Talk:Category 6 cable

message: I think that CAT6 cable must be included in addition to actual 6A.
About C1 Standard, this is confusing, the linked page "The standard for Category 6A (augmented Category 6) is ANSI/TIA-568-C.1" However all seems indicate that is C2, not C1.
"The main standard, ANSI/TIA-568.0-D defines general requirements, while ANSI/TIA-568-C.2 focuses on components of balanced twisted-pair cable systems. ANSI/TIA-568.3-D addresses components of fiber optic cable systems, and ANSI/TIA-568-C.4, addressed coaxial cabling components."
"All these documents accompany related standards that define commercial pathways and spaces (TIA-569-C-1, February 2013), residential cabling (ANSI/TIA-570-C, August 2012), administration standards (ANSI/TIA-606-B, December 2015), grounding and bonding (TIA-607-C, November 2015), and outside plant cabling (TIA-758-B, April 2012)."
Since other references:
TIA-569-C-1:
Entry installations •    Main / Intermediate Cross-Connect) •    Back-bone distribution •    Horizontal Corss-Connect •    Horizontal Distribution •    Work areas
ANSI/TIA/EIA     568-C.2:
Balanced     Twisted-Pair     Cabling Components
https://blog.siemon.com/standards/ansitia-568-c-2-copper-cabling-and-components
"This Standard specifies the mechanical and transmission requirements of category 3, 5e, 6, 6A, and 8 balanced twisted-pair copper cabling and components."
https://blog.siemon.com/standards/ansitia-568-c-family-of-standards-overview
"As shown below, the generic infrastructure topology is actually fully consistent with the commercial building topology specified in TIA-568‑C.1."
"balanced twisted-pair channel and permanent link specifications are contained in TIA-568-C.2."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark 23 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About C1 C2 Standar 

message: Is there a reason why we don't include the period at the end of the abbreviated form in constructions such as "Cat. 6"?
UninvitedCompany 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cat 6, Cat. 6, Cat6 and CAT6 are all commonly used abbreviations. We like to keep terminology consistent at least within an article. The WP:MOS prefers simplicity and generally doesn't like extra punctuation and capital letters. However, we do like to use terminology that is already familiar to readers. Can you make a case that Cat. 6 is clearly the most common? ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat vs. Cat. 

message: Your newly added See also section with a single entry that is already linked in both the article body and in the bottom navbox is useless and in violation of WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. The exact same happens on Category 5 cable. Your reverting behavior is also in violation of WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. Please accustom yourself with those community rules and remove the useless section, or at least stop reverting removal. --Zac67 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i strongly disagree with wikipedia's current opinion on this.  no one can predict where and how readers view an entry, while wiki-links are probably the one feature that makes this online encyclopedia superior to non-digital encyclopedia (which have now copied wikipedia).  who knows if a reader will see links in the article or in the navbar?  are you sure they will look there?  since you cannot be sure, then why not foster the most information by adding to "see also" sections as well? Aboudaqn (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not digging into that flawed logic that would lead to severly bloated See also sections. If you disagree with that guideline you'll need to take it to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout. You can't simple ignore community decisions and do what you like. --Zac67 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree with @Zac67. I came here based on the third option post at WP:THIRD. And despite my respect for the unconventional argument by @Aboudaqn, with Cat 5 being mentioned so early on and being easy to search for, the justification to break from norms here is not convincing, to me. CT55555(talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Also here from WP:3O, and I agree with the above: taking the counterargument to its logical conclusion, if we were going to have a see also section there, there's a lot of other stuff of equal relevance - probably at least every link in the first sentence besides backward compatible. Including all of those seems unnecessary, and I see no reason to treat that one link specially.  ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'See also' for [[category 5 cable]]