Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. -- Headbomb {^????_???????? - WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force

WikiProject cleanup listing

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

IOS

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

This is now being discussed at Talk:IOS_(Apple)#Requested_Move -- 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Citation templates now support more identifiers

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

RfC on the use of terminology like "GiB" (gibibyte) on Wikipedia

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Network computer

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

src: upload.wikimedia.org

What is "cyberethics"?

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suggested improvement

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

Other than those two points, you've done a very good job. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.134.245 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WikiProject restructuring

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

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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Adding a report to IPv4 Exhaustion

Please tell me what you think about adding http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/ to the external links on IPv4 address exhaustion There is some talk about it on the articles' Talk Page. 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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

CIDR Calculator

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

It is discussed on Talk:Classless Inter-Domain Routing 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)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Host address and network address

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

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Metro Ethernet

The Metro Ethernet article is in dire need of attention. Anyone available to help clean up and expand it? I've started a section on the talk 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)

Proposed deletion of DAG Technology

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)

"T-carrier"

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

Portal:Computer networking

Portal:Computer networking has been nominated for deletion. But it seems to be leaning towards merger with Portal:Computer science (this is a different portal from Portal:Computing) -- 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)

datalink security AfC

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

Packets

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

Example Image 2009 UTM.PNG

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)

Technological convergence

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

192.168.1.1

-- 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)

Work on research networks

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)

Octets vs. bytes

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)

Layer muddle RFC

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)

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Event Enrichment

Dear networking experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that's worth improving? --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)

Ethernet naming

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

Reward

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)

Juniper Networks

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)

Request Edit

@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)

CobraNet RfC

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)

Wireless bridge

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

Assistance requested at RfD

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)

8P8C vs. RJ45

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)

Wire protocol

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)

List of TCP and UDP port numbers

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)

Statistics

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)

Layer names caps

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)

Ethernet over twisted pair template proposal

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)

Fate of Network topology

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)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:IP camera#Requested move 25 November 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia