![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Protocol Wars is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Protocol Wars has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I placed a notability template on this article. It may be notable (after all, I remember the issues and they seemed important at the time!) but it will need more WP:RS. At the very least it appears the article is misnamed. Only one of the current references mentions a "protocol war". That is ref 7, the Roger Scantlebury interview. The first three refs don't mention wars at all, and refs 4, 5, 6 and 8 all speak of the "standards war" which seems a more appropriate title to me, but should probably contain a qualifier too, to show which standards war we are talking about. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Three sources for discussion: Whizz40 ( talk) 15:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)See for example, case studies below. Whizz40 ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, you put the article up for AfD instead of speedy in error. No big issue. AfD takes a week but otherwise it should be uncontroversial. If you want a speedy deletion, the following tags need to be placed on the page, replacing all the page content with these:
{{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}}
As this is an author request deletion, I don't think I can do it (the Db-self template not being correct for me), so if you want a speedy deletion, just paste those onto the page. Thanks, and thanks for all the new information at History of the Internet too. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 11:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Whizz40 ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
In case anyone reviewing DYK or the Talk page is more familiar with this than me, there are three images which could be included in the article but I'm not sure about the fair use or copyright requirements to reproduce them. These images would be for further article development rather than the DYK nomination, but any suggestions on how to include them would gratefully received:
References
06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Cwmhiraeth:, @ Kosack: Thinking about the images discussed on the DYK nomination, I plan to be bold and add these based on fair use rationale. I should be able to do this tonight before if goes on the main page, but Cwmhiraeth, happy if you can move it back in the queue to allow time to do this and for a review. My plan for developing the article is to get plenty of readers and editors looking at it when it goes on the main page and I think the images may hold people's attention on the article for longer. This might bring out some edits about aspects that I had not anticipated or read about because it is a broad topic that covers many years. With this and images added, I am thinking about working towards GA. Whizz40 ( talk) 10:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, probably not, but what does PTT stand for? Standard style would be to define it on first use. Public Telephone and Telegraph? Telegraph? Surely the Protocol Wars did not involve Morse code? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Whizz40 ( talk · contribs) for providing a very good article looking at this aspect of Internet history. This has grown far quicker than I expected, thanks to the Whizz40's efforts. I have read through and provided a copy edit, explained in the edit summary. Nothing major, and I am not precious about the words I added to the lead - please revert or change those as you see fit. My thoughts about the article at this stage are as follows:
Done 1 - expanded the lead. Thinking about 2 and 3. Whizz40 ( talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It would seem appropriate to mention SNA as well as the other xNAs such as DNA, BNA, etc. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Mentioned SNA in the lead. Whizz40 ( talk) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
That's all I have! Thank you for this article, it was fun to read. I'll place it on hold for seven days so you can work through the comments above. If you disagree with any of them, let me know. For some, like explaining ARPANET and Pouzon, maybe it's not necessary since the reader can just use a wikilink to learn more; I tend to think articles should be self-contained as much as possible, but maybe I'm wrong and it's just unnecessary detail. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 02:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
DECNET for at least one of the 4.1c BSD variants exists "in the wild". ("varient" as in tapes with a "4.1 BSD" label sticker on them can have different contents as 4.1* BSD appears to have been some sort of "rolling release")
The DECNET code is also in the BSD SCCS version control archives Those SCCS archives were converted to the fossil version control system and available on online at
Files in sys/deprecated/netdecnet/. Note that the "deprecated" directory is where it ended up after being in a "current" directory back in 1982. The same DECNET code is available on the CSRG ISO #1 in the directory 4.1c.1/sys/netdecnet
. --
Jamplevia (
talk) 01:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
In an article on protocol wars, missing to clarify conspicuously that the NPL Davies' model was datagrams and that of Khan for ARPANET was virtual circuits, would AFAIAC be missing a major information. In order to deal with your concern that the caption shouldn't bee too technical, I will delete the "connectionless" and "connection-oriented" mentions (likely to be less explicit for many readers than "datagrams" and "virtual circuits" in the context of the two major packet switching models). From that, please discuss what you wish before just deleting what I find appropriate for a good quality article. RD2017 ( talk) 10:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Inviting the views of other editors - my view is this new content is detailed, specific to one of the standards and not essential to understand the competition and collaboration between them. Per WP:Summary style, I moved this to the X.25 article, based on WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:Onus. Whizz40 ( talk) 22:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
One of my recent contribution tended (a) to find and include direct references when available, (b) to prefer freely reachable references to those that need to spend money to read them, (c) for each assertion, to limit the number of references to what is enough to be convincing (readers' time is precious).
To cover Whizz40's point that a reference to the (well-known) seminal TCP paper of 1974 doesn't per se proves that it is indeed seminal, a reference to the first TCP standard RFC (i.e. RFC 793 of 1981, freely accessible) is IMHO largely sufficient for this (it says “TCP is based on concepts first described by Cerf and Kahn in [1]”).
To legitimate the next sentence of the article, i.e., “The paper drew upon and extended their prior research, developed in collaboration and competition with other American, British and French researchers”, the quotation of the paper itself I had selected is IMHO appropriate and sufficient: "The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations”.
Whizz40 (by mistake I suppose) replaced it with a longer citation containing irrelevant text, namely '... [6] R. Despres, "A packet switching network with graceful saturated operation," in Computer Communications: Impacts and Implications, S. Winkler, Ed. Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 345-351.)'.
I plan to improve again the article on these two points. -- 2A01:E34:EC18:8A90:2474:9C82:6198:B395 ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Protocol Wars is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Protocol Wars has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I placed a notability template on this article. It may be notable (after all, I remember the issues and they seemed important at the time!) but it will need more WP:RS. At the very least it appears the article is misnamed. Only one of the current references mentions a "protocol war". That is ref 7, the Roger Scantlebury interview. The first three refs don't mention wars at all, and refs 4, 5, 6 and 8 all speak of the "standards war" which seems a more appropriate title to me, but should probably contain a qualifier too, to show which standards war we are talking about. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Three sources for discussion: Whizz40 ( talk) 15:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)See for example, case studies below. Whizz40 ( talk) 16:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, you put the article up for AfD instead of speedy in error. No big issue. AfD takes a week but otherwise it should be uncontroversial. If you want a speedy deletion, the following tags need to be placed on the page, replacing all the page content with these:
{{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}}
As this is an author request deletion, I don't think I can do it (the Db-self template not being correct for me), so if you want a speedy deletion, just paste those onto the page. Thanks, and thanks for all the new information at History of the Internet too. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 11:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Whizz40 ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC).
In case anyone reviewing DYK or the Talk page is more familiar with this than me, there are three images which could be included in the article but I'm not sure about the fair use or copyright requirements to reproduce them. These images would be for further article development rather than the DYK nomination, but any suggestions on how to include them would gratefully received:
References
06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Cwmhiraeth:, @ Kosack: Thinking about the images discussed on the DYK nomination, I plan to be bold and add these based on fair use rationale. I should be able to do this tonight before if goes on the main page, but Cwmhiraeth, happy if you can move it back in the queue to allow time to do this and for a review. My plan for developing the article is to get plenty of readers and editors looking at it when it goes on the main page and I think the images may hold people's attention on the article for longer. This might bring out some edits about aspects that I had not anticipated or read about because it is a broad topic that covers many years. With this and images added, I am thinking about working towards GA. Whizz40 ( talk) 10:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, probably not, but what does PTT stand for? Standard style would be to define it on first use. Public Telephone and Telegraph? Telegraph? Surely the Protocol Wars did not involve Morse code? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Whizz40 ( talk · contribs) for providing a very good article looking at this aspect of Internet history. This has grown far quicker than I expected, thanks to the Whizz40's efforts. I have read through and provided a copy edit, explained in the edit summary. Nothing major, and I am not precious about the words I added to the lead - please revert or change those as you see fit. My thoughts about the article at this stage are as follows:
Done 1 - expanded the lead. Thinking about 2 and 3. Whizz40 ( talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It would seem appropriate to mention SNA as well as the other xNAs such as DNA, BNA, etc. Peter Flass ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Mentioned SNA in the lead. Whizz40 ( talk) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
That's all I have! Thank you for this article, it was fun to read. I'll place it on hold for seven days so you can work through the comments above. If you disagree with any of them, let me know. For some, like explaining ARPANET and Pouzon, maybe it's not necessary since the reader can just use a wikilink to learn more; I tend to think articles should be self-contained as much as possible, but maybe I'm wrong and it's just unnecessary detail. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 02:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
DECNET for at least one of the 4.1c BSD variants exists "in the wild". ("varient" as in tapes with a "4.1 BSD" label sticker on them can have different contents as 4.1* BSD appears to have been some sort of "rolling release")
The DECNET code is also in the BSD SCCS version control archives Those SCCS archives were converted to the fossil version control system and available on online at
Files in sys/deprecated/netdecnet/. Note that the "deprecated" directory is where it ended up after being in a "current" directory back in 1982. The same DECNET code is available on the CSRG ISO #1 in the directory 4.1c.1/sys/netdecnet
. --
Jamplevia (
talk) 01:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
In an article on protocol wars, missing to clarify conspicuously that the NPL Davies' model was datagrams and that of Khan for ARPANET was virtual circuits, would AFAIAC be missing a major information. In order to deal with your concern that the caption shouldn't bee too technical, I will delete the "connectionless" and "connection-oriented" mentions (likely to be less explicit for many readers than "datagrams" and "virtual circuits" in the context of the two major packet switching models). From that, please discuss what you wish before just deleting what I find appropriate for a good quality article. RD2017 ( talk) 10:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Inviting the views of other editors - my view is this new content is detailed, specific to one of the standards and not essential to understand the competition and collaboration between them. Per WP:Summary style, I moved this to the X.25 article, based on WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:Onus. Whizz40 ( talk) 22:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
One of my recent contribution tended (a) to find and include direct references when available, (b) to prefer freely reachable references to those that need to spend money to read them, (c) for each assertion, to limit the number of references to what is enough to be convincing (readers' time is precious).
To cover Whizz40's point that a reference to the (well-known) seminal TCP paper of 1974 doesn't per se proves that it is indeed seminal, a reference to the first TCP standard RFC (i.e. RFC 793 of 1981, freely accessible) is IMHO largely sufficient for this (it says “TCP is based on concepts first described by Cerf and Kahn in [1]”).
To legitimate the next sentence of the article, i.e., “The paper drew upon and extended their prior research, developed in collaboration and competition with other American, British and French researchers”, the quotation of the paper itself I had selected is IMHO appropriate and sufficient: "The authors wish to thank a number of colleagues for helpful comments during early discussions of international network protocols, especially R. Metcalfe, R. Scantlebury, D. Walden, and H. Zimmerman; D. Davies and L. Pouzin who constructively commented on the fragmentation and accounting issues; and S. Crocker who commented on the creation and destruction of associations”.
Whizz40 (by mistake I suppose) replaced it with a longer citation containing irrelevant text, namely '... [6] R. Despres, "A packet switching network with graceful saturated operation," in Computer Communications: Impacts and Implications, S. Winkler, Ed. Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 345-351.)'.
I plan to improve again the article on these two points. -- 2A01:E34:EC18:8A90:2474:9C82:6198:B395 ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)