Talk:Real-time locating standards

Wonderful, nobody comments on facts. Hopefully there is no misunderstanding. Uptaking standards for commenting is allowed. wireless friend (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

refs and style
I tagged to show how I feel the article might be improved. Widefox (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Widefox. I removed one of the tags.  As I said in the edit history, "IMO the confusing tag is for an article where the intent or the flow is generally confusing, not for articles that need copyediting or cover technical material. The flow seems logical here IMO."  There are parts that are hard to read, which isn't surprising since the sole editor is not a native English-speaker, and since this is technical material, but as far as I can tell, he's doing a good job of following WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK and representing the state of the accepted standard, rather than doing original research.  I kept the reference tag; the article would benefit from more and more specific citations. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:Niemeyerstein en just added a bunch of references and external links together and pointed to more references; that's okay for a start, and I don't expect one editor to write the whole article. This is not my field, but I have an opinion that Wikipedia would benefit from more articles like this one, and I intend to start contributing some day soon.  Of course, the external links need to be moved into a separate section called External links which needs to be the last section on the page, and most of the references need to be in-line rather than at the end, but we'll get there eventually. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this page. Thank you. --wireless friend (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean, Niemeyerstein. Keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dan, I'm sure you are right - it's not confusing per say, maybe just needs copyediting and merging. I added a copyedit tag. Widefox (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

merge 4 articles into "Real-time locating"
It's my opinion that these articles (Real-time locating standards RTLS implementing RTLS communications) are best merged into one article (say Real-time locating), and maybe even merged with Geolocation. Widefox (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Geolocation article has a fair number of edits that have only resulted in a stub; I wouldn't recommend including that in a merge. I don't have an opinion on merging the other 3. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stupid, these mentioned articles were generated according to the requirement to split with respect to length. All recommendations from self determined policy policeguys may please these themselves, but please put the fingers off this stuff.--Wireless friend (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yes I know the article was split due to size. You may want to check that guideline (WP:SIZE) for how to split an article. If you are saying that you do not welcome input from other editors, then this guideline might be of some use (WP:OWN). Sorry if this seems like I'm giving you a lot of guidelines, but they really should help, and we really are here to all help each other! Widefox (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the size of the articles, or how they were split. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never mentioned size! anyhow....I still miss an article I can read, and understand about this topic. Splitting into more articles is only obfuscating. It's not quantity but quality I'm talking about. Concise, encyclopaedic text. Widefox (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi policy policeman, where are your contributions, not on quality but in contents? No, you did not mention size, but what else did you mention but opinions? Do you understand that Geolocation might be somewhat different to locating with e.g. relative coordinates and is definitively not the same. Before further commenting, please make yourself better informed. Do you have any vanity problem, please be honest, what is your aim? The majority of your traceable comments with other wiki pages where you left your traces is just formal, none is contentional. There is no need for such control, please return to information improvement and stop bullying. 91.64.55.202 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Who please will be so kind to remove the obsolete tags on referencing? 91.64.55.202 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two tags on this article; one says it needs copyediting, the other says it would benefit from more inline citations. There are almost no inline citations in this article, and Wikipedia generally wants to see a lot of them by the time an article gets up to the "Good Article" level, so I don't think either tag can be removed yet. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess User:91.64.55.202, User:Niemeyerstein en and User:Wireless friend are one and the same?! Please could you sign-in and just use one account. Thank you, (oder Danke!) Widefox (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is guessing a new discipline for the policy policemen? Please keep your hands of the stuff that you do not improve. You still miss the proof that there is any contribution from your side but tagging. Thank you. Wireless friend (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From your answer I conclude they are all your edits. OK. You repeatedly ask for editors to keep off these articles, maybe this may help ... WP:OWN ? note - all contributions can be edited ("policed"/improved). Widefox (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's improve the article rather than arguing about who's doing the most good or harm. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a nuisance, that no one of the administrators and rollback authorities realy takes care of updating the tagging but just continues senseless chatting. Wireless friend (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

inline citations?
What a nuisance, yes of course it would improve to have more inline citations, but there is no stuff. It makes no sense at all to expand a page on standards with other material but standards. Who wants more stuff, where there is nothing but three standards as of today (ISO/IEC 19762-5, ISO/IEC 24730-1, ISO/IEC 24730-2)?Wireless friend (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientific_citation_guidelines says:
 * There are a few cases when it is not necessary or helpful to provide in-line citations. Most commonly this is for short articles or technical articles which can be written using only two or three sources: a primary source and a review or textbook. These articles usually describe a simple result, or a common convention or notation and are, by their nature, unlikely to ever be expanded into longer articles. In this case, a short "References" section at the end of the article suffices. An example of this sort of article is scalar-vector-tensor decomposition.
 * I'll come back to this after I finish the monthly CAT:GEN style guideline updates (WT:UPDATES) today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting
I've got some questions and suggestions.
 * It seems to me that we don't need to quote the ISO/IEC FDIS 19762-5 standard for the definition of an RTL system, we can paraphrase it as "a system designed to continuously determine and provide the position of objects with certain kinds of embedded chips"; does that seem accurate? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The car-to-car communications programme funding of the European Union looks interesting but I don't see the connection to RTLS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What you seem interesting and what you may understand as a need is not the control and support an encyclopedia needs. The context may be understood when reading the respective standards. When referring to standards it should be necessary to refer the standards, eh? BTW, the standard is now accepted and published.Wireless friend (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)