Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/Archive 1

mathmatecial section?
Is this paper really realavent? Sabalon 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RTP...RTCP?
"It goes along with the RTCP and it's built on top of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP). Applications using RTP are less sensitive to packet loss, but typically very sensitive to delays, so UDP is a better choice than TCP for such applications."

Should it read "Applications using RTCP are less sensitive to packet loss"? This seems more typical to TCP. RTP over UDP seems to be less sensitive to delays. --Eric (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I am happy to pass this article as a good article. It offers concise coverage of the topic in a way that is likely to be helpful to the technical reader not familiar with RTP. It also meets all six requirements of the good article criteria. Yhe article provides an excellent overview of what RTP is but its coverage of where and how the protocol is used could be improved. Cedars (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned GA reassessment (July 2009)
See: Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Delisted per obvious consensus. (The stub on Real Data Transport is better written than this, in terms of clarity.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge from RTP audio video profile
There's bee a merge banner on RTP audio video profile for a couple years. There has not been any discussion. ~KvnG 14:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll kick it off then. I've jumped here with no knowledge of either RTP of of RTP audio/video. Looking at the suggested merge article, I would suggest that it not be merged. This is a protocol, and as such is of interest to someone researching it with a view to support. The other article goes into great detail about the media streams. Completely different topic, IMO. It seems entirely appropriate to have an article about RTP, which may have uses other than supporting media streams, at which point, the articles would presumably have to be de-merged. Merging the articles would seem to me to defeat the purpose of hyperlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.248.226 (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any support for this merge. I have taken down the banners. ~KvnG 14:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

capitals?
shouldn't this page be at real-time transport protocol? --MarSch 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably not, since the capitalisation of the page matches RTP, the common initialism (a.k.a. acronym). --AlastairIrvine 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * MOS:CAPS doesn't call for caps just because an acronym is associated with the phrase. Reat-time Transport Protocol is capitalized because it is deemed to be a proper noun. ~KvnG 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing GA nomination
I'm closing the GA nomination. The article is an incomplete and poorly organized collection of factoids that's of limited use the expert, let alone the layman. It would need a substantial rewrite to even pass for a mediocre article, let alone a good one.

Clogging up the already backlogged queue of GA nominations is unfair to the articles that actually stand a chance of passing the review. —Ruud 22:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not your decision to make, it is the reviewers. I think it stands a chance because it makes sense in my opinion, it is a b class article already, and was good article two years ago. I agree that there is a backlog but I believe that this article stands a chance and you are not allowed to undo my nomination. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tortle, your judgment in the GA space was shown to be faulty a week and a half ago, when you reviewed five articles and nominated seventeen in a matter of hours, all of which had to be reverted. I thought you would take plenty of time to become more acquainted with GA criteria and standards. Instead, you're now persisting in nominating an article that was delisted due to major deficiencies and has had little in the way of significant improvements since it was delisted. (Ruud notes that it is still incomplete, failing the "Broad in its coverage" criterion, and needs a substantial rewrite.) As I did with the others, I'm reverting your nomination. Please be patient, wait for the Lego review to continue, and learn what you can from the process there. If you do make additional nominations, please only do so to articles where you have been a major contributor, which is definitely not the case here. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)