Talk:Wi-Fi 6

Illegal actions of DensiFi SIG

So why was Illegal actions of DensiFi SIG removed? I know it is there now and I think it should stay there but was it removed for a reason? Endercase (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So bit of background this was featured on Today I Learned. Endercase (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems a paid editor, CorporateM, was contacted, paid?, by Qualcomm to get it removed. They contacted several friendly editors and asked them to remove it. This has now been posted to several sites and a "streisand effect" has happened. This being removed now has drawn a lot more attention then if it had never been brought up. ContentEditman (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman: I have found this where a self declared COI editor appears to have canvassed an administrator. You appear to be active there too. Endercase (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Yea I posted a message after I saw it posted else where. Just giving them a heads up a lot of eyes are on this and that is why it was reverted. ContentEditman (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

someone from Textron Financial Corporation tried to remove it 151.165.212.38 72.196.234.10 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Content here needs to be based on coverage that a subject has received in secondary sources. This section is exclusively citing primary sources (reports, minutes, emails) and tying them together to create information which has not been published elsewhere. That's a classic case of original research and is forbidden here. If or when this gets picked up by the technology press then we should include it, but we are not here to break the story. I have again searched to try and establish whether any secondary coverage exists but have not found anything. Unless new sources are presented I will be removing the content again. SmartSE (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is one reference I was able to find that was specific to this topic.

https://www.heise.de/ct/ausgabe/2016-25-Wie-Firmen-versuchen-IEEE-Normen-in-ihre-Richtung-zu-biegen-3495156.html

Since many of these companies are not US based stories might be outside US news agencies like this one. ::ContentEditman (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You were intentionally canvassed by a COI editor in this situation, any changes you make would be against policy IMO. As I read about this on reddit with a clearly negative tone it could be that I was canvased too. I think we should both refrain from editing until a neutral third party makes any necessary changes. Endercase (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

someone from Intel , 192.55.54.40, tried to remove it. Why so many companies and paid editors want this remoivced??? 173.66.244.194 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been removed again. This article may need some form of protection. Endercase (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed, and correctly so. Both Smartse and CorporateM have the right of it. I requested protection for a while there (it was pending changes protected) which is why the article probably has not seen the material re-added. To wit, if the material were sourced to a reliable, independent, secondary source, it might reasonable to add a summary of it, but the material that was present failed our policy on no original research, as well as weight of content. (What's here now isn't much better, and which I've been reverted on, but at least it has no, or very little, potential to be controversial, being a description of the standard.) --Izno (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record can you please verify you have no COI (due to the history of this information being removed by verifiably COI editors). Also for the record, a very quick search found at least [|1] [[1]] [|3] sources, though I haven't checked their reliablity yet. Endercase (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am under no requirement to disclose that I do not have a COI. ;) That aside, it's irrelevant: you need to engage with the argument put forward by those with demonstrable COIs/disclosed paid editors, since the argument they make is a good one: Every article must meet the core content policies. If the content as written does not meet those policies (and cannot, as I would assert was the case here), then it should be removed per WP:BURDEN. --Izno (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

SolarTech and their products don’t seem to exist and I think this should be deleted.

Under “devices”, it says Solartech is building a solar powered free WiFi network in Seattle. I can’t find a single news item on this remarkable announcement, and the company website is cheap and vague. I don’t think this product exists, has permits, or can possibly work given the tremendous power use of WiMAX and similar systems. The Washington state Secretary of State has no listing or permit requests for an organization called Solartech, and the Washington State Investment Board has no record of any such startup. I ran internal and Google searches on both websites for “solartech”. Please advise. YouBloodyMook (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Products claim to support 802.11ax before standard rectification

I think it's quite dubious to claim any product supports (non-draft) 802.11ax, let alone being the first, years before the standard will actually be approved. If past experience with 802.11n and ac were any indication, it will take a couple of iterations of silicon after the rectification before the manufacturers can implement the complicated bits of the standards correctly. Products that implement a draft standard should clearly state so. If the draft version cannot be determined through the sources, I think the content should be removed. 5.70.160.220 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong datarates in the first row

I think the numbers in the first row of the table at the beginning of the article are wrong. If modulation changes from QPSK to BPSK, then with each data symbol we transmit half of the information as before. Given that coding doesn't change (1/2), the first row should be precisely half of the second one. My calculations suggest that it's the first row that is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.254.77.223 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuance error in the article

802.11ax is the based of wifi 6. Not the samething as claimed in this article. Wifi is controlled by Wifi consortium TM and 802.11 is controlled by IEEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.134.66 (talk)

For a matter of regularity with the others IEEE Standard and Wi-Fi Generation, this article should be renamed "IEEE 802.11be" DelofJ (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• should be renamed "IEEE 802.11ax" DelofJ (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Backwards compatible

I know that this is basic information, but whether ax is backwards compatible should be in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.246.250 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wi-Fi 6 as main name – suggestion

The intro says the technology 802.11ax is being marketed as Wi-Fi 6, and while that is also true, it's more importantly proposed as a new naming scheme, that simplifies understanding / identifying technology, which Wikipedia readers certainly would appreciate. See (maybe expound) Wi-Fi#Etymology_and_terminology and Wi-Fi#Versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponken (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wi-Fi 6 seems to be the common name, so I would suggest moving it. —Enervation (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Advertised Speeds table

Hi, would it be relevant to add a table such a this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac-2013#Advertised_Speeds

I've found at least these values in various web pages: AX3000 AX4200 AX5400 AX6000 AX6600 AX11000

The one having the most values is this one: https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Nighthawk-12-Stream-Router-Rax200/dp/B07PNR2VMD

--Tuxayo (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

---

IEEE 802.11ax-2021 → Wi-Fi 6 – No one but advanced experts in this field would be searching for this article by its IEEE number, nor know what this article is about from its IEEE number. The article mentions that it is also commonly marketed as Wi-Fi 6, so most people would know it by that name instead. I feel according to WP:COMMONNAME Wi-Fi 6 would be a much more descriptive title for most readers. Wowmom98 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support, completely makes sense! Shushugah (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RAFSAN

Passward mecking but folse passward 103.138.173.224 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Govind kumar

Narma committee hall Muzaffarpur 106.77.179.127 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Wi-Fi 6 → IEEE 802.11ax – So this article was moved to the Wi-Fi 6 title in 2021, citing WP:COMMONNAME. However, all the other Wi-Fi articles (Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, Wi-Fi 5) use the IEEE technical name, rather than the "Wi-Fi x" marketing name. Thus I suggest moving this article to IEEE 802.11ax (without the "-2021" at the end, as it's not needed - WP:CONCISE; also the later articles don't have "-year" in the title either) to be WP:CONSISTENT with all these other Wi-Fi articles that are titled under the IEEE name.

I'd say No one but advanced experts in this field would be searching for this article by its IEEE number, nor know what this article is about from its IEEE number. (from the previous RM) is not much of an issue anymore, as these Wi-Fi articles all now have a neat navigational template at the top clearly showing the "Wi-Fi x" marketing designations of each IEEE WLAN standard. Also, that's what redirects are for. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think the difference is that 8+ haven't been released yet and although Wifi 7 has it doesn't have much market penetration yet (nor does 6 really, from what I've seen). 'Wifi 6' is how it's how most publications and sales materials refer to it (everything I've seen anyway), and this is probably how 7 will go too. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m very much in favour. WP:CONSISTENT There should be a redirect available but let it be from Wifi 6 to 802.11ax. I’m very much against any hint of dumbing down. CecilWard (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, Wi-Fi 6 appears to be the common and recognizable name. We prefer that to technical terms.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Technology and WikiProject Computing have been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME supersedes WP:CONSISTENT IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.