Talk:Associativity-based routing

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 7 September 2018

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: Consensus to not move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity-based routing → Associativity-Based Routing – Specific patented protocol and so is a proper noun ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. General English grammar rules are that the second word in a hyphenated word is not capitalized unless it is a proper noun on its own (e.g. "Anglo-Saxon"), which "based" is not. If this is in fact a proper noun, then it should be "Associativity-based Routing". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with Associativity-based Routing if that's what grammar dictates. It doesn't sound like you're contesting proper noun status of the subject itself which is what I'm trying to straighten out here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As both the suggested uppercase and current lowercase are used in parallel and since the otherwise grammatically correct "Associativity-based Routing" is not commonly used, I prefer the current lower case. See some examples for lower case usage below. I suspect that scientific and other professionals that use "Associativity-Based Routing" (at times without hyphen) like the fact that the caps correspond with the abbreviation. We should prefer the solution that is both commonly used and grammatically correct. gidonb (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity-Based Routing for Ad Hoc Mobile Networks | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008812928561

by CK Toh - ‎1997 - ‎Cited by 1245 - ‎Related articles

In an ad-hoc mobile network where mobile hosts (MHs) are acting as routers and where routes are made inconsistent by MHs' movement, we employ an associativity-based routing scheme where a route is selected based on nodes having associativity states that imply periods of stability.

Long-lived ad-hoc routing based on the concept of Associativity, IETF ...

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-longlived-adhoc-routing-00.txt

Abstract This document describes the associativity-based long-lived routing (ABR) protocol for ad hoc mobile networks.

Self-Adaptive Trust Based ABR Protocol for MANETs Using Q-Learning

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/452362/

by A Vijaya Kumar - ‎2014 - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles

Jul 9, 2014 - Our work focuses on computing a score using Q-learning to weigh the trust of a particular node over associativity based routing (ABR) protocol.

Associativity-based routing | Revolvy

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Associativity%252Dbased-routing?

Associativity-based routing[1][2][3][4] (commonly known as ABR) is a mobile routing protocol invented for wireless ad hoc networks or also known as mobile ad ...

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.

The content of this article is problematic

This issue was brought up in the AFD discussion linked above. I think we've noticed that this article is pretty promotional and isn't quite up to Wikipedia's standards at the moment. It doesn't help that this is a topic that requires a lot of technical knowledge. It would be helpful if editors who are knowledgeable about the topic area could rewrite this article to be more encyclopedic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]