Talk:Coverage (telecommunication)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The section on Rain Fade seems inappropriate here and I propose that it should be moved and expanded into its own article, and this article on coverage should also be expanded. MarkPos 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article seems about equally devoted to rain fade and to the topic covered in the somewhat larger, linked coverage map article, so the latter topic could be moved to that article. "Coverage" after all is a very vague term and if we lose the article entirely it's no great loss. Jim.henderson 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Jim, Not sure that I agree entirely! For a satellite engineer, at least, "coverage" is very important, so I'd not like to lose the article. My view is that "coverage map" is a sub-topic of "coverage", so probably the best way forward is: i) pull out the rain-fade stuff into a separate (and expanded) article; ii) move much of the material in the "coverage map" article to the "coverage" article; iii) make the "coverage map" article rather more focused on the *map* element. If there are no objections I'll have a go at reorganizing the material in this way. MarkPos 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- No-one objected, so I'm starting on these changes! MarkPos 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Jim, Not sure that I agree entirely! For a satellite engineer, at least, "coverage" is very important, so I'd not like to lose the article. My view is that "coverage map" is a sub-topic of "coverage", so probably the best way forward is: i) pull out the rain-fade stuff into a separate (and expanded) article; ii) move much of the material in the "coverage map" article to the "coverage" article; iii) make the "coverage map" article rather more focused on the *map* element. If there are no objections I'll have a go at reorganizing the material in this way. MarkPos 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
