Talk:Fractal antenna

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fractal antenna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 12 months

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Recent edits cited to one author

There may be something problematic with this recent series of edits. They all have at least one author in common, Onufriyenko, making this look suspiciously like academic promotion. None of the papers have a high number of citations, and those that they do are largely in a walled garden citing each other. SpinningSpark 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving size

User:Spinningspark want a smaller archive size 17500 bytes. I think that the maximum size 17500 Byte of the archive was very small. Sawol (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue here is not so much that I want a particular archive size, but that here, as well as on a whole bunch of other articles, you are trying to impose your preferred archive settings over the wishes of editors actually working in those areas. If you think standardised archive settings are a good idea, get it agreed globally and written into guidelines. Then you can start to impose it, but not before.

A small archive size is arguably beneficial on slow moving talk pages like this one. The current archive runs from 2008 to 2019, a very wide range. Searching the archives is easier if the most recent archives are fairly recent dates. There is also the change from minkeepthreads=2 to minkeepthreads=4. Again, on a very slow moving page the oldest thread could be a very stale discussion. Better to set the time parameter than keep a high number of threads, although that needs to be set quite high because it is often quite some time on the more obscure engineering articles before someone comes along to pick up problems. SpinningSpark 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages involved in this

@Kvng: who was involved with one of these. SpinningSpark 10:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using 100,000 as a max archive size in auto archiving I have set up recently. Hadn't thought about it much, just a round number. What I have been pushing back on is overly aggressive archiving on slow-moving talk pages. There's no reason to archive if there is only a screenful or two of discussion. I find this generally translates to a 365 day archive period and 4 minimum threads. ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the main issue with these changes was the rate of archiving. That cannot be standardised - it needs to reflect the level of activity on the talk page and whether problems raised are being dealt with promptly. That is best assessed by the editors actually responding to the queries. Like you, I am not so bothered about the size of the archive pages, but I do object to editors who have no intention of doing any substantive work changing parameters set by those that do. SpinningSpark 15:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen any pages that call for less aggressive archiving than 365 days and 4 minimum threads? I haven't set up anything less aggressive than that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up some with a longer period, some of the above in fact. My thinking is that on poorly visited pages, it can take an inordinately long time before someone with the requisite skill and inclination comes along to address a problem. SpinningSpark 17:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]