Talk:Hostapd

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hostapd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Split[edit]

This is about two seperate programmes, it ought to be two seperate articles, either whichever is older or whichever sees more use should keep the current article and the other should be made into a new "hostapd (identifier)" article. 74.13.33.246 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They should be separated, they aren't the same program and shouldn't have the full content of both in the same article. Nick Garvey 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since the article is so small splitting it into two would only make it more difficult to find the information. The programs maybe different but they do the same thing and have the same name. It is inportant to make it clear that there are two separate programs. Also having two articles with one called "hostapd" and the other "hostapd"(identifier) would make the latter seem like a fork or other derivative and give the former a more formal status in my opinion. Or atleast make the current article the disambiguation page that links to the two others. 3 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.249.22 (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split declined based on the reasoning of 130.233.249.22. The article needs sourcing in order to establish notability. SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]