Talk:SEA-ME-WE 4

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of SEA-ME-WE 4 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article name

Why is this article called SEA-ME-WE 4 (cable system)? Is there something else called SEA-ME-WE 4 that I don't know about? -- Chuq 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Cheers. WLD^talk|edits 14:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing that I went to post this comment and the last discussion is a similar one also from me, but ... who on earth calls the system "South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe 4"? Yes, that is what it stands for, but it is never referred to in common speech as that. I highly recommend it be moved back. -- Chuq (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to use non-acronyms as titles unless there is a very strong preference for the acronymed name (e.g. IBM). The official project website gives the full name on every page. Why would it be preferable to not use the full name? All of the acronym possibilities (there doesn't seem to be an official one) redirect here. --Oldak Quill 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same as the example you just gave - "SEA-ME-WE" is a common name for the cable system, more common than the full name, and it is not ambiguous. Same as NATO, HTML, SQL and BBC -- Chuq (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the official project website http://www.seamewe4.com/ uses the full name throughout. There are also several different ways to abbreviate the full name (SEA-ME-WE 4, SEA ME WE 4, Sea Me We 4, SMW 4). IBM doesn't use "International Business Machines" anywhere - IBM is their name. South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe 4 (no matter how long and clunky it may be) is the official name for this project. It is merely abbreviated in a lot of use for convenience. --Oldak Quill 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is most commonly referred to as the shorter name. Look at Template:In the news! See examples at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Examples. -- Chuq (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rarelibra attempted to move this article back to SEA-ME-WE 4 by blanking the article and moving the contents to the redirect page (in so doing losing the article history). I reverted these edits based on them being a bad move (and breaking GFDL). It seems that SEA-ME-WE 4 is far more commonly used, but I think company-use and the official name is more important here. It seems clear that most people would prefer it at the abbreviated name, but before a move happens, can we decide what the move-to name should be: SEA-ME-WE 4 or the original SEA-ME-WE 4 (cable system) (I don't like this because I don't think disambiguated names should be used when they aren't needed). --Oldak Quill 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) concurs that the most popular name should be chosen (it doesn't mention anything about the operator's prefered usage...). I think the full name is quite descriptive and helpful, but based on guidelines and the consensus here, I will undertake a move. --Oldak Quill 10:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the cable snapping?

I'm in Delhi and the net seems to be working just fine. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Egypt and there was no way of connecting to the internet during the last two days, the connection has returned today but it is slower than the usual. More information can be found here[1]. --George (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break location

The article currently states that the Jan 30 break occurred 56 km from Dubai, citing a BBC.com article as source. This is an incorrect reading of that article, where 'the second cut' refers not to SeaMeWe-4 (one of the two cables cut on Jan 30) but to the 3rd cable, whcihc was cut on Jan 1st. (It was talking about FLAG, who owns 2 of the 3 affected cables. The Dubai/Oman cable was theirs.) I'm removing that.

I'm thinking of uploading a map showing where the breaks occurred. (I couldn't find a map anywhere, but seeing them laid out seems to strongly favor this being the effects of weather.) Would this be welcome? -Deriksmith (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing this up. On re-reading the article, I see that it doesn't refer to the location of the SEA-ME-WE 4 break. The image would be very much appreciated. Would it just feature the SEA-ME-ME 4 break or the breaks to two or all three of the cables? --Oldak Quill 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this damage mean we get a break from telemarketers? Comradeash (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the coordinates of the landing points near the cuts? I looked at Google Earth for Alexandria, Egypt but couldn't find it. Landing points are not secret, they are widely published in marine charts so that ships can avoid them, so the data in principle shouldn't be hard to find. Karn (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Long?

"The cable is either approximately 18 800[1] or 20 000[2] kilometres long"

Can someone decide which it is please? This makes the article look rather silly, especially now its on the front page. Rhialto (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to decide what is true. Different sources give different lengths (all prefixed with "approximately"). If I had to guess, I'd say that 18 800 is more accurate and 20 000 is just a matter of rounding-up, but I have no evidence to decide either way. We should report any conflicts accurately and not obscure either possibility. --Oldak Quill 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it has something to do with the crushing depths that some of the cable is in...or something equally obscure. Comradeash (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the actual cable?

I'll add to Wikipedia:Requested pictures this article - would be nice to have a shot of the actual cable. Presumably this would be before some segment got actually laid down. Tempshill (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 cables in 4 days

The fourth cable has been cut. Someone is up to no good. I think this might be a prelude to invasion of Iran.[2]. Perhaps there should be a new article created for all of these cable cuttings and related information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.164.46 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 submarine cable disruption is the preferred page considering one of the disruptions was just off Marseille. Ansell 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)