Talk:Autonegotiation

message: nWay needs to be used for the company that made ChronoBlade and Power Rangers Legacy Wars.
:This should go to Talk:NWay, not here. nWay Games would also need to be created first, then NWay can be changed to a disambiguation page. --Zac67 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Redirect from NWay 

message: In page title uses the spelling "Autonegotiation" while parts of the article use "Auto-negotiation" consistently.
Which spelling ist correct? Should the article be harmonized to one variant?
BlueEntity (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the article should follow the article title (Autonegotiation) until/unless someone brings forward a successful proposal to change the title. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm proposing to rename the article to Auto-Negotiation. Reason: original spelling used by IEEE, see 802.3 Clause 28; seems also more grammatically correct --Zac67 (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the official name. Do you think this is also the WP:COMMONNAME? ~Kvng (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hard to tell. According to Google, "Auto-Negotiation" and "Auto Negotiation" are equally popular (~1.4M) while "Autonegotiation" gets only 15% of that (~220k). That pretty much matches my own perception. --Zac67 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  seems to have a good argument for a rename to Auto-Negotiation (or should it be Auto-negotiation?) ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling: "Autonegotiation" or "Auto-negotiation"

message: has converted the priority list to a table. I don't find the table particularly easy to read and would prefer to revert back to a simple numbered list but, before I go there, I wonder if anyone else is loving the table or has any ideas for improving it. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about the same thing – the table isn't all bad, but not that good either. Seconding revert. --Zac67 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a slow-moving page so I was still able to do this revert today. ~Kvng (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, 3 years later! MisterSanderson (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Table vs list

message: , you took my recent work a bit further. I know that 802.3u was incorporated into 802.3 clause 28. Usually, this is a rote editorial process but the text before all of this left open the possibility that there were some changes when that happened here. Do you know whether this was the case? I have a memory of dealing with fast Ethernet links that did not autonegotiate but were able to set speed but not duplex. Maybe this was pre-standard implementations or maybe I'm thinking of fiber connections. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There were quite a few pre-IEEE 100BASE-TX products out there before 802.3u was published and even after for quite some time – times were pretty different back then, IEEE wasn't that important. I remember single-speed 100M hubs (3Com Superstack II Hub TX) and non-negotiating switches (3Com Switch 3000 TX) in 1996/97 – we actually routed between 10M and 100M. However, the paragraph talks about the IEEE standard and it contained both 100M and Autonegotiation (obviously, NWay preceeded IEEE Autoneg as well). If more history is desired we should rephrase.  --Zac67 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  802.3u vs. 802.3 clause 28