Talk:802.1Q

The standard name is wrong - I assume they meant 802.1Q, not .11Q. Can't anonymously move/rename the page. Thanks.


 * Google seems to agree with you on the .11Q version, but the reverse seems to be true for .11a Is anyone here an expert on these standards?  I'll go and read Wikipedia to see whether we should have redirects for the less-common versions.    D b f  i  r  s   17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... yes, you seem to be correct. Is it OK to leave the 802.11Q entry as a re-direct, or would it be better to have "common misspelling of 802.1Q"?    D b f  i  r  s   17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

NMEA 0183
A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
 * OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11
Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

802.11n
Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]). &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z 
 * Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal.  USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world.  Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n.  They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners.  NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population.  However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid.  I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents.  I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like "...you can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest.  Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here.  There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner.  I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. -  13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
 * I believe that this falls under WT:CFI. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
 * Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)