Template talk:Wireless systems

Redundant?
Is this redundant given that Template:Table Mobile phone standards exists? Alternatively, is this new template a suitable replacement for that? (i.e. is the old template now redundant?). Oli Filth(talk 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I started this template to serve a different purpose its just focused on generations, Template:Table Mobile phone standards seems more grand. To be honest, I found the other vertical template confusing. If we can keep both and still maintain content quality and styling aesthetics that'd be be really useful. —IncidentFlux [ TalkBack 08:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't see the point of this template. Also the various 3,75G etc "generations" are a bit confusing. Also note that LTE is not 4G. 3,875G? :) --Darin-0 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Template:Mobile_telecommunications_standards contains everything in this template and more, except Flash OFDM (which links to OFDM) and TD-SCDMA. TD-SCDMA is found in the Template:Channel access methods, because it's a multiple access technique. And OFDM is found in the modulation table, because it's a modulation technique. I vote for keeping just the Mobile_telecommunications_standards template and deleting/removing/replacing this one. Mojodaddy (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. --Dima1 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support. Currently Wireless systems is much more clear than Mobile telecommunications standards. However, I suggest one column per family, and one row per generation. The columns should be "GSM / UMTS Family", "cdmaOne / CDMA2000 Family" and "Other Technologies". The rows should be the same as in Wireless systems. Mange01 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge done
I have now merged Wireless systems into Mobile telecommunications standards according to a discussion at WP:TFD in October. Wireless systems was only about mobile system generations, and not about other wireless systems. However, I used mobile standard generations as categories, and standard families as sub-categories instead of the oposite. This gives it a chronological order, which makes it more clear to follow i.m.h.o. Mange01 (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Debresser (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)