Talk:Wi-Fi/Archive 2

message: It seems that WiFi and  Wireless LAN are used interchangebly, with WiFi more common in the US, and WLAN in Europe. If that's true, two pages need to be combined, or at least clearly cross-referenced. Fdavis99 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiFi and Wireless LAN need to be combined? 

message: I hear a lot of claims on how inverse square laws affect the amout of power/radiation output by a wifi router at a given distance.  Is it possible to find out the exact formula?
:It depends what you mean by 'exact'. If we assume that a Wi-Fi router is a point source (in reality it's not) the relationship is very simple - doubling the distance reduces the signal strength four times (2 x 2), trebling the distance reduces the strength nine times (3 x 3). Four times as far, one sixteenth the strength (4 x 4) and so on.
:If you stay more than, say, five yards from the router, this calculation will be pretty accurate. If you're within a few inches it will be very inaccurate.--Chris Jefferies 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverse Square Law 

message: Please discuss here what to be done with the above section. --Charlesknight 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Wi-fi vs. Cellular 

message: I have removed all of this content from the article (don't worry it's still there in the history, ready for moving!). As it was written, the article was too big and unfocused.
This article needs to be about the technology, the business model material needs to go in an article called.... em... what shall we called it? Let's try and come to some concensus and get that article up and running as soon as possible.
--Charlesknight 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-fi business models - needs new article. 

message: The article seems to endorse Apple's implementation of Wi-Fi over Windows, especially this sentence in the Mac OS X section: "The built-in configuration and management is integrated throughout the operating system. " Besides sounding like an advertisement, it does not convey any meaningful information. It has been removed.
Sbenton 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of Different Operating Systems 

message: I have red a lot of article on Wifi but nothing on signal measurements. Is there a way to qualify and quantify the RF signal propagation. I have an application (Network Stumbler) running on my laptop to indicate the strength of the signal How reliable is it? what is the characteristic of the "antenna" on my laptop (where is it located? I suppose it is omnidirectionnal! what is the acuracy of the receiver?), I also use an HP iPaq PDA, accuracy does not seems to be too high when I compare between different units.
An other solution would be to use a spectrum analyser with a directional antenna (quite expensive...). What I am trying to do is to find dead spot during an installation of Wifi networks. Any solution?
Normy59 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wifi measurement 

message: This:
*How to install Long Range Outdoor Wifi
... is just an ad, not a useful resource. Removed it. --Kynn 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Ad from ''See Also'' Links 

message: How many hertz is the average wi fi signal??? I linked here from a physics article, and it says nothing about the frequency. My cordless phone screws up my wireless internet, so this information would be useful.
:From the article "Except for 802.11a, which operates at 5 GHz, Wi-Fi uses the spectrum near 2.4 GHz" --agr 13:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would perhaps be worthwile to mention in the article, that cordless phones and Wi-Fi can/will interfere when both use the 2.4GHz band 199.74.98.202 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency 

message: What's up with the  template near the bottom? It doesn't render with any relevant links, and the Wi-Fi category on wikinews only has one article in it (even though I found other Wi-Fi related articles on the site.) I'm not familiar with how things work over there but this seems kind of sketchy. -Fadookie Talk 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews links 

message: Someone nominated this article to be merged with Wi-Fi. Please discuss here Ka5hmir 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Hi, I got some nastygrams here because I posted a highly-related link -- which has been considered spam. the link in question is to WiFiMaps.com, which is a public-access map of where actual Wi-Fi has been deployed, as seen from wardriving. This is highily related to wi-fi in the existing context. Drew from Zhrodague 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and just as I thought, even after finalizing a discussion with one of the moderators, the link is now removed. Would someone please put the external link to WiFiMaps.com back? I am apparently not allowed to do so, since that is my project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.102.249 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are already similar links under Hotspot (Wi-Fi), if I'm not mistaken 199.74.98.202 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, please refrain from repeated linkspamming or else your account may get blocked, after several warnings.  Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website, nor is Wikipedia a comprehensive directory of every relevant website.  The other links you mentioned have also been removed. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant link removal 

message: That's probably notable.--Occono 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is also a music band in the UK called Wi-Fi. 

message: I would just like to add that kde has got an application called kwifimanager which allows the user to see connection and signal information on display as well as give dialogs for selecting networks and entering keys
under the kdenetwork package, under wifi
kde website
Weecol 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also KNetworkManager; NetworkManager is already mentioned, but if you want to mention KWifiManager, go ahead. Guy Harris 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gui manager in unix 

message: I suggest we clean up this article so it qualifies as either a good article or featured article.  The most obvious problems I see are, in no particular order:
# Bloated table of contents needs to be relieved by selectively deleting subheads - partially done.
# Over use of lists.  Convert long list items to prose.
# Unsupported statements should be marked with . Those tags should then be replaced by references.  Controversial, unsupported material should be removed on sight.
# Spam needs to be removed.
Please help by working on these items, and list items to the 'to do' as you find them. Jehochman  Hablar 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup June/July 2007 

message: There is no mention of any wireless standards in the whole article The wireless-B, G, N or any other. I was looking for the latest one and its transfer speeds or range, so I had to go to the Best Buy website to find out. WOW! Shame. --Turbinator 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you just needed to go to IEEE 802.11.  HTH.  Guy Harris 06:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wireless Standards (A, B, G, N) 

message: test  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.85.76.18 (talk) 05:40:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
Someone put several vulgar words into the articles, concurrant with the appearance of this "test" I did my best to remove them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.113.112 (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  test 

message: Please read this site http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3674591. You can also confirm this by looking at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wi-fi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.33.103 (talk) 17:53, April 28, 2007 (UTC)
::The Wi-Fi Alliance, who owns the brand, differs with you.  I'd be inclined to believe the primary source here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.38 (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that the wi-fi alliance actually agrees with him. The term was mistakenly used a few times in 2000 - before they became the wi-fi alliance. I don't think this message or the debunking deserves to be in the header, as it's dealt with later, is of little importance, is verbose, and is uninteresting. --88.172.132.94 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. It's in the header with a reference to stop the tit-for-tat introduction and removal of the term - will look at making this an endnote instead. Socrates2008 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-fi is not short for wireless fidelity, people 

message: I think we need a seperate article discussing phones that use wifi, for voice and or data.  Mathiastck 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-Fi phones 

message: It seems like the section on "Origin and meaning of the term 'Wi-Fi'" could be improved to actually reflect the same conclusions as the articles cited in that section.  Right now it is a bit muddled.
The basic facts I can see are:
# Wi-Fi was a made up term punning on 'Hi-Fi' created by Interbrand for what would become The Wi-Fi Alliance
# Wi-Fi is not short for 'Wireless Fidelity', although many people mistakenly believe it does, presumably based on the fact that it is a pun for 'Hi-Fi' which of course is short for 'High Fidelity'
# Even though it doesn't stand for 'Wireless Fidelity', The Wi-Fi Alliance themselves used it in a tagline at least once, but now seeks to discourage the phrase
Kelly 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Make the edit yourself. Feel free to rewrite the whole article, and then nominate it for WP:GA. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes about the denomination. Just look at, please. Gwalarn 09:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wi-fi: History.  algocu 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and meaning of the term 'Wi-Fi' section could be improved 

message: Seems to me that the section on 'Question of Health Risk' is incomplete. It does not present a balanced viewpoint. It reassures the reader (perhaps the editor(s) has overdone it such that it appears conspicuously biased) that there is really nothing wrong with using Wi-Fi, even by children for a prolonged period. 
However, there has been much ongoing debate among scientists as to whether Wi-Fi really harms our health. Extensive and in-depth research has just only begun and it's still too early to say that it is completely harmless to human health.
Germany did not advise its citizens to avoid Wi-Fi for no reason.
Pressure for investigation into Wi-Fi health risks
/ Germany Warns Citizens to Avoid Using Wi-Fi
/ School wi-fi radiation levels ‘three times that of phone masts’
Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks
I discovered that this section has been edited many times with some users trying to present the other side of the argument but their contributions were subsequently deleted. Seems to me some sort of information suppression is going on here.
It's the job of all wiki editors to present an article in a state that is as neutral and as complete as possible.
(Sevenneed (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the article on Electrical Sensitivity. This section is balanced, going by WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. This has also previously been debated. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spookee/Sevenneed, I will also add that you should look at WP:SOCKS. You both make very similar edits, edit the same articles, have the same style, and make the same accusations using the same words --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Have you read all the articles above? Including the ES article and and the wikipedia policies? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article claims "Consensus amongst scientists is that there is no evidence of harm, and the continuing calls for more research into the effects on human health remain limited." Where are the sources and links? What studies are these? Who were the scientists involved? Are they backed by the Wi-fi/ mobile industry or are they independently conducted? Once again, the {neutrality} and {Incomplete} notices have been removed from the article by 88.172.132.94. Maybe he has some links to the industry and that explains why he has so vehemently defended Wi-Fi.  (Spookee (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wasn't me. Do you really believe that paranoid stuff?? Got any good references for this massive conspiracy? I wish I was paid for this. You should look at homeopathy to see how to make these kinds of arguments properly... --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wi-Fi Health Risks 

message: "However, in September 2007, Germany's Environment Ministry announced that its citizens should minimise their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi by choosing conventional wired connections, ..."<BR>
Can anyone find the source document or press release that the German Environment Ministry issued that may have prompted The Independent to write its article, used as the current reference for the above text? Using the source document would improve the reference. The Independent's article is from 2007-09-11, but I cannot find something at the Environment Ministry or the subsidiary German Radiation Protection office (German acronym BFS) from roughly the same period. I only find a release from the German government published 2007-07-23 in the Bundestag "Strahlenbelastung durch drahtlose Internet-Netzwerke (WLAN)" (my translation of title: "Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Internet Networks (WLANs)"). Question and Answer 5 in the document are relevant. My summary of a portion of the answer is: "The government suggests as a general recommendation that exposure to high-frequency fields be kept as low as possible, in the WLAN case, for example, to prefer wired connections when they are available." My POV is the BFS, with regards to mobile telephony, wireless LANs, etc., has generally stated that science does not support serious health effects, but that it also recommends prudent precaution when possible. papageno (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can refer to German Federal Government warns of WLAN use (Sevenneed (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could do, but that is an even worse source than The Independent --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This link and the links to which it refers only give the Bundestag document as a source.papageno (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If no better source can be found, and this is the source the independent used, then this whole statement should be removed as it is unverifiable --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least, if no corroborating original source can be found, the text will have to be edited to reflect any actual sources found. papageno (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of health risks - Germany Environment Ministry Advice