I merged these articles... E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BixData (via WP:PROD on 29 October 2007) Kept BixData at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BixData (29 October 2007 – 4 November 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This one's been untouched for some time. These articles both attempt to cover the same topic. Fourohfour was kind enough to make the merge proposal. I could attempt the job, but I may not be the right editor for the job. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Gateway (computer networking)
• Gateway (telecommunications)

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic Internet topics
• List of basic telecommunication topics
• List of basic computer science topics
• List of basic information technology topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up on the subject here, but is there anything we can add to this article? Regards, Mercury 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is currently a discussion in progress over the portal's future. I figured this WikiProject would be a logical maintainer of it? Or perhaps there ain't enough material to sustain one? (I would be surprised as it is a very vast topic.) One way or the other, the discussion could use more input. Thanks, Миша13 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Codec Engine (TI) (via WP:PROD on 1 December 0207) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

updated --14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone take a look at UPnP AV MediaServers ? I came across it while adding categories and it seems to be drowning in spam. Needs an expert to decide what to keep ! thisisace (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Error-correcting codes with feedback has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error-correcting codes with feedback 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Error-correcting codes with feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error-correcting codes with feedback (28 November 2007 – 6 December 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Loop Management System (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

update --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IVisit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IVisit (4 February 2008)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Via WP:PROD from 2nd Jan - IPBX]

I have no idea if its worth keeping, but you might. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no one interested in philosophical observations from a lot of experience in networking, including ISO and IETF standards development as well as router implementation, but maybe someone will find value.

I give up. I am tired of explaining that IETF protocols explicitly are not designed in conformance with the OSI reference model, perhaps because a textbook or two contradicts the relevant RFCs.

I give up. I am tired of explaining that routing protocols are network layer management functions and do not belong in the layer above the one that encapsulates them, even if they are IP-only or run over data link alone.

I give up. I am tired of explaining that "switch", as opposed to "bridge" or "router" at the lower layers, has no accepted technical meaning.

Let Wikipedia create its own literature on routing, which can take advantage of all of these misconceptions.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of explaining, it may be more successful to give references. However, the problem is not only Wikipedia, but also that different textbooks gives different definitions, for example of switching, depending on context. Mange01 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please comment my discussion with Wrs1864 User_talk:Wrs1864#Private_network. This talk is about this edit --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Give your vote here. Should the TCP/IP model template have four or five layers? And what is the name of the bottom layer in case of four layers? And is it okay to mention both the four and five layer models in wikipedia articles? Mange01 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This project is a subset of the parent project WP:COMPUTING.This project articles contains both {{Cnproj}} and {{WikiProject Computing}} and possibly other descendant wikiproject banners also.

I am proposing the use of the integrated banner of {{WikiProject Computing}} , if there is a consensus among our project members...

Example :

{{WikiProject Computing|class=start|importance=Mid|network=yes|network-importance=low}}

will produce...

• This project and its autonomy will remain the same...
• No pages have to be moved as a task force.

The advantages of this are :-

• Intergated banner which takes up less space and avoid clutter of different Computer related WikiProjects.
• Greater co-operation and co-ordination among computer related wikiProjects.
• Each WikiProject doesnt have to maintain an assessment department...Since the standards for WP 1.0 Assessment is same for all WikiProjects, single assessment is only required for all the computer related WikiProjects. This means more time for individual computer wikiprojects to help and improve the articles in their scope..
• Seperate stats for quality and importance for both parent and descendant projects ( as before)
• Catergory intersection of quality and importance available like Category:Amiga articles by quality and importance for WP:Amiga

Possible Actions:

• Replace {{Cnproj}} with {{WikiProject Computing}} and our project parameters in the article talk pages .
• Copy the importance in existing {{Cnproj}} to |network-importance= in {{WikiProject Computing}} banner.

Thoughts ?? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. It will cut down on spaces used up by templates, and kinda have one general template, more uniform for all the pages under the project. tabor-^{drop me a line} 20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I had left a note on the talk pages of all members and hope to hear from them also -- Tinu Cherian - 10:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not generally keen unless each related project group freely chooses to do this. Decentralisation is generally more productive than centralisation IMO. Unless the bits being centralised decide of their own accord that there's an overhead reduction available. Jamesday (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this initative is extended and in discussion with all the computer related Wikiprojects and there is more or less unanimous support now.

You may need not consider this banner integration as an overhead as I will make sure the present importance rating for this project is properly carried over to the new banner parameters during the banner intergation . I will make sure there is no or minimal overhead to the descendant project members for this banner intergation ( TinucherianBot is a hardworking Bot :) ).

The seperate importance ratings are also important and has the following advantages :

• More flexibility for both parent and descendant projects. ( greater independance and autonomy , I would say)
• An article might be of say Mid importance for Computing Project, Top Importance for WP:Comp Sc and even may be Low importance for WP:Databases. This helps such situations.

This initiative is to reduce the Bureaucracy and administrative overhead on computer related WikiProjects and enhance greater collabration and cooperation.The result : you have more time to work on the articles of your interest. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing comments :Based on the discussion and with support and no opposes above, I believe there is a consensus to use the new intergated banner. I will complete the banner replacement and intergation of the existing article soon -- Tinu Cherian - 06:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Banner replacement and intergation of the existing articles is complete -- Tinu Cherian - 10:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 234 articles are assigned to this project, of which 86, or 36.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Cnproj}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done : Added {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|wgcat=Computer networking articles}} to the main page. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Backslash paper has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backslash paper. The deletion is proposed due to lack of notability. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm trying to organize a massive redesign of the VoIP page and I need a braintrust of folks interested in bringing this article up to decent standards. Right now it reads like a disjointed ad, nearly no actual technical information in sight.

If you guys are interested, we can begin working in my Workbench page I created to sandbox my changes to the page. Just post to my talk page and then have at it!

QuackCD (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just added Proprietary protocol to this wikiproject. We're just two editors and haven't been able to agree on a number of things. More input would be very welcome. pgr94 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

JesusMaria, those guys are at each other's throats... we should really go and separate them. --Pgallert (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have infobox for protocols, for example, the infobox can have parameters like,

• Protocol-name
• Protocol-RFC
• Network-layer
• Functions
• Connection-oriented=(yes/no)
• Reliable=(yes/no)

Any further ideas friends? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just check the image File:SIP signaling.png, looks like a copyright violation, possibly taken from some whitepaper. Pls check. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I porpuse that articles like cat 5, cat 3 cat7 etc all be merged into a single article about network cables as at the end of the day they are all the same thing. I would even suggest merging other networking cables like coax fiber etc into the same article. No point having loads of small articles that not notable to be on there own. There always the possibility to split them out into their own main article in the future if the network cable page got to large.--Andy Chat c 12:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose to mark the importance of the articles mentioned on the template within their talk page first. The template tags them into Category:Unknown-importance Computer networking articles and that category is _huge_. Thus they could be more easily accessible from there since it would contribute to the category being more organized. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 16:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh i agree i plan to go through loads of pages and mark them, but the individual cables are not notable enough so should be merged to single page. No point in have 50 pages when one page can cover it--Andy Chat c 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of different parameters which vary among networked file systems:

• Block-level wire protocols vs. file-level wire protocols
• Clients aware of storage location vs. unified remote filesystem that hides location information
• SPOF vs. shared nothing
• Local vs. Internet-wide

Poking through various articles we currently have on the subject, I find the following definitions which are not particularly clear nor well-referenced:

• Shared disk file system, a.k.a. storage area network file system - block level communication protocol (SAN), file-to-block translations are handled on client side of file system code
• Network attached storage - file level communication protocol; file-to-block translation is handled on server side of file system code; in "traditional" version, clients see the location of the server node
• Clustered NAS - file level network protocol, location hidden behind abstraction
• Distributed file system a.k.a. network file system - general term for any of these, connotates a LAN
• Clustered file system - general term for any of these, strongly connotates a LAN
• Distributed data store - Internet-wide peer-to-peer storage systems

I folded Shared disk file system into Clustered file system since that article needed to give an overview of the difference between block-level and file-level network protocols, and there wasn't much detail beyond that.

Assuming the above definitions are correct or at least widely used (and if someone has good references, that would be helpful) I think I would like to make the following changes:

• Make one article about "types of networked file systems you find at the LAN level, with definitions of all terms and examples of each type", thus merging Clustered file system and Distributed file system.
• The article distributed file system defines that term as only including systems with file-level network protocols. This is not how the term is used in other articles.
• Merge Clustered NAS into Network attached storage to better explain the difference in one canonical place.

-- Beland (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Be bold. --Pgallert (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like help with a possible update to the leaky bucket page. This page's accuracy has been disputed (flagged March 08) and I think I see why. I've created a page Leaky bucket/rewrite, which I believe addresses the issues. However, it will need to be reviewed, as my perspective is dominated by its use in ATM. It could, perhaps, then do with more references outside of this area, if there are any. The Wikipedia:Requests for comment page suggests "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject", so I've come here, but I don't see a clear statement of what to do in this regard. Any help would be appreciated.Graham Fountain 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

• Comment Has been moved to Talk:Leaky bucket/rewrite, there should not be drafts in article space. --Pgallert (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed revisions have apparently been incorporated into the article. They appeared to be relatively minor. --Kvng (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there is an attempt to move iPhone OS to IOS. See Talk:IOS (Apple)#Requested move 3. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone; I'm here to try and recruit some help on the above article. I was advised someone here might be able to help. There is a current ongoing effort to re-organise and rewrite a lot of the Digital forensics articles and we are looking for specialist help on some of the areas. Network forensics would be one of those where we are particularly lacking expertise :) If anyone has experience in network forensics or can recommend sources, provide advice etc. please give me a shout :) Thanks in advance --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Computer networking articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted a few importance ratings that looked obviously wrong to me. I haven't made any effort to bring these changes to the attention of the editorial team. --Kvng (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you join the project?

A: To join the project add your user id to the project page and place the pages you shall be working on.

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

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 -- 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{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 |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

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

• {{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|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in 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 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. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Thin client#Network computer. Trevj (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

The 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. The Transhumanist 06:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.134.245 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Project	Watchers	Page views (main / talk, 2010)	Revisions / Contributors (talk)	GA/FA	Articles (stubs)	Assessments
WikiProject C++	59	3680 / 464	few	None	0	{{WikiProject C++}}
WikiProject Computational Biology	32	did not exist yet	87 / 20	1 / 1
WikiProject Computing	223	23488 / 8738	1429 / 480	62/17	66,102	{{WikiProject Computing}}
WikiProject Computer graphics	0	did not exist yet	2 / 1	None	1,244	{{WikiProject Computer graphics}}
WikiProject Computer music	0	334 / 74	24 / 12	None	?	No
WikiProject Computer networking (now a task force of WikiProject Computing)	54	6593 / 569	164 / 68	2/0	3,663	{{WikiProject Computer networking}}
WikiProject Computer science	390	23739 / 2848	1369 / 288	9/1	10,194 (0)	{{WikiProject Computer science}}
WikiProject Computer Security	33	3693 / 1230	173 / 53	7/2	0 (145+81+132-3)	{{WikiProject Computer Security}}
WikiProject Computer Vision	0	did not exist yet	1 / 1	None	132	{{WikiProject Computer Vision}}
WikiProject Cryptography	102	8957 / 903	402 / 83	None	1,875	{{WikiProject Cryptography}}
WikiProject Databases	37	1885 / 456	53 / 24	2 / 1	0	{{WikiProject Databases}}
WikiProject Free Software	44	4425 / 1024	353 / 97	7 / 1	0 (0)	{{WikiProject Free Software}}
WikiProject Internet	34	4636 / 2614	84 / 50	16/3	? (336)	{{WikiProject Internet}}
WikiProject Java	31	5588 / 819	75 / 26	1/0	1,335	{{WikiProject Java}}
WikiProject Programming languages (merged with WikiProject Computer science)	80 (before merge)	2507 / 357	130 / 56	None	?	No
WikiProject Software	82	6773 / 1443	540 / 143	13/5	26,019	{{WikiProject Software}}
WikiProject Systems	45	4377 / 691	626 / 70		4,786	{{WikiProject Systems}}
Not (yet) included: WikiProject Cyberlaw (check redirect!), WikiProject IRC, WikiProject KDE, WikiProject Linux, WikiProject Nortel, WikiProject Apple Inc., WikiProject Malware, WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Microsoft Windows, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject .NET, WikiProject Method engineering, WikiProject RISC OS, WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative
WikiProject Logic
WikiProject Mathematics (for comparison)	661	19534 / 27375	22711 / 1185	33/23	31444	{{maths rating}}
To compare: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Military history

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? —Ruud 10:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I support making WP computer networking a task force of WP computing. --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. --Pnm (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support this motion. --Pgallert (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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. --Pnm (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I can move it there if that's preferred. I vaguely remembered {{WPBannerMeta}} using this naming scheme, but I can't see this in the current version, so I may actually have misremembered. —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. --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. --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? --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. --DanielPharos (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In related cleanup, do either of you think we should keep Category:WikiProject Computer networking? I'll request deletion otherwise. I created Category: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) --DanielPharos (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

They're all in Category:WikiProject Computing task forces. --Pnm (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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. 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/. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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/. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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). 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? --Kvng (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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 page. —danhash (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to have editors weigh in on the longstanding merge proposal. -—Kvng 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The article DAG Technology has been proposed for deletion 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 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 article 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. Dixy flyer (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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 -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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) -- 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. -—Kvng 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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. -—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.

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. -—Kvng 04:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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. ~KvnG 14:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.58.180 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

If anyone has not noticed yet, I am developing a {{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?) W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Would a worldwide scope be unmanageable? ~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. W Nowicki (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Many networking standards use 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? ~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 solutions, 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. 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. ~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. 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. --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. ~KvnG 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is IEEE 802.3 a network layer technology? 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. ~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).

Tarian.liber (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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. ~KvnG 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm offering a reward for most improvements to networking articles over the next 90 days. A separate reward for the first new GA audio networking article. Knock yourselves out! ~KvnG 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Was wondering if there was anyone here with enough familiarity with the subject to tell if my draft shared here is basically a neutral representation. I have a disclosed COI. I'll also ping @SamWilson989: here, since they showed an interest in the List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks page. 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, 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? ~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. 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. ~Kvng (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @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 @SamWilson989:. Sam said he would take a look and may want to review it prior to it being in article-space. CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can try to do this in the next day or so. 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 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. ~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. 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, SamWilson989 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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. CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Guy Macon ~Kvng (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, @Kvng:, @SamWilson989:. I have also pointed out some factual errors on the Talk page 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. CorporateM (Talk) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The page 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, Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This article has one reference, 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. ~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. 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. ~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. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the context of Ethernet ports, 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. ~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. Tommiie (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2011, we had 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: ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

1. [1] by Saqibbandar
2. [2] by 150.101.179.66
3. [3] by 150.101.179.66
4. [4] by 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. 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. ~Kvng (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Normally I would just do something like this boldly but working with tables can be time-consuming so I would appreciate a comment or two first if possible - Template talk:Ethernet over twisted pair#Table size ~Kvng (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a big cleanup in process for this list. You can help. See the 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. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted some statistics of the past year to Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers#Statistics of cleanup efforts so far, 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. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Before I go about doing any more work on this, can I please get another voice or two in this discussion on material repeated in Computer network. ~Kvng (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:IP camera#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017}}}}}}|the move discussion]].  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Internet protocol suite#IP stack connections diagram regarding layering in TCP/IP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (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. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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? ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

All of them ought to be hyphenated, really. —Hugh (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. ~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 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,^[1] 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 Controller Area Network and Local Interconnect Network. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

See also RFC1983 Internet Users' Glossary (no hyphenation). IveGoneAway (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

I would hope to convince Hl to revert it themself. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

I am for reverting it without further input from 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. IveGoneAway (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) 13:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. ~Kvng (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a repeated legend used for fiber optic topics. I beleive this is Nightwalker-87's work.

Comparison of fiber grades^[1]

MMF FDDI 62,5/125 µm (1987)	MMF OM1 62,5/125 µm (1989)	MMF OM2 50/125 µm (1998)	MMF OM3 50/125 µm (2003)	MMF OM4 50/125 µm (2008)	MMF OM5 50/125 µm (2016)	SMF OS1 9/125 µm (1998)	SMF OS2 9/125 µm (2000)
160 MHz·km @850 nm	200 MHz·km @850 nm	500 MHz·km @850 nm	1500 MHz·km @850 nm	3500 MHz·km @850 nm	3500 MHz·km @850 nm & 1850 MHz·km @950 nm	1 dB/km @1300/ 1550 nm	0.4 dB/km @1300/ 1550 nm

This appears as a separate copy in Fiber-optic communication, Fast Ethernet, 10 Gigabit Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet and 100 Gigabit Ethernet and in a different format at Multi-mode optical fiber#Comparison. Minimally this should be done as a template to improve maintainability. I'd go ahead and do that but I'd also like to improve this to make it clear that it is a legend. It is not clear to my eyes what is going on here with tables on top of tables. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. I've introduced this formatting with the intention to unify various listings in dependent articles. I am open to your proposal which seems reasonable. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my proposal to implement this as a template. I suppose I can get started on that.

Does anyone have any suggestions for making it clear that this table is a legend for color-coded cells in adjacent tables. ~Kvng (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created {{Fibre legend}} and replaced table copies with this (except for Multi-mode optical fiber#Comparison). ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, I just started writing my very first Wikipedia article ever. However, I underestimated the complexity and was not aware of review processes. So it seems I should have added some metainformation so that my article shows up here or in a related project, if I get things right. So, how do I get the following article reviewed? Draft:EEBUS Is this the right project? If the official answer is that I cannot skip the (currently) estimated 6 months of review, I will of course accept this. But as a newbie this is a little frustrating right now. I appreciate your help! DrJHinker (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrJHinker: Congratulations! It looks like you have it properly queued for review at WP:AFC. The AFC process is optional for WP:AUTOCONFIRMED editors. Once your user account is 4 days old and you have made 10 edits with it, you should be able to WP:MOVE your draft to mainspace yourself. The AFC process is valuable if you have a WP:COI or are concerned about your article being unceremoniously deleted due to issues that AFC reviewers can help you resolve. ~Kvng (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I posted requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. The suggested updates might interest editors of this WikiProject. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to review my work and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kvng: As you seem active in this topic, would you be able to review this request? Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are not articles I've done any work on previously. I'm much more active on technology topics than articles about technology companies. I have watchlisted these and will have a look when I get a chance. ~Kvng (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate any feedback. I saw that you were active on this Talk page, so I thought it could possibly interest you. VZEric (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Kvng: Letting you know this is resolved. VZEric (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

IP over Avian Carriers concerns joke RFC 1149 about using pigeons to carry packets. Should a photo of a dead pigeon be added (diff) as "An example of packet loss"? Please edit the article or comment at Talk:IP over Avian Carriers#Dead bird photo. A month ago, I semi-protected the article (now expired) and would like to stay uninvolved. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Computer networking articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)