Talk:Federal Standard 1037C
From cleanup :
Federal Standard 1037C. Too many links to pages that shouldn't be created.
Hmmm... can you be more specific? What, and why do you think this? Andrewa 19:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A lot of articles have only the definitions from this standard, in a form of stub. I have occasionally altered the articles so that the information from the standard is no longer in its original form, and more like a regular article. I hope this is ok. If you want the information in its original form, it should probably just be on this page. - Omegatron 17:09, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
A quick spot check leaves me unsure of the meaning of "Orphans" in this context. Maybe at one time these were orphans in the Wikipedia sense, but that doesn't seem to be true anymore. Does it mean terms that were uncategorized in the Standard? - dcljr 23:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Glossaries or lists?
Please see my comment on Category talk:Lists of terms about many pages called "Glossary of..." that are really just bare lists of terms copied from this page (for example, Glossary of fiber optic terms). - dcljr 23:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lots of really sparse pages
The "what links here" pages might be used by a physicist as a "wikipedia TODO list", lots of things like Data signaling rate and a million others that aren't easy to read. Ojw 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Material moved to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms
The list of redlinks indicating possible articles to be made (and bluelinks for articles that have been made) has been moved to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up for discussion of the disposition of the terms listed therein. BD2412 T 00:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the "dubious" tag on the statement that ANSI standard T1.523-2001 is copyrighted. Unlike Federal Standard 1037C, ANSI T1.523-2001 is not a work of the federal government, and I can't find any evidence that it has been incorporated into statutory law. --Carnildo (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Good. (The tag referred to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law. Who authored the work is irrelevant, if it's been incorporated into statutory law as you know, but others may not.) Your removal of the fact tag was unjustified, however, and IIRC there's a policy against that. --Elvey (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)