Talk:6G

Requested move 17 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   22:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

– Per WP:UCRN, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. The names of telecom generations should be consistent, just like 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™  🗿  17:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 01:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 6G (network) → 6G
 * 6G → 6G (disambiguation)
 * Note: pages with content, such as 6G, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "6G → 6G (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 18:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that it's the to 5G (i.e., not around yet), I don't think it's the primary topic of 6G. On the other hand, on the "pageviews argument", it has 20 000 more views per month than any other contender. So I don't know. I'll say weak support for now. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I'm in complete agreement with Edward-Woodrow on this one. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have posted at WikiProject Telecommunications to see if we can get more editors on this, to try and establish a consensus. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™  🗿  14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: It is pretty clear that this page should be renamed, as 6G (or 5G, 4G, etc.) is not a network, but more or less a link technology, a proposed future type at that. kbrose (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 25 September 2023‎ (UTC)
 * Note that this comment suggests that the 6G page should be moved, but does not respond to the underlying question of whether this is the primary topic for the search term "6G". Dekimasu よ! 01:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Relisting comment. This very short talk page has been archived twice during the open move discussion by the editor who opened the request. I have reverted this unnecessary archiving because it rendered it impossible to find the previous, nearly identical move request on this topic involving the same two pages, which is (currently) linked in the first section above and found at Talk:6G. (There was no link to either the previous discussion or the talk archive shown on the talk page here.) Please avoid unnecessary overarchiving of talk pages, particularly when the previous discussions are relevant to what is happening now. Dekimasu よ! 01:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, appears to be the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. As the technology evolves, there will surely be child articles, but that does not justify a parenthetical in the main article name.Mblumber (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Too many buzzwords
The article has too much marketing fluff and needs cleanup. While I'm sure someone got paid a lot of money to figure out a way to associate a future RF technology to "blockchain" and "artificial intelligence" to make some company's share price go up, it doesn't help the reader very much. Alextgordon (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Fully agree.
 * The blockchain reference here seems spurious. The linked paper first and foremost is not an official ITU-T or 3GPP document, but rather an academic paper.  Further the paper is very light on detail in terms of how blockchain can actually contribute to improvement in the areas it says it will, and offers no substantive evidence that the relevant standards bodies see it as a key part of what will be branded '6G.
 * I believe it should be removed unless any official documentation is available to back up the claim. Topatopranks (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel the AI reference should also be removed unless there is a similar standards document describing how it is planned to be used for "local spectrum licensing, spectrum sharing, infrastructure sharing, and intelligent automated management". Topatopranks (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits to that paragraph to try and improve the article now. Topatopranks (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)