Talk:NMEA 0183

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.

A maritime communications standard. Just like ISO 639. DCDuring TALK 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Should presumably go the same way as #BitTorrent, which has not gotten much input thus far. I can see some value in having a full set of standards and protocols, along the lines of having a full set of Unicode characters and SI abbreviations; but if kept they should really be labeled ==Translingual==, not English. (unless we want 7000 language sections all saying the same thing.)-- Visviva 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We are part of a larger project. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP is good at. We have {{only in}} for this kind of thing, if we even want that. ISO 639 should also be in our glossary, but otherwise merits the same treatment. There are a great number of standards bodies and standards. The ones that are compositional are particularly suspect, but we have others: 802.11, 802.11a, 802.11n. Also 1040, W-2, 1099; Category:E numbers.
The situation is somewhat analogous to our handling of Translingual two- and three-part species names. In that case we have chosen to have the components, but not the species names. Both WP and Wikispecies have them covered. (We do have the vernacular names.) DCDuring TALK 11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems (partially at least) like a WT:BP#Translingual question to me. If it's changed from English to translingual, I see no reason not to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm having a hard time coming up with any plausible rationale for this one. Wikipedia doesn't really make an effort to have complete lists of these, but that's mostly because such lists are readily available, usually from the sponsoring organization. Delete this and its ilk, I guess. -- Visviva 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I should maybe add that I think the question of keeping the names of standards (which is probably not a great idea) is quite different from any keeping terms or symbols specified within such standards (which in some cases is essential to our mission). Deleting ISO 639-3 would be very different matter from deleting enm. -- Visviva 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
For the language codes, we might well want to have our own appendix rather than pretend that, say, "sga" meets CFI or go through the exercise of proving it. It might enable us to have some content in an appendix that wouldn't meet WP standards.
For the sake of argument, what about 10W-30, which appears 9 times in COCA vs 0 for enm and cmn. I could see being very inclusive about such abbreviations and codes, especially the systematic ones. The motor-oil grades seem to be perfect for a table reminiscent of the kinds of tables that dictionaries have often had for weights and measures, calendars, etc. Sometime WP has them and sometimes not. Such tables can be implemented as templates or as appendices. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
10W-30 seems like a perfectly reasonable entry to me (as would 10W-40, 5W-30, etc.) It's attestable, not a proper name, and not sum of parts to any non-engineers. Certainly a tabular appendix would be useful as well, but need not preclude the existence of entries.
SI units, language codes, and Unicode entities, among other issues, are together making me think that it is reasonable to make a general exception to attestation requirements for closed sets of terms that are defined in a widely-accepted standard. The whole point of these standards, after all, is that even if no one has actually used zeptoohm or sga or in all the history of language, there will be no real question of what is signified (well, except perhaps for the last one); these are more like an arcane sort of verb inflection than like qualitatively new words. And because they 'are part of a closed and widely-accepted set, it is quite likely that someone will run across them and want to know what they mean -- thus meeting the most important criterion for inclusion. ... But anyway. I guess I'll save this argument for when you decide to RFD all of ISO 639. ;-) -- Visviva 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My Germanic heritage prefers things "regelmäßig". I am suspicious that we turn a blind eye to non-CFI-meeting wikijargon, linguistics terminology, language codes, or have very fine distinctions for linguistics terms. It reminds be of US Congress repeatedly exempting itself from application of, say, workplace laws against sexual harassment. We should be eating our own dogfood. Getting rid of wikijargon was one of our finer moments.
Broader use of {{only in}} sending folks to WP and redirects sending folks to our appendices would be my preferred option. Rather than putting language codes through RfV (not that I would dare), we should have our own appendix and use redirects to point to the code there or the entry for the language if we have the entry. (Reminds me of {{spelink}} for species). Whether we want to have and maintain the list of standards or think someone else (WP or issuer, probably) should is a lesser issue. There are clearly instances where we can perform a service by collating different terminology systems, sometimes something much better done with a table than with a wordy definition. See {{Paper-B}}.
NMEA 0183 is compositional. The user searching for "NMEA 0183" would be reasonably served by NMEA and its associated wikipedia link. A user searching for 10W-30 would probably be better served by a redirect to an appendix that contained a table and an explanation of the "grammar" of the system rather than an entry. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of a specific entity, perhaps. Prescribed name and usage. This kind of thing might be acceptable with a technical-usage label like {{communications}}, but I'm not convinced that “closed-set” is important. Authoritative medical dictionaries are full of hundreds of variations of names of diseases and conditions which are portmanteaus from other-language dictionaries, and might have never been spoken aloud.

10W-30 is different. It's used every day by common people who drive cars. Michael Z. 2009-09-25 00:40 z
Kept, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate (2)[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

NMEA 0183

A specific standards document, like RS232 or RFC 2550. There are thousands of these, and I don't think they are dictionary words. Equinox 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just like ISO 639. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep. Should be translingual, but I can't think of a single good reason to delete it. How would another few thousand translingual entries make Wiktionary worse? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If we have to delete ISO 639 as well to prevent the zillion abbreviations of various national and international standards from entering Wiktionary, then just do it. Currently it is the only individual ISO standard that has an entry of its own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't these the "names of specific entities"?
OTOH, if we can have toponyms, why not have gnormonyms/normonyms and titles of other published works? They have etymologies, pronunciations, transliterations (at least), translations, etymologies, semantic relations, nicknames, etc. All nyms in all languages. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Re Equinox, no I suppose they aren't 'words' although a lot of our translingual entries aren't 'words' or 'idioms' either. This is why we need a comprehensive entry at WT:AMUL which right now, we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. These belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And yes, we should delete ISO 639 as well, although we can link to its Wikipedia page from our Glossary or other locations not in the main dictionary. Facts707 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Added together with 802. entries below. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)











Delete these all (NMEA 0183 included) per my comments at [[#ISO_639]] (eventually, I suppose, at [[talk:ISO 639]]).​—msh210 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DeleteMichael Z. 2010-05-15 06:50 z

Delete, I don't think these are 'words' in any 'language'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, this is a tough one. We have USB, and rightly so, even though it's really the same kind of animal. USB is a part of the English lexicon, understood by a very sizeable chunk of the English-speaking world. Of the preceding, I suspect that your average, reasonably tech-savvy person knows a, b, g, and n. They could use them in sentences and be understood by many listeners. NMEA 0183 and ISO 639 don't really share this luxury....except within a fairly narrow range of the population. However, the same could be said of gluon and phospholipid. I think that this is an area where CFI fails to distinguish between terms which have genuinely entered the lexicon, and those which are used in a bunch of technical documents. I think that these should be deleted, but only because of the aforementioned failing in our CFI, not because of something intrinsic to the terms themselves. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete all. They are encyclopedic, and not saved by being in common usage like USB.--Dmol 07:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking b and g might warrant adjectival entries, they are used very often in sentences like " can throw out all of your 802.11b gear as 802.11g has arrived...". Those two at least are not hard at all to attest. Also please consider that the lexicon is not one simple list of words from which we can determine whether something is "in" or "out", everyone has their own lexicon and what we are trying to do is determine if there is a large enough set of people who share a particular term with a particular meaning in their respective lexicons for it to be included here. There are certainly enough IT people out there for many of these 802.11 terms to be known and defined similarly as adjectives meaning "adhering to the 802.11* standard"; there are also hundreds of books out there which use them in this manner. I guess mine is a keep opinion for adjectival usage, include a brief noun sense which points at Wikipedia for the protocol definitions. - TheDaveRoss 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
These haven't been shown to meet the basic tests for being a true adjective rather than nouns often used attributively. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. Any proper noun can be used in the same way.
I believe that this falls under WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. The attributive use of the proper noun would constitute evidence for its inclusion and would certainly provide evidence to support a replacement of the embarrassingly poor definition we have now.
Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, I have a feeling they will fail there but at RFV there is more a of a chance some searching for proper cites will take place. - TheDaveRoss 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on what class of attributive use we view as not explicitly referring solely to the standard itself. I would expect that "an 802.11g slowpoke" is clearly referring to something other than the standard. I would also expect that "802.116 specification/standard/wireless standard protocol/extension/variation" are all clearly referring to the specification itself. All the other collocations seem ambiguous to me (radio, chipset, device, and more than a dozen others) DCDuring TALK 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Opiaterein. DCDuring, as you know, the attributive use rule has been rescinded so we can't RFV them or not in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)