Talk:IP over Avian Carriers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While the new "Possible Applications" represents a slight improvement, it still needs to be cleaned up or removed. It needs to be more explicitly claim (in a sourced fashion) that this would never be implemented in practicality. The current tone is more akin to going into the Dihydrogen monoxide article and talking about how many deaths were due to the substance. Such tidbits would be true, but they would not be encyclopedic. --Bletch 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article is about a joke. The article makes clear that it's about a joke. If you think that that section, specifically, needs to reiterate that the topic is a joke, that's fine, and if you make edits to that effect, that's wonderful; but I think it's very reasonable for an article about a joke to include factual information supporting the joke, even if the factual information isn't enough to turn it intoa non-joke. —RuakhTALK 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Like I said, the fact that the information in question is factual isn't the point. The problem is with how it is presented in a such a straight faced manner that reading it, one might suspect that it might in fact it be a practical method. Wikipedia articles about jokes cannot themselves be structured as jokes themselves. Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? I've attempted to rephrase the paragraph as a direct comparison of bandwidth, rather then the tougue-in-cheek crap that is currently there. On a side note, does this really qualify as a [fictional telecom protocol]? Sounds like that the protocol exists; even if its a totally unpractical protocol its still not fictional. --Bletch 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Even if pigeons get used for data transfer, do you really believe that IP would be the choice protocol? That's a very good point. In real life, pigeons don't have hands, so couldn't perform the three-way handshake properly. ;-)
-
-
-
- In all seriousness, though, I think your recent edit was a big improvement. :-)
-
