Talk:LTE (telecommunication)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that the acronym is the common name here. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LTE (telecommunication) → Long-Term Evolution (telecommunication) – The old name is only an acronym for the technology. The new name corrects this issue. The acronym should link to the full name. – Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). older ≠ wiser 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions prefer common usage over official terms. LTE by far the more common usage. I expect most folks wouldn't even recognize the spelled out version. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect people to recognise the full name when searching for the mobile standard. If a search for "LTE" would link to "Long-Term Evolution (telecommunications)" clearly visible on top of the list that would be fine also from my point of view. I also see no opposition to the wiki naming convention here. The poposal targets the structuring and logical construction of articles around modern and widespread mobile communication standards within the wiki teleommunications project. Contribution to a logical structuring including the setting of useful #REDIRECTS has already been done in mos parts where necessary. I've created a table to visualize this structuring on a personal userpage (here). It is not fully complete by now, but I suppose one can see the idea behind it already. I really consider it necessary as there are to many articles (about similar topics that actually belong together. Readers can't easily navigate around, orientate themselves and finally sheer trees do not see the forest. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – are we sure that Long-Term Evolution is even the official name? From looking at sources, it appears that it may to the motivation for the standard initialism, but perhaps not the official name. It is variously styled in sources, sometimes without the hyphen, sometimes without caps; not very official-name-like, it appears. The official site seems to say the LTE is the name; it doesn't mention what it stands for until the second section, and then only parenthetically. So I think the premise of this move request may be wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at UMTS we have the same situation just from the other perspective. Here "UMTS" is the common use, but the article is named "Universal Mobile Telecommunication System". (This would by the way also oppose to the naming convention according to User:Bkonrad's point of view.) Regarding you comment: If the official name differs (slightly) from the proposed new title, of course this should be the choice. I don't question that. The more general message is that the naming scheme for the main articles GSM, UMTS and LTE at least should be the same. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some terms have greater popular currency than others. I'd never heard of UTMS before. I had some awareness of GSM as the other of two options compared to CDMA for a long time which made big difference in which phone models worked with which carrier. I don't actually care that much about GSM (which is also being discussed) as it is somewhat more obscure than LTE, which most anyone looking at phones these days is bombarded with. It is never (or extremely rarely) referenced as Long Term Evolution in most common contexts. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The current title seems to be the
  WP:SURPRISE for most readers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. As discussed above, this request contradicts Wikipedia's naming conventions, wherein common usage outweighs official designations. Nightwalker-87 appears to be under a mistaken belief that articles "belong to" WikiProjects (the wording used
  David Levy 00:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "LTE" over all other subjects listed at LTE? That very well may be true... Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• David Levy 01:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What are your ideas when you compare the titles "GSM" , "Universal Mobile Telecommunication System" and "LTE (telecommunication)"? These are currently the article names of these three major telecommunication technologies on wikipedia and I consider them all beeing
  WP:COMMONNAME this is not desireable, as the common name is "UMTS". LTE instead is adressed with the addition (telecommunications), that does make sense as well to allow distinuging links between LTE as the mobile standard and the disambiguation page of "LTE". This should also be taken under consideration equally for "GSM". What I am adressing here is less the proposed topic but more that there is a unique way according to applicable wiki rules and a logical structure for article naming in the three technology fields, which is mostly the case already (see here). Maybe it is also a solution to keep the title for "LTE" and adress the other two instead, so that all follow the same naming scheme in the end. I hope to have made things clearer now. From the evolution of this discussion I believe that there can be a common solution to adress this issue without dismissing any wiki-rules. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Steel1943: this would have been an option indeed, but I do believe that it is a good idea to keep the supplement for direct clarification from the title. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.