Talk:Core network

Added {{technical}} tag

It seems like the article uses a bunch of abbreviations and technical shortcuts. Ideally these could be explained better. Cheers. --slakr 07:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is replete with English grammatical errors and too many acronyms that are not spelled out

RapidKevin (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion unnecessary - there's already a proposed merger

If this article ends up being a redirect to backbone network, that means it won't be deleted, it'll be turned into a redirect. There's already a merge template in the article proposing that it be merged into backbone network. Guy Harris (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy Harris -- the merger tag was applied a year and a half ago. I copied the text over. If you agree, I'll redirect. Then we can put this one behind us. I get the impression someone copied the whole Bell System glossary into WP without any references. These unreferenced telecomms definitions are all over the place. Rhadow (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If backbone network now says as much about pre-IP telecom networks as this page used to say, you might as well just redirect. (Hopefully we're avoiding Wikipedia:Recentism by not talking about those networks as if they're all IP-based.) Guy Harris (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy Harris -- An IP editor deleted the PROD and unreferenced tags, pointing only at a similar unreferenced article as justification. Look at what I copied over to backbone network and see if it looks OK. Rhadow (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is sound. Please redirect, sooner the better. Bosons (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]