Talk:Star network

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star network 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

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	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 Mid-importance).

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

expensive?

is it really still opjbjkh0ohlm, vgi90 n other networks? especially when i can pick up a wifi router for $5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.99.54 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a star network is "expensive" to deploy. Compared to what? Imprecise at best, but I'm looking into this. Savant45 09:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads "due to the number and length of cables needed to wire each host to the central hub" with ref. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

How about some history and practical usage examples? --Highwind 08:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "router" in the first paragraph is improper and inconsistent with the definition given in the link. Also, under advantages, collisions still exist when connected via a hub; only when a star network connected via a switch are collisions avoided. This is a function of the switch, not the cabling. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.115.57.157 (talk • contribs) .

Tagged as confusing

Apperantly someone has recently made some silly vandalism to this page. Will someone look into this?

The way this article is written doesn't provide a lot of context for readers not familiar with the subject and as such it may not make a lot of sense to the general public. Someone adequately familiar with it should rewrite it with some better language and context to make it friendlier to the average reader and not just the IT professional. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there ever was a tag, it was removed at some point. The article makes sense to me but I'm an IT professional. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the real benefits compared to a dual-ring topology?

Let's say cost is a secondary consideration. Is a (dual) star topology more reliable than a dual ring? The application I have is dynamic positioning of ships. A control system failure could be catastrophic - both in lives and assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.215.153.252 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Requires a large cable to be connected.", oh really? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dual star topology can potentially withstand multiple failures. A self-healing ring can only ever withstand one. ~Kvng (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be more concise.

Appears to have been rewritten since complain ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The introduction to this article seems very repetitive as if numerous contributors added similar sentences and phrases without editing/deleting similar content. I really think that it needs to be re-written by someone familiar with the concepts so that it is more concise and focused.

For example:

The sentences (1st para): "This consists of a central node, to which all other nodes are connected; this central node provides a common connection point for all nodes through a hub. In star topology, every node (computer workstation or any other peripheral) is connected to a central node called a hub or switch. " seem circular and could use some editing.

I suggest that the paragraph, "It is also designed with each node (file servers, workstations, and peripherals) connected directly to a central network hub, switch, or concentrator" be deleted or revised as it repeats previous text.

The concepts contained in the sentence, "Data on a star network passes through the hub, switch, or concentrator before continuing to its destination" has already been included in previous text.

Diddy1960 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No to merging

NOT MERGED

Merge opposed by consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both very different technologies and terms. Not 'apples for apples' *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In modern networking terminology, "Point to Multipoint" and "Star" are separate and distinct. A "Star" network implemented using wireless technology would generally be separate Point to Point links from the central location to the remote sites. OxfordScience (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Point to multi-point is not always a star. A PMPP could be a multi-drop serial line, with each slave acting as an active repeater or passive connection to the next slave down the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakehawkes42 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed. I have removed the merge banners. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.