Talk:Real-time locating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whoever likes to interfere with editing work on this page is invited to contribute and not to regulate. It is a nuisance, when at the same time the length of the article is commented, the splitting is subject of undoing the very same time.

Concerning the comment "not encyclopedic", I would like to learn what on Earth is the essence of such judgment. Not only text on butterflies and on cooking is encyclopedic, but also on technical matters. The comprehensiveness of the text may be stress for readers, but using one's brain is not against human rights conventions.

Concerning "reality" there is some contradiction to virtuality. However, a "location" is always real, but "locating" may be done in real time. Please note the fine distinguishing in language. Writing text should try to comply with English grammar also in conjugation and substantiation. So far on the other text on "real time location", which definitively wants some improvement, too.

Concerning economics, the metrics with RTLS is always based on wireless communications, as the definition with international standardization stipulates this. Whoever likes to write on "wired" locating may do so, but not on this page. That seems to be the appropriate way to adhere to international standardization. I do not try to understand the comment, as it starts from the wrong definition.

Concerning "indoors", RTLS is for indoors and for outdoors, wherever required. But, as Einstein already stated, travel of light depends on permeability and permittivity and thus material influences speed. So far, proper measurement requires line of sight, not open air. And many writing on measurement through walls is really nonsense, as nobody is capable to calibrate such measurement properly for mobile objects.

For all those who are not familiar with RTLS, please concede, there are things in this world that they must not know or learn to remain happy. Please feel free to correct punctuation, capitals and grammar. Thank you. But keep hands off the contents, unless you know what you do. Concerning the comment on re-editing but not being familiar, please save at least this command. I will be pleased to contribute to improve clarity. Niemeyerstein 2008-03-25 13:20.

Rewrite and possible refactoring of article[edit]

I should preface this comment with the fact that I am not familiar with ISO/IEC 24730. Can I suggest that this page needs to be rewritten, and possibly refactored into multiple pages?

In some sections the writing is IMO unencyclopaedic (if that's a word) or unnatural (perhaps this page was translated from a different language). In addition there are some examples of grammatical mistakes, e.g. capital letters after colons. Some examples of the above are:

'Any current location of any existing object is always real' -- What does this mean?

'In applications markets, there appears a tendency to compare apples and pears: Both [sic] are juicy, but that approach does not lead to common contentment.' -- Surely an example of unencyclopaedic language?

'The key economic advantage with a well designed RTLS is the fact that few or better no central facilities, no general illumination and no fixed cabling installations should be required to enable proper operation.' -- This is just wrong. We need to analyse the metrics of a well-designed RTLS. One such metric could be cost, and in this case wireless is probably cheaper than having fixed cabling. However, another metric might be performance and it is certainly not the case that wireless systems are in general capable of the same performance of fixed cable systems.

'Are there restrictions to common wireless illumination? (e.g. inside reinforced concrete buildings or just under a roof)?' -- Again, I am not familiar with ISO/IEC 24730, but there are examples of RTLS system that are designed to be used indoors.

'Having read till this passage, please feel free to contribute to a knowledge poll on RTLS with this link: Click here to take a survey' -- what is this doing here??

At some point I might be able to clean up bits of the article, but I am posting this comment in the hope that previous contributors to this article will do so.

81.107.44.109 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs major rewrite[edit]

I agree that this article is not encyclopedic and needs a major rewrite. Also, I think that this article should be distinguished from the Real Time Location System article, which also needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.227.19 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What a nonsense: Location or locating[edit]

Of course, style can always be improved, but what shall be the sense of distinguishing "real time locating" and "real time location"?? One is linguistically poor and the other is just the wording with the standard. If there is an administrator competent to merge,please do so.--91.64.55.97 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, grammar is nonsense, but authenticity is regulated with standards. There is no location standard, eh? 91.64.22.253 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Language and ambiguity[edit]

The style and language of the article contains enough ambiguity to seriously confuse a reader. I rewrote the intro paragraph in an effort to clarify what is really being said. I assume that previous contributors can correct the mistakes in interpretation that I may have made. In any case the article does require a rewrite as suggested above. JMK (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Contribution highly appreciated[edit]

As my native language is not English and I have to struggle just enough for the contents, I appreciate the stylish improvement. Thank you, I do not see any misinterpretation of my crude English nor of my intentions to get readers informed. Please continue your help, if deemed necessary.--91.64.55.97 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion maybe easily reduced with reading the referred standards ISO 19762-5 and ISO 24730-1. Rarely other topic is that widely explained. Buy (sorry) and read (inevitable), if you need clarification.Wireless friend (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

I have tagged the article with what I consider the direction the article should take. This is also of aid for readers of the current article. Widefox (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas, you are well known for tagging articles. Please stand off and reduce your contribution to the quality of writing, editing and correcting. Thank you. 91.64.22.253 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC).
Congratulations, nobody else took action since 7 months!! Must have been very impressive tagging.Wireless friend (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hybris[edit]

I have recognized some hybris with some of the commentators of this article at least proving the missing knowledge with famous Encyclopedia Britannica. That famous encyclopedia serves all knowledge in context. Stating such contextual style as personal reflection proves the lack of reflection with the pundit manifesting their puristic intolerance.

Feel free to re-edit the text. It will be a pleasure to read how these critics individuals will improve the contents. It will be also a pleasure to revert the issues to the original intention of contextual references instead of having heads in the clouds. --Wireless friend (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a company directory[edit]

See WP:NOT and WP:EL. I'm removing the list of suppliers. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Reference to company products does not make a lemma a compnay issue. Is international standards body seen as a company?Wireless friend (talk)

Nuke This Article From Orbit[edit]

It's the only way to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.239.164 (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuking criticaster[edit]

Please improve the text. Thank you. Dumbnuts and Wikipedia policeforce are invited to stay apart and keep hands off. All illiterate readers are politely asked to remove the article. If somewhat more eager to support, edit what is doubted. Anyhow, the critics on jargon is rejected. The proposed merger had been made effective. It may be possible, that international standards with ISO create jargon, but nevertheless that makes international terms. Apologies fot the fact that standards documents are not available for free. Whom it concerns, just buy and read.Wireless friend (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help you understand why this reaction is happening to this article. This is way too much technical detail for an encyclopedia article, which should be a high-level overview of the subject. Part of the problem which is resulting in your frustration with your experience with Wikipedia is that you're coming with unrealistic expectations of what you can put on the site. On Wikipedia you have to share control of the article and cooperate with others. Remember that if you want your own control of your message, you have to establish your own web site somewhere else. This web site is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has established rules that require editors to work with each other. You can't tell other editors to "stay [away] and keep hands off" because you don't own it - you contributed the content to the Wikimedia Foundation when you posted it. One thing about Wikipedia culture came from press coverage of blaring errors in earlier years - it's important to understand that Wikipedia's culture has taken strong and possibly extreme corrective actions and now tends to be very picky about reliable sources for all content. Yes, that makes Wikipedia editors appear very picky at times. But now you know why. This is where you're running into trouble and causing some of your own frustration by adding lots of text with just a link to the ISO standards to back it up. For that number of refernces, this article should be no more than a few paragraphs long. I'd like to challenge you in a way that if you accept this challenge, it will improve your enjoyment of your experience at Wikipedia - you need to help find a balance of either reducing the amount of text or increasing the number of references. The text has to be supported by enough verifiable references before others will leave this article alone. Then you'll get a better reaction from other Wikipedia editors too. You must accept interaction with other editors here because those are the rules of the site. We'll also need to make sure this complies with the neutral point of view requirement, restrictions against how-to materials and other policies and guidelines. I hope this helps - it was intended to help, anyway. Ikluft (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)