Talk:Vehicle-to-everything

Parts of this article seem to take the standpoint that cellular V2X (LTE-V2X or 5G-V2X) is better than decentralised communication under 802.11p (DSRC). From my reading, this is not a widely held position. The citations given to justify this standpoint are both documents produced by 5GAA. The documents are not peer reviewed, and 5GAA is specifically aligned with cellular V2X. This peer reviewed survey paper presents the opposite argument: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7115909 Very briefly, it finds that LTE can play an important role to support V2X networks, but can not provide the low latency required for safety applications. This white paper by NXP Semiconductors, Cohda Wireless, and Siemens presents roughly the same message, with the additional factor that 802.11p is more mature technology. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/public.1510309207.ab5935c545ee430a94910921b8ec75f3c17bab6c.its-g5-ready-to-roll-en.pdf I would recommend re-writing the page to take a more balanced viewpoint. The article can point out features of both technologies without expressing a preference. Chris.rapson (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This article seems to have very little to do with V2X systems. It deals almost exclusively with the underlying radio technology and hardly mentions the intelligent transportation functions that V2X is designed to achieve. Let's be clear the DSRC vs C-V2X debate is about Layer 1 and 2 of the OSI reference model. All of the interesting stuff in V2X takes place in the application layer. This article needs to be rewritten to give a more balanced analysis of the DSRC vs C-V2X debate and it should say much more about what V2X is really about and how it is intended to work. The radios just deliver packets. It is the higher layer packet processing that creates V2X. Hkc30 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

While the page focuses on transmission methods, it doesn't have the classification of the different groups, I think the "types" section can help understand the hierarchy of terms:

 * Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) - "communication between a vehicle and any entity that may affect, or may be affected by, the vehicle."
   * Vehicle-to-Device (V2D) - Bluetooth / WiFi-Direct, e.g. Apple’s CarPlay and Google’s Android Auto.
   * Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) - information exchange with the smart grid to balance loads more efficiently.
   * Vehicle-to-Network (V2N) - communication based on Cellular (3GPP) / 802.11p.
     * Vehicle-to-Cloud (V2C) - e.g. OTA updates, remote vehicle diagnostics (DoIP).
     * Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) - e.g. traffic lights, lane markers and parking meters.
     * Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) - e.g. wheelchairs and bicycles.
     * Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) - real-time data exchange with nearby vehicles.

Regarding vehicle-to-building (V2B), Vehicle-to-home (V2H) and Vehicle-to-load (V2L), they are parts of V2G but I don't know how to classify them. Xqgex (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe 'Vehicle to Everything' now means something other than what this page is about?

I work in the electricity industry, specifically in EV charging automation, and this page doesn't seem to be about what I see everyone using "V2X" to mean today. This page is specifically about communications technologies, but all the talk I see in my industry about V2G/H/L/V/X is about *energy flows* : e.g. V2G = energy moving from the vehicle to the grid, a.k.a. bidirectional charging; it's not about "information exchange with the smart grid".

Perhaps V2X was earlier used chiefly to refer these communication concepts, but if that was the case it may not be the primary meaning any more. I'd never heard these terms used in reference to comms tech until I opened this page. I've since done some googling on "what is vehicle to everything" and it is fairly mixed - definitely both definitions (comms tech and energy flows) have been in wide use by internet content writers. I note that the separate vehicle-to-grid Wikipedia page is about the energy flow usage of the term.

Anyone else got a strong & informed view on how widely this term is used for one or the other? --grlea (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Vehicle-to-everything → V2X – WP:COMMONNAME per ngrams — take a look. It’s not even a contest. V2X is the term used for this technology; Vehicle-to-everything isn’t. В²C ☎ 22:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ACRONYM. While acronyms and abbreviations are sometimes used in article titles, there are many examples of article titles that avoid using acronyms and abbreviations, even when they are more common. Looking over the sources, I think what is happening in the Google Ngrams is that sources will use the full term first, and thereafter use the abbreviation. Thus you get a large disparity in the Ngrams in favor of the abbreviation, even though the sources will usually also use the full term at least once. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, when something is known by its acronym far better than by the long name, we should use the acronym for the title. ACRONYM gives us that leeway so it’s not a reason to oppose, unless you’re arguing this topic is not known much better as V2X. —В²C ☎ 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • If most sources use the full name and then switch to the abbreviation, that doesn't really make the abbreviation that much more common. The abbreviation is just used more often as a convenience, not because the subject of the article is more commonly known as that. And to be completely honest with you, I had no idea that "V2X" is an abbreviation for "Vehicle-to-everything" before seeing this nomination and looking over the article. So yes, I am concerned that the average reader will not be familiar with the abbreviation "V2X". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • The name is V2X. “Vehicle to everything” is not the name. It just describes what the name stands for, what it means, why it has that name. This zdnet article is a good example:

“ V2X, which stands for 'vehicle to everything', is the umbrella term for the car's communication system ”

What’s the “umbrella term”? V2X. Not 'vehicle to everything'. —В²C ☎ 23:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• According to what shows up when you Google "V2X", most reliable sources first introduce the topic as "vehicle-to-everything" and then use V2X in body text. So that does seem to indicate that the acronym is not sufficiently common. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the derivative meaning of the term is naturally explained in many sources in case a reader doesn’t know, just as our article would do if this proposal is accepted, but the term used far most commonly to refer to this by topic is V2X, and that’s what our titles are supposed to reflect. Traditionally, WP chooses titles based on usage and recognition by those familiar with a given topic. If we made topics recognizable via title to those unfamiliar with each given topic, our titles would be very different. A few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM confirms that. And anyone familiar with this topic uses V2X practically exclusively to refer to it. I think it’s a disservice to our readers to imply otherwise, as the current title does. —В²C ☎ 17:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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.