Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications. 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

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I am pondering about the range of topics this wikiproject intends to address. Thinking about telecommunication, I am thinking about a science field which is about enabling and studying this very kind of communication. However, this wikiproject seems to refer to the term in a very broad sense, encompassing products, their use, the culture, and even content of media used for telecommunication, as can be seen by good/featured articles such as All-Star Final Vote and 300-page iPhone bill. While the latter article can be argued being part of telecommunication since it refers to a telecommunication technology product, I can hardly see how the former article can be associated with telecommunications as a subject, as it only makes use of this kind of communication medium. Otherwise and consequently, any TV show would have to be referred to this wikiproject as well. I argue that the Telecom wikiproject tag be removed from All-Star Final Vote.

Comments? Nageh (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is also a good definition on Portal:Telecommunication: Telecommunications refers to the field of study that analyzes wave based communication technology through media such as air, cables etc. Nageh (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (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) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Telecommunications to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposed merge of twelve pages describing various Nokia XpressMusic mobile phone models to the page XpressMusic. Discussion is at Talk:XpressMusic. The pages proposed for merge are: Nokia 5800 XpressMusic, Nokia 5700 XpressMusic, Nokia 5610 XpressMusic, Nokia 5530, Nokia 5500 Sport, Nokia 5320 XpressMusic, Nokia 5310, Nokia 5300, Nokia 5200, Nokia 5220, Nokia 5130, Nokia 5730 XpressMusic. Cnilep (talk) 16:28, 16 February 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 Telecommunications/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

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

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/Archive 5/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 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the communications section of my list of missing techology topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you derive that list? If it is red-links in existing articles, how can I find the affected articles? And where for example is the article containing communications parameters as a red-link? Nageh (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have used various offline sources, including engineering dictionaries. If you think that some topics does not merit an article, comment on the list page - Skysmith (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Space-Division Multiplexing" (SDM) redirects to "Multi-User MIMO" (for simplicity, MUMIMO), which does not directly address SDM. SDM is not described, nor even referred to by name on the MUMIMO page. "Space-division multiple access" (SDMA) appears to be close, but more complicated than simple SDM. On a related note, the paragraph on SDMA doesn't even clearly explain what SDMA is, but rather goes straight to describing how it works and giving an example of the problem it was intended to solve, while neglecting to state the problem the example is intended to illustrate. Could somebody please create a page for SDM? At very least, links to SDM should redirect to the SDM section on the Multiplexing page, as it is a direct explanation of SDM and is in a logical place, albeit a rather short explanation. That section, in turn, could then reasonably link to MUMIMO or SDMA. --Random314159 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've cleaned up the links in this area. The content still needs help. We can't create a SDMA article until we have content. --Kvng (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Distributed element filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. SpinningSpark 09:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the 3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution needs attention, it's quite messy and specially technically not correct in several matters. Also i think it would make sense to summarize the "E-UTRAN Air Interface" section of that article and link from it to the EUTRA article where the details are already explained Crati (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) => The linking and summarizing is done. The fixing of the LTE article is pending. Crati (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd be happy if some people could voice their opinions on Talk:HTC Desire#Infobox image. Regards SoWhy 06:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, dear colleagues. Template:Television transmitters in the UK initially drew my attention due to the large font size of its header, but then I also noticed its unconventional format and, more importantly, the fact that most of its links may never turn blue. If the editors here agree that most relays fail Wikipedia's notability criteria, we could convert the template into a standard navbox, listing just the main transmitters—perhaps grouped by region—and possibly create a list for the relays. Any opinions? Waltham, The Duke of 10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not useful. I suggest turning this into a list with references. See comment on the template's talk page. Nageh (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite participants in this WikiProject to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OECC.—Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. SpinningSpark 00:33, 18 September 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 Telecommunications 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 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert–Elliot model is an orphan. The list of mathematics articles links there, and a hatnote from Gilbert Model, an unrelated topic, links there. No actual relevant links from articles link to that article. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is currently an Article-for-Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital transform. Maybe somebody would like to comment. Nageh (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A historical atlas will typically show the territory of Burgundy or Lithuania, say, in multiple colors representing acquisitions and losses over time. How about doing the same for area codes? Surely it would be useful to some readers to know that area code 213 (for example) covered a much wider area before 1984. I'm not suggesting that such a map should replace the current map, only supplement it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the pagename Android is under discussion, see Talk:Android_(operating_system)#Requested_move. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be most grateful for the input of editors on the Talk page of the above article, where I have made a posting about my views on the methodologies used to calculate subscriber numbers in the article (Talk:List of mobile network operators#Misleading and incorrect subscriber numbers). Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a split proposal currently being discussed. The reasoning is to reinstate a lost NTL article. --Trevj (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Kilo-Lima. --Trevj (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FFD for May 20, a large number of mobile phone pictures are up for deletion. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Harryzilber acts in inappropriate way, inserting his navbox into hundreds of articles. This has nothing to do with ease of navigation and likes merely as internal spamming. Among affected articles there are, at one side, several deeply specialized articles many of which already have a navbox such as {{IPstack}}, and at another side, general articles such as "Philippines", unrelated (as a whole article) to the topic. I propose to restrict transclusion of his navbox only to articles, directly linked from it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

First, the use of a possessive pronoun to infer ownership of the navbox to me was a mistake. As per WP's policy, no one owns or controls any single general webpage or template in our works.

The inclusion of a {telecommunications} navbox into the general article on the Philippines was inadvertent, based on that general article's inclusion in another navbox: {Asia topic|Telecommunications in}. The great majority of the article links in that template linked to dedicated telecommunications articles (e.g.: Telecommunications in Samoa) largely based on data from the CIA World Factbook. A conscientious effort was made to avoid adding the navbox to such general country articles, and the Philippines case was obviously a slip.

User Incnis Mrsi appears to have misconstrued the use of this template as spamming, when its correct intention is to assist all readers in expanding their knowledge of telecommunications by quickly displaying the topic's wide scope and depth with the single click of the navbox's [show] button. Spamming is by definition related to the self-promotion of one's interests, while navboxes are meant to promote the dissemination of knowledge; adding a generalized navbox at the very bottom of telecommunication articles does so in a mainly inconspicuous manner. Limiting a navbox to a small set of articles as Incnis Mrsi has proposed may allow some to better control the appearance of those articles, but does a disservice to the general readership of Wikipedia.

As per the guidance webpage Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "For complex topics in science, technology, history, etc., a navigation box can provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic. For example, {Wind power} links to subsidiary and supporting topics that provide background and context necessary for understanding the main Wind power article. While the main Wind power article already contains inline links to the subsidiary articles, the subsidiary articles themselves are smaller and their prose may not place them into the overall context with each other. Editors who work on the subsidiary articles in isolation may be unaware of this context. The navigation template provides an easy way for the subsidiary articles, even when they begin as stubs, to instantly inherit the conceptual structure of the main article." Note that although the guidance discusses main and subsidiary articles, it does not restrict navboxes only to only those links contained within a navbox.

B.T.W., when I updated the navbox's template a few days ago, {state|autocollapse} was selected to ensure initial closure of the navbox in the presence of any other navbox in an article webpage. The template can be made even more inconspicuous if its changed to a 'closed' state, where it will remain initially closed on all articles until the [show] button is selected. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Harryzilber, your edits may have been in good faith, but the intent of navboxes truly is to aid a reader in related content to the current article. So, if an article is about a general concept in the vast field of telecommunications then it may be helpful to include the {{telecommunications}} navbox as a service to the reader, such that s/he may find other articles that are equally important as introductory/main articles in the field. It is not helpful to add such a navbox to specialized articles, where the reader is likely to read up on other specialized articles summarized under See also sections. If you would like to have further input on this you may set up an RFC or discuss this at the village pump or at the discussion page associated with the Wikipedia:Templates pages. HTH, Nageh (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of how navboxes should be utilized, however unsupported in Wikipedia's noted guidance page. Please take a step back and look at the overview of an article containing the navbox positioned in its footer, which is contained within a slim blue rectangle featuring a [show] button, and which expands to refer to a wide scope of generalized articles within the same main topic as the article. Is that feature a plus or a minus? It can be easily ignored or explored at the click of a single button as the reader desires and should not detract from the article in the least, IMHO. Readers, lay or expert, are exposed to the wider extents of telecommunications with a single click without being restricted from the other specialized navboxes adjacent to this one, since it does not replace any of them. The 'See also' items are similarly unaffected. Our overall webpage design is slightly evolved to improve the user experience, again IMHO, which conforms to WP's intentions. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the WP essay: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. Adding a general telecommunications navbox to a specialized article on the Internet Protocol Suite, which is arguably more related to computer science than to telecommunications as a scientific field, is not an improvement, unobstrusive or not. To quote the essay again: Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? A reader is unlikely to jump from Internet Protocol Suite to a general article on telecommunications. I encourage revert of the navboxes. But as I said before, please discuss this at other pages, as this is not something specific to this Wikiproject. Try WP:Village pump (policy) or one of the WP:Noticeboards. Nageh (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the opprobrium editors receive for thinking outside the navbox ;-) -no worries since WP is occasionally a bit of a contact sport. More to the point, disconnects come up from time to time in the interpretation of phrases such as "...related articles". Is Internet Protocol Suite related to Telecommunications in France or Heliography? Of course they are since all three subjects serve to extend human communications beyond what a single person could physically do by his or her own means –they're all related by the topic of telecommunications. That the three subjects are not closely related is also obvious and also not prescribed on the Navigation templates webpage. Know also that the template is a work in progress being revised to include more technical subtopics, and that in common law, quicquid enim non est prohibitum licitum est, or whatever is not proscribed is thus permitted. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, check again that you really understand the purpose of navboxes and their difference from categories. Heavy navboxes are not useful and even harmful as they increase the size of articles, especially short ones. Only a set of carefully selected links may constitute a good navbox. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

HarryZilber, if you argue that any navbox even loosely related to the topic may be added to an article you may just as well add basically any technology-, physics-, electronics-, communications-, engineering-, mathematics-, etc. related navbox to the Internet Protocol Suite article, because they are all somehow related. Please try to understand and do not defend your behavior with phrases like "what is not forbidden is allowed": this is about whether it is helpful or not. Nageh (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We're all working here in good faith striving to create the 'best' articles within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What constitutes 'best' will frequently vary from editor to editor, even for simple matters such as which articles to list within a 'See also' section. By listening carefully we can usually accommodate different views within our own edits, such as navboxes not overwhelming an article's length, or being far off-topic.

I've edited the Telecommunications template's title to more accurately reflect its contents; it is now titled: 'Telecommunications -general', and also changed its display state parameter from autocollapsed (which will initially display the fully opened in certain circumstances) to fully collapsed, which will always display the template in a closed condition unless a reader chooses to click on its [show] button. I believe that the template's more precise title will assist readers in not wasting time seeing a display of general articles when they may prefer to jump to closely related articles shown in a specialized navbox adjacent to Telecommunications. At the same time the template's autocollapsed state will minimize the article's overall length, since it will always be displayed in a single-lined slim blue navbox, and will only open if the reader consciously chooses to click on its [show] button. Busy articles containing multiple footer navboxes can also be updated to condense them into a single grouping navbox (titled: Links to other articles), so that 5 or 6 navboxes are initially represented only by a single one.

Despite the lowered visibility of the revised 'Telecommunications -general' navbox, it still represents, IMHO, a benefit to the readers of most telecommunication articles, in the same way that a bibliography or an index at the back of a physical book helps readers further their knowledge. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The crux of the question seems to be whether these navboxes help the reader. I don't know how to answer that but it looks like we have three editors (including myself) who question whether they do. We have a template created and inserted substantially by one editor. It doesn't appear there was any request for such a template - that's fine, there doesn't need to be. The navbox is now rolled up to be so unobtrusive that readers are unlikely to notice it. We already have categories, wikilinks within the article and wikilinks in the See also section to help tie things together. Overall, this doesn't paint a picture of a reader need being filled by having this template or at least having it so widely used.

I propose criterion for inclusion would be in any article where it can exist in autocollapsed mode and not be considered a distraction. --Kvng (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This would only be useful at the broader level of topic pages. At the more detailed level, there should be other navigation templates instead. And it should not appear on pages only peripherally connected to telecommunications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was motivated to improve telecommunication articles after seeing general templates used in a number of other (non-telecommunication) articles. Don't make this out to be a precedent; for example, on the bottom of a specialized page on the Vickers-Armstrong Victory Bomber you'll find a specialized navbox for Vickers aircraft, with a general aviation navbox directly under it. The use of generalized navboxes withing a topic was previously discussed several months ago and no consensus was reached on limiting them; general editor discretion was recommended. Reference works occasionally contain an additional reading section at their very rear for the benefit of their readers, and I find it hard to imagine why it wouldn't be helpful to a certain percentage of readers in a telecommunications article. It's there at the bottom, collapsed but quite noticeable, and of immediate benefit to those wishing to use it since it's far easier and quicker than sorting thru multiple Category pages. My personal assessment is that they help others who need them and hinder no one. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it bluntly. Internet Protocol Suite is not primarily a telecommunications subject but one in computer science and computer networking. There are many navboxes that are and could be more suitable than a telecom navbox for this article, and the latter is truly misleading! The same goes for Timeline of web browsers, Transmission Control Protocol, Communications protocol, Telenet, Telnet, Mosaic (web browser), and the list goes on and on. I will now start reverting the telecom navbox from these articles that are clearly in the domain of computer networking, as consensus here is that these are not helpful in these cases. Nageh (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the navbox from a few more articles, only, mainly on network protocols – for the moment. This discussion really should take place at WP:Village pump (policy). Nageh (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nageh: your bluntness has been noted. However DO NOT falsely state that consensus was reached in this discussion prior to your unilateral action. Will you also start reverting general navboxes in other non-telecommunication articles as noted above? If so you'll be creating your own policy contrary to the previous discussions on the very subject. As you've stated, your discussions here were incorrectly located in the wrong venue, so any 'consensus' you believe you've created involved none of the players who regularly deal with navboxes. HarryZilber (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't go ahead with the other articles where the issue is not that clear cut, especially not without prior discussion under a broader audience. Regarding consensus, please note that you preferred to discuss the issue here on this WikiProject rather than at the policy village pump, as I have repeatedly asked you to. If you are truly bothered by the outcome I invite you again to raise the issue there. Cheers, Nageh (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat related to above discussion, I am wondering whether the World Wide Web can really be classified as a telecommunications network, as indicated by the {{telecommunications}} navbox. I mean, it is not a system that enables communication between two end-points but only a semantic presentation of data offered in a network. Or, as our article puts it, it is a service over computer networks. Am I missing something? That having said, we are really missing a {{computer networks}} template, and the collection of networks/network technology in the telecom navbox is quite arbitrary. Nageh (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe their should be a task force for the myTouch family. (Ex.Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications/myTouch work force). Can someone tell me if this is possible?Mike 289 01:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject Cellular devices, where the MyTouch family would fit well. I am not sure how active that WikiProject is, though. In my opinion Cellular devices should be included as a task force within the WikiProject Telecommunications. Isheden (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That Wikiproject is inactive. Can someone PLEASE answer me to the above? Mike 289 16:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I found http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~qiangxu/paper/sigcomm11_wang.pdf

It discusses practices at some US cell phone firms WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have prepared a draft for a new article on Huawei's SingleRAN radio access network technology, and have now made this draft available in a subpage of my userspace for other editors to view and provide feedback. Since the article's subject is a telecommunications technology, I hope that an editor from this Wikiproject would be interested in reviewing the draft. The reason I ask is that I do have a potential conflict of interest with Huawei as a topic, because I have written this proposed article at their request. Due to this, although I am certain the topic is notable and the article is written to follow Wikipedia guidelines closely, I am hesitant to move the article from my userspace myself.

My aim has been to write this new article from a neutral point of view, using reliable secondary sources including The Economist and TelecomAsia.net. I believe that Huawei SingleRAN meets Wikipedia's notability standards, based on coverage received and because the technology has won industry awards including two InfoVision awards at the Broadband World Forum. You can see the draft article here: SingleRAN draft.

I am open to any suggestions that you may have for improvements to the article. It would also be most appreciated if you could move the article out of my userspace if you think that it is ready. I have added this page to my watchlist and can respond here to any questions or feedback that you might have. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article looks balanced and well cited. It is most crucial for new article to establish the notibility and I think you've done that well. I encourage you to WP:MOVE it to main space. I know you've requested someone else move it and I will if you are unable or entirely unwilling. On WP we like to encourage editors to take initiative. I suggest a more appropriate title may be simply SingleRAN. --Kvng (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Kvng, it is most appreciated. I have now moved the article from my userspace to Huawei SingleRAN. Although I understand your suggestion to shorten the title to SingleRAN, I feel that it is important to keep Huawei in the title to provide clarity and avoid confusion with other companies' single RAN technology. I hope that you do not mind, but I have added the Wikiproject Telecommunications template to the article's Talk page, in the hopes that this will help in maintaining the article as a useful source on SingleRAN. Thank you again. --Bouteloua (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone should write an article on Single RAN or add a subsection to the Software-defined radio#Current usage section. Oh, and I support the move to the main space, the article's tone is neutral and there is certainly sufficient notability of the product. Nageh (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, as I have previously received helpful responses at this Wikiproject, I would like to again ask for editors here to review a draft of a new telecommunications technology article that I have written. The subject of the article is Huawei's Distributed Node B, a base station technology. As I mentioned in my note above, the reason that I am asking for editors to review the draft is that I have a potential conflict of interest with Huawei as a topic since I have written this article at the company's request. Due to this, while my aim has been to write the article from a neutral point of view using reliable secondary sources, I would appreciate any suggestions for improvement.

Although this subject has not received the same amount of coverage in secondary sources as SingleRAN, I have used Huawei sources only where necessary to ensure technical details are correct or to provide information about the company's aims in the development of the technology. These sources make up less than half of the article's references. In addition, those secondary sources that I have used include industry sources that may not be widely known, but this is perhaps to be expected due to the technical nature of the subject. I believe that Distributed Node B is notable, from the coverage it has received in the secondary sources and the fact that it is in use by major mobile network operators.

The draft is available here in my userspace: Distributed Node B. It would be most appreciated if other editors could review the draft and provide feedback, or, if you think that it is ready, move the article live. If you have any questions or comments, please respond here and I will reply as soon as I can. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is much more problematic than the other one. For one, the subject has not received nearly as much as attention as the other product, as you indicated yourself, and thus is clearly not as notable. More importantly, while the article is careful in attributing claims to the producer, it is largely based on primary sources, which is not only against policy, but also introduces an undue weight on the producer's position, giving large portions of the article an advertising touch. I do not support moving this article into user space; however, I advise you to add a section on "Distributed Node B" to our Node B article, and create Distributed Node B as a redirect to that section. Please avoid the promotional speech of the current draft. Make it clear why the concept of a distributed Node B architecture is important (present secondary and independent sources for this!), and specifically, why Huawei's product is notable to be mentioned. Roughly, based on the current sources, your article should be shrunk to about a third of the current size. Nageh (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I also believe a new section in Node B is a more appropriate home for this material. There also needs to be more discussion about the technology and less about development and customers. --Kvng (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Nageh and Kvng. Based on your comments I have prepared a reduced version of the article, to be added to the Node B article at your suggestion. This draft is a single paragraph, including only the details that were sourced to reliable secondary sources and I have included details of where the technology has been deployed in order to demonstrate its notability. You can see this draft in my userspace, here: User:Bouteloua/Distributed Node B section

I would appreciate it if you could review the draft and make the edit to the Node B article, if you feel it is acceptable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can solve this by discussion... what is the distinguishing feature of a Distributed Node B compared to an ordinary Node B? What is the "distributed" aspect of it? If it is just a marketing name then this doesn't make the product notable. Also, that a product is sold to large telecommunications operators worldwide is not a distinguishing feature in itself. Furthermore, I am not totally convinced that the news sources you provide, which, e.g., claim that the solution can reduce OPEX, can be classified as independent – after all, they are probably just editing a company's press release. Nageh (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I have recently decided to take on the mass media article (which is a VA - vital article) as a pet project. The article is currently a stub class. At the moment I am trying to work through it, albeit at a snails pace, and as a less-than-experienced editor, I am finding it to be quite a challenge. My aim is to rally together a few editors from various Wikiprojects to bring their unique skills and knowledge to help this important article grow and flourish. I was wondering if anyone from your project could give me a hand. --Coin945 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

All years of the journal Ericsson Review (1924-2003) have been digitized (probably in 2003) and are available (since 2010) as PDF with image+text on the http://ericssonhistory.com/ website (under: Sources). However, the documents were hidden from Google until I set up an index page at http://runeberg.org/ereview/ There are already many Wikipedia articles that reference this journal as a source, and perhaps they should link to the online version? I think it can be useful as a source also outside of telecom articles. For example, it provides articles on countries and cities where Ericsson installed equipment. Look around and have fun. For information about the journal itself, see the 50th anniversary in No. 1, 1974. --LA2 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)