Talk:Wi-Fi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wi-Fi:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Add a section called "Operation" or some such, describing how Wi-Fi works, possibly to the 802.11 page instead Jeh (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Refactor content between this and the 802.11 page. Arguably, 802.11 is the underlying mechanism while Wi Fi is just a licensed trademark. Jeh (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Safety[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Surely the third and fourth paragraphs should be removed? The first two cite decent sources indicating that there is no real danger. Then after that, the third and fourth paragraphs talk about specific examples of organizations that believed it was dangerous. It doesn't seem to flow sensibly, and there are no links. I mean, what even is the "Progressive Librarians Guild"? Copying it into the search bar, I see that it's a recently-founded American association for libraries not following the status quo. Great sources on Wi-Fi safety, then. Vanhedrarn (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed them. Bhny (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What is it?[edit]

While specifications define communications protocols such as the IEEE 802.11-family, Wi-Fi is, AFAIK, something like a brand name (like Centrino). Sure as hell, Wi-Fi is NOT a technology, though some morons keep writing that. Though the adherence to the specifications should result in hard- and software that simply works together, somehow, Wi-Fi is supposed to additionally guarantee that hardware of different manufacturers works together (actually, that is what the protocol is design for...). I think this is also supposed to be tested. So Wi-Fi would be a brand-name/certification. But it ain't! Anybody who tested (or read about tests, e.g. http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/) knows that hardware of different manufactures, on a regular basis, do not work as well together as should be expected. Sometimes even of the same manufacturer... in other words: Wi-Fi yet another creation of the various over-funded marketing departments. User:ScotXWt@lk 23:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

here you go: Wi-Fi Alliance. Anything technical belongs into IEEE 802.11. User:ScotXWt@lk 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wi-Fi is a WP:COMMONNAME for a technology. Bhny (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the name unsupported[edit]

The link cited to support the assertion of the date for the name being first used commercially goes to a document that is completely irrelevant. In fact, the owners of the registered trademark asserted the "first use in commerce" by its certified members as August 1999. It's not clear why they waited until 2001 to file the official "allegation of actual use" for the trademark registration. I will attempt to amend the cite to reference the TSDR record of the USPTO for that registration. If anyone can document an earlier usage, i.e., prior to the initial release of 802.11b, please feel free to chime in. Lupinelawyer (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Orthoghraphy of name[edit]

According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, the trademarked name is rendered as "Wi-Fi", no more, no less, with capitalization exactly as shown. The article should not state "... also spelled Wifi or WiFi, ...", or any other variations. Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a reference by various news outlets and it should not be in the business of disseminating misinformation. — QuicksilverT @ 19:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "misinformation" to state that "Wi-Fi" is commonly spelled as "WiFi" or "Wifi"; that is easily verified. Yes, it would be misinformation to claim that either of those is an approved name per the Wi-Fi alliance, but the article never did that. My recent edit to the "The name" section makes it more clear that the alternate renderings are not official. Wikipedia does not ignore facts of common usage, even in prominent places such as article titles: See WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I added back WiFi as per WP:COMMONNAME. I wasn't sure about re-adding Wifi as I think just capitalizing the "W" is unusual. I've see all lower-case "wifi". Bhny (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the History section[edit]

The History section of the article has no particular structure; it's just a grab bag of facts of varying relevance. Frequency-hopping spread spectrum technology was not a "basis" of OFDM, which does not do any form of frequency hopping. The connection to ALOHAnet is legitimate but of minor importance, and WaveLAN is only relevant insofar as it inspired the 802.11 effort; the technology it used is unrelated. As the referenced Ars Technica article[2] explains, the O'Sullivan patent was not considered during the development of Wi-Fi; it was only later successfully asserted as having anticipated that work, which logically means that O'Sullivan's work is not part of the history of Wi-Fi.

This section needs to be thoroughly rewritten, at least. I agree with some of the comments in other sections of this talk page that suggest recasting this article as a description of the Wi-Fi brand and its commercial significance. That would make all the technical material unnecessary. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kobo manual
  2. ^ How the Aussie government “invented WiFi” and sued its way to $430 million | Ars Technica