This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) at 14:07, 6 March 2012 (English doesn't have that word...yet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:07, 6 March 2012 by Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) (English doesn't have that word...yet)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This page has been blanked. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Meaning of "RS" in EIA-standards
Hi, there were different explanations for the meaning of the letters "RS" in standards like RS-232 in the article on RS-232 and on the EIA. Someone asked for a citation to prove either one. I added one source I found without digging too deep although I'm convinced there are probably better ones (maybe not in the internet, but in books). You deleted the citation and put in both articles the popular meaning "recommended standard" without mentioning any source. This looks to me like pure POV and not like an improvement to an excyclopedic article. Can you please explain this? --Wosch21149 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Until we can get a source that isn't repeating folklore, we should remove all fake meanings for the RS prefix. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed! But is "recommended standard" less folklore? I propose we then remove any interpretation of the meaning. BTW: my hope was that someone in the US has access to the standard documents, which cost a hefty fee. --Wosch21149 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've got a reprint of EIA RS 232, but I can't recall what the cover sheet says - it may just say "RS" with no explanation. If it wasn't important enough for EIA to explain it on the cover page of the standard, we shouldn't be worried about it here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm only worring about the statement:" was originally drafted as a recommended standard, thus the "RS" RS-232", which does not conform to WP:NOR. I hope you agree when I remove this soon. --Wosch21149 (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) PS: It's in the EIA-article.
- I've got a reprint of EIA RS 232, but I can't recall what the cover sheet says - it may just say "RS" with no explanation. If it wasn't important enough for EIA to explain it on the cover page of the standard, we shouldn't be worried about it here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed! But is "recommended standard" less folklore? I propose we then remove any interpretation of the meaning. BTW: my hope was that someone in the US has access to the standard documents, which cost a hefty fee. --Wosch21149 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- A vital issue indeed, I only pray you've fixed it before the minds of a whole generation are irretrievably warped. And now I'm off to change hyphens to em dashes...--Wtshymanski (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Heads Up
User Borealdreams asked me for help here. He is now experiencing WP:BOOMERANG. One question; may I assume that your "my client" comment was one of your typical edit summaries and not an indication of a COI? That's what it sounded like to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The client is installing OPGW for their own purposes, I have nothing to do with the selection of the materials - but presumably the client knows what it's doing when it picked OPGW. Mere facts will not sway a Wikieditor. Besides, I'm well known for being in the pay of the Twisty Bulb Cartel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)