ADFS vs. AD FS

Hi, I just changed the initial "AD FS" to "ADFS", because the first form was unknown to me and I'm using this a lot. But it looks like both forms are being used indeed. "ADFS" is used more often (by far), but "AD FS" is probably "more correct". There are more places in this article that would need to get changed. So how should we continue? If "AD FS" is being used, we should probably add such a redirect page too. You decide - I was just passing by here. --193.134.254.20 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, if you type "AD FS STS" into google, you get prompted with "Did you mean 'ADFS STS' ?" Using "ADFS" would probably help the article rank higher in searches external to Wikipedia. Woolhiser (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake with Server Editions

In the Versions section, there appear to be a few mistakes

It currently states AD FS 1.1 is compatible with the same OS twice, as well as AD FS 2.0:

AD FS 1.1 - Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Server 2008 R2

AD FS 2.0 - Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (download from Microsoft.com)

My guess is that is supposed to read:

AD FS 1.1 - Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2

AD FS 2.0 - Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (available for download from Microsoft.com)

Can someone confirm and remediate?63.80.193.9 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I added some citations and removed the "citations Needed" tag from the page. It still could use more citations but I think it is now fair rather than poor. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]