Dominic Mayers: Please explain your edit. It is without written commend/eplananation. Thank you. --Angerdan (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit? I have never edited this template. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I'd mean User:GliderMaven: Please explain your edit. It is without written commend/eplananation. Angerdan (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a table. As with most supplementary info such as diagrams and graphs, they're better kept right unless the table is very wide- this one isn't. On non cell phones the text flows neatly around the table. On cell phones it's left seeking anyway so makes no difference. GliderMaven (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table ist the primary source of this template, so seeing the links in reading direction first before the table itself soen't make any sense. In every publication the additional text is below a table, not left or right. I also checked your statement about the text flow and cannot verify it. On regular sized displays with 1920 pixel width, the table is placed after the written links on the far right side. You didn't ask before your unexplained edit and i ask you to undo it with an explanation. Please be cooperative. --Angerdan (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the primary element is the table, secondary elements should be after the primary one. So i do suggest to keep the spllementary info after the table. When there is no objective argument against this, i'd change it in a few days. --Angerdan (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Careful here. This template is used by Wi-Fi. I was referring to the entire table appearing in the middle of the Wi-Fi article because you removed the 'floatright' at the top, rather than tucked over to the right of the page. You not only messed up the formatting in Wi-Fi by making the table not be right-seeking, you then managed to mess up again, even worse, by adding the reflist in the included portion. That meant that the references appeared in the middle of the Wi-Fi article rather than at the end. I've fixed that now, but I'm concerned about your editing. Templates are among the most technical parts of editing Wikipedia, and it's easy to create unintended consequences. Please always, always check the articles that transclude templates to make sure, that's twice you clearly haven't done this. GliderMaven (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added parenthetical (Wi-Fi n)* tags for Wi-Fi 1, 2, 3 and prefixed the bottom row unbranded explainer with a '*'.
There may be a better convention than '*', but '*' seemed intuitive.
Wi-Fi 3E is mentioned in the bottom row, but is (no longer) mentioned in the Duckwave reference and should be omitted. LarryLACa (talk) 09 November 2021 (UTC)
My edits:
Keep order, renumber legacy/11b/11a/11g as Wi-Fi 0/1/2/3
add Electronics-notes reference.
LarryLACa (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fix format, cleanup renumber comment
The Wi-Fi Alliance started generation numbering with 11ac as Wi-Fi 5,
allowing for the Alliance versions b/a/g/n as generations 1/2/3/4 which by implication
meant the pre-Alliance, 802.11-1997 (802.11 Legacy) would be Wi-Fi 0, awkward but reflective of the pre-branding origin.
Update where used LarryLACa (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Move Where Used to separate section, added to Wi-Fi Alliance LarryLACa (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous issues caused by an anonymous IP editor. Most of the edits since then have been to correct those. I have reverted back to the last good version. Apologies if your good faith edit was affected. Ng.j (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation provided for Wi-Fi 8/802.11bn frequencies does not mention 42 or 71 GHz. However, the everything RF article cited in the "Maximum link rate" column links to a PAR document, which mentions "carrier frequency operation between 1 and 7.125 GHz and also 42.5 and 71 GHz". It is unclear whether the entire 42.5-71 GHz range would be used, especially considering only parts of the 1-7.125 GHz range are available for Wi-Fi. Keymakery (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The everything RF article has a similar table which states "2.4/5/6 GHz, mmWave" as Wi-Fi 8's expected frequency bands. Seems like we can replace "42, 71" with "mmWave" and switch the citation to that page? Keymakery (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for 2028 adoption of wifi 8? 50.236.221.178 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
