Talk:Wi-Fi 7

"Unbranded common usage" from the sidebar

• (Wi-Fi 0, 1, 2, 3, are unbranded common usage.)

The two sources both admit they're just flat out extrapolating those numbers up by going back through an arbitrary set of major standards from 4 and that they're not in the branding documents (so "unbranded" is verified by the references). That's not "common usage". To justify a claim of common usage you'd need lots of unique hits referring to it by those names in user forums (not tech journalists, they still call large cell phones "phablets" and nobody in real life has ever used that word in conversation), and since wikipedia doesn't accept original research you'd need to write it up as a PDF with unnecessarily complex descriptions of everything, some bar graphs, mentions of "convolutional neural network" and ANOVA somewhere, and a bunch of references to articles with the right keywords but that cannot be publicly downloaded from anywhere online and are effectively not available to anyone with time to care. Slap a DOI that doesn't point to anything on it then just run off to a random Indian name generator online and plug in around 8 of them, attribute it to the university of New Delhi, and dump it anywhere. Once you have a few templates stored up it's easier and you can make whatever weird claim you want. I naturally don't have any references but I've seen enough of this in wikipedia references to believe that it will work and basically stay up forever. Most of the time the paper doesn't even have to be related to the article subject.

For that matter, I've seen things being sold as Wifi 6, so that's common usage, but have never seen or heard Wifi 4 or 5 used to describe those standards outside of the weird retroactive attempt at naming that was created; those are branded, but not "common usage" either. Anyone who was already using them and cared what they were knew the standards names and will keep calling them by those, and nobody else wants outdated equipment if they can avoid it. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

For your last point, multiple routers are marketed using "Wi-Fi 5" or "WiFi 5" terminology on their packaging and product listings, and are still actively sold, if not also manufactured. Models such as the Linksys AC1200 or some varieties of the NETGEAR AC1200 are marketed with Wi-Fi 5 terminology, for example. Wi-Fi 4 devices for consumers are seemingly irrelevant, though some retailers include that designation in their listings. Either way, "common usage" doesn't matter in this case as those are designated by the Wi-Fi Alliance, which major manufacturers and the public (for Wi-Fi 6, anyhow) seem to accept. There is no reason to suddenly disregard the Wi-Fi Alliance regarding Wi-Fi 4/5 just because its retroactive or that nobody "wants outdated equipment". 130.44.162.172 (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Update on draft needed

Could an SME update following section?

Development of the 802.11be amendment is ongoing, with a goal of an initial draft by March 2021, and a final version expected by early 2024.

As March 2021 was over a year ago, did the goal succeed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:4804:1252:6D82:C4B2:16A0:D202 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Comparison Table - Stream data rate incorrect

Do people realise the stream rates are incorrect once MIMO kicks in?

The stream data rate is the total data rate. The stream data rate for 802.11ax for instance is 1,201 Mbps as the article has multiplied that by the MIMO count to give it the total bandwidth should someone implement the max MIMO count in the standards. Garth Power (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

drtgjvfrjg 27.114.165.166 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Client devices list

Does this article need a separate paragraph for each new device that supports Wi-Fi 7? There are currently five devices listed, each as its own paragraph. aps (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)