This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
I am a voip guy, not a wikipedian, so i will let the editing be. But the Siemens "7xx" response codes seem misplaced. They are not part of the standard ietf rfcs, they are not industry standard. They should not be here. You dont see the american ammendments in an article about German law.. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.119.140.4 (
talk •
contribs)
07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Adding detailed descriptions
I've started adding detailed descriptions of the response codes, using RFC 3261 as the source material. However, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm sure I've messed up in some way. As such I've only done the 1xx section for now, and will allow time for someone to revert/fix my edit if it is not done correctly.
98.173.30.120 (
talk)
02:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm hoping to get this article to
featured list status, and that's currently looking like a one-person effort. That's simply because I'm the only person editing, however; I'm not attempting to
own the article. Other editors' contributions would most definitely be welcomed!
In order to reach
WP:FL status, I'm trying to get everything into a consistent state. Here's a bunch of relatively arbitrary decisions I've made in the name of consistency, and my reasoning for them:
Use definition lists for formatting detail.
An IP editor started this precedent, and I think it looks good. Notably, I think this is more readable than using tables, and I'm not aware of any other sensible option.
Link to specific sections of RFCs. I believe linking citations to specific locations within a source is a de facto requirement for
WP:FL, and may even be de jure. Linking to sections seemed more useful to me than page numbers for RFCs.
For RFCs that need to be cited multiple times (notably RFC 3261), have one citation and link to specific sections using {{rp}}. I think this produces a neater references section than the only alternatives I can see: listing full references every time, or having a list of RFCs with full citations, then each inline citation providing a short reference to the RFC and a section number.
Use
§ rather than (for eg) "sec" in {{rp}}. I think the added brevity is worth the slightly obscure symbol when it's being used inline.
Don't use "nosec" in {{cite IETF}} to use § in the full citations. This breaks the citation template's section linking, and the brevity is less necessary in the references section.
List RFC editors as such in the citation templates, even though it
breaks the formatting slightly. I think the broken formatting there is minor, and it's a bug in the template that should be resolved At Some Point™. We shouldn't do it wrong here because things are going wrong elsewhere.
Here are some things that still need doing before the article will be ready to be looked at for
WP:FL:
Finish providing full citations. Every response code now has a citation, but some are just inline links to the RFC. (ticked off —
me_
and15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC))reply
Update the descriptions to be consistent in terms of tense ("Servers can send this…" vs "Indicates the request…" vs "Server has…" etc).
Use full sentences, ending with a full-stop, for each description.
I'm intending to keep the above lists up-to-date with the article state. I'll sign any changes for clarity, and since the middle of the above lists is not really a great place to discuss, I'll avoid updating the list where I don't think there's consensus. Other editors should feel free to do the same.
(On consensus for the above changes, I'm assuming
WP:SILENCE applies. Thus if I make a change, update the above, and there's disagreement, I'll update the above again and reference wherever the discussion is taking place.)