Talk:ITU-T

CCITT
I know CCITT is now ITU, but shouldn't and article or at least a redirect be availably? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.52.153.198 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean a redirect such as this one, which has existed as a redirect since June 9, 2003? Guy Harris 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off the list of recommendations?
The Category:ITU-T recommendations is practically unreadable because you can't get the ITU-T recommendation number (which is the moniker people remember) into the list. The list of recommendations now fills half the ITU-T page, and it's still only a sampler. Should it be split off? --Alvestrand 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That might not be a bad idea. People interested in ITU-T in general can read this page; people looking for a list of recommendations could go to a "List of ITU-T recommendations" page.


 * A task up for grabs! Right now I think some ITU sections grows more than others, but as mentioned, the ITU-T alone will be long. An alternative is to link to www.itu.int where there is a list updated regurlaly. There are a lot of recommendations on the way... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tobias Ahl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * What do you mean by "you can't get the ITU-T recommendation number ... into the list"? At least some of the items on that page do have recommendation numbers in them. Guy Harris 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For instance the Common management interface protocol is also known as X.700 - the article is fairly well-linked, and better known as CMIP than as X.700, so I think it's not reasonable to move it to "X.700 CMIP" - I can get it alphabetized under X if I want to, but it won't appear as "X.700" in the Category page. --Alvestrand 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alvestrand - surely most ITU-T Recommendations are "significant" to the relevant community and hence this list will keep growing. Anyone wanting to know what the ITU-T is doesn't need the list. Behind The Wall Of Sleep 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of lowercase "recommendations" as opposed to ITU convention "Recommendations" in the category name and in the discussion above is rather jarring. See the ITU-T web site for proper (capitalized) use of the term. —SudoMonas 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Multimedia compression box
Yes, media compression is a prominent subject, but to a reader new to ITU-T doesn't this large box give the impression that it's what ITU is all about? Behind The Wall Of Sleep 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming trivia
What does the -T in ITU-T stand for? Is this Telecommunications (i.e. their scope, even if tautological) or is it some translation of Standardization (i.e. their function) that I can't spot? Andy Dingley 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's short for Telecommunication Standardization Sector. ITU is divided into three sectors: ITU-T, ITU-R (Radiocommunication Sector) and ITU-D (Telecommunication Development Sector). BertK 08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User BertK missed the point in Dingley's question/observation. What does the initialism ITU-T stand for? In most places, the letters correspond to some portion the underlying name (see CCITT in the articles' second paragraph). ITU-T apparently is a redundant initialism....International Telecommunication Union-Telecommunications.....?

Concurent to the original observation, the article starts with "Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)", which is some manner implies ITU-T stands for Telecommunication Standardization Sector....which in English would be something like TSS, not ITU-T. Bcwilmot (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of full lists of recommendations into article
I have reverted two edits that dump a whole block of recommendation titles, with no Wikipedia linking, into the article.

I don't think this improves the article (the recommendation list is already disproportionately long), or its usefulness. The recommendations listed are almost all about stuff that Wikipedia already has articles about (or components, such as the various X.500 pieces).

If lists of all ITU-T recommendation titles are desirable, I think they should be separate from the main article. --Alvestrand 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If lists of all ITU-T recommendation titles are desirable, one of them can be found at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/publications/recs.html. Guy Harris 18:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  I think that the article is poor at the moment because of all these lists.   IMHO it's not the best way to present the subject in an encyclopaedic way.   I'd suggest perhaps maintaining only a list of Recommendation categories (although perhaps even that could go!) and simply add the link to the Recs.  By way of example, the corresponding article on ITU-R does not include a list of ITU-R Recs. MarkPos 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think having a path of only a few steps from the Wikipedia article on the ITU-T to the Wikipedia articles on the technologies it standardizes is a Good Thing, and the ITU official lists don't link to Wikipedia. But I wouldn't worry much if there was one more link to traverse. --Alvestrand 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point.  In this case I agree with your original suggestion to put the lists of Recs in a separate page, linked off of the main ITU-T article, so that it makes the base article much more accessible and readable. MarkPos 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a new article
Please find below a proposal for a new article on ITU-T. The new article takes into account comments in the discussion on level of detail. It is also designed to take more account of the needs of the casual visitor rather than someone familiar with the standards world and ITU-T in particular. Details can still be sourced via other links.

Feel free to contact us regarding any of the changes made. If there are no comments within the next 24h we will publish the article. ITU-T 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As it is, it is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, because it does not cite its sources. If it is supported with reliable sources so that the information is verifiable, I think it would look good, if checked against the Manual of Style - for instance, using "ref" tags instead of the in-article links. (The current article is equally bad when it comes to citing sources, so the proposal is not worse....). But - given your username - check the Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict of Interest. --Alvestrand 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Clearly we want to make sure that our edit is inline with Wikipedia practice so your advice is very welcome. We have redrafted and posted citing sources etc. It has to be noted that the original entry contained few citations and or sources. We would also rather be transparent about where the edit is coming from. The point of the exercise is to address some of the issues raised in the discussion as well as to make the entry more user friendly and up to date.  As a non-profit making organization we don't have any commercial interest in editing this entry and do not believe - having carefully read the link that you kindly provided - that there is a conflict of interest. Rather we believe that the edit proposed is a substantial improvement over the original.  We are happy to discuss further. ITU-T 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking I think that this new text is a significant improvement on the existing version and I support it.  However, in spite of the comments made by ITU-T regarding the lack of any commercial interest in editing this article, I do think that we should be careful about transparency here.   I am assuming that ITU-T is an account held by a staff member or members of TSB and that the revised text proposed here can be regarded as an "official" view on how ITU-T should be presented.   My understanding (as a relatively new Wikipedia editor) is that WP:COI and WP:POV in principle mean that one should not make significant contributions to articles where one is directly involved with the subject matter, irrespective of whether or not there is a commercial interest or not.   However, in this case, I would suggest that the proposed text is of sufficient quality, and lacking in any controversy, that the COI and POV considerations could perhaps be disregarded.   That said, for purposes of transparency, I would recommend:


 * 1) that ITU-T should make it clear via your User Page that the account is owned by ITU-T itself and that the account was established to clarify and improve the ITU-T article;


 * 2) that once the revised article is posted, as is done in other similar situations, the top of this talk page be tagged with the tag as follows:


 * to indicate clearly that ITU-T has contributed to the article about itself; and,


 * 3) that once the new article is posted, ITU-T allows other Wikipedia editors to work on and improve the article and refrains from taking an active role in maintaining the article, instead using this talk page to raise comments and suggestions.


 * I hope these thoughts are helpful. MarkPos 08:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your thoughts. We really appreciate your advice which we will take into account. ITU-T 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose key achievements?
I was wondering if anyone could clarify what the ITU's (or ITU-T's) role in the major achievements is, or why those things are considered the ITU's achievements--190.74.125.219 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. The paragraph “Key achievements of ITU” has been changed to “Key standards published by ITU” in purpose to clarify that items in the list are standards published by ITU. The development of these have in a some cases been done in collaboration with other standard bodies, i.e. ISO and IEC. Existing articles (hyperlinks from the list) give in general information on this. ITU-T 11:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Recommendations not up-to-date
Wikipedia (as well as most other websites in the internet) lists 26 classes of Recommendations but the official website http://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/index.aspx has only 23 (B, C, W seem to dropped). I don't know what happended to them... 84.119.30.162 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of recommendations
There was discussion above of removing these, with a consensus I think that it be done, but it never was. I have removed these (I agree BTW they add nothing to the article, and can be discovered at ITU's sites). Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Book, Red Book, Blue Book, etc.
It would be useful with a listing and timeline of editions of the CCITT and ITU-T recommendations. I remember that the Yellow Book was the current one in the early 80's, and I think the Red Book was published in 1984. The article on X.400 mentions the Red Book without mentioning CCITT or ITU-T. I'm not sure if the cover color is used as the publication nickname any longer, but it certainly is for some editions. --HelgeStenstrom (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of recommendations
Why does recommendations need to be capitalised? Wouldn't the context it is in be enough? Why does this article need to read as legalese? --Mortense (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta: Why is section "ITU-T" here?
Why is subsection "ITU-T" here at all? It looks like someone has used this talk page as a sandbox. --Mortense (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Five years later: removed. --- Possibly (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITU-T. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517063250/http://www.stanford.edu/group/eng/blog/2007/09/itut_standards_now_freely_avai.html to http://www.stanford.edu/group/eng/blog/2007/09/itut_standards_now_freely_avai.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What the heck is the image of a peeing person doing at the top of this page?
There's a large image [] shown at the top of this page. What is it doing there? I wasn't able to find out how it got there or how to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsanamini (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)