Talk:Cisco Catalyst

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cisco Catalyst 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

Archives: 1: 365 days

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).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was to move and was there for the proposed name. If anyone thinks that Catalyst (switch) is the better choice, free free to renominate to discuss that option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst switch → Cisco Catalyst — These are the Catalyst series switches by Cisco, "switch" is a disambiguatory term. It would be better to call them Cisco Catalyst than use a disambig term outside of parens. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment: As a product line that is not widely known, I wonder if it might make more sense to leave "switch" in the article title than to add the company name as an alternative disambiguator. See MOS:TM, which recommends editors say "Rolex watches" rather than simply "Rolexes", even though Rolex is more widely known. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This product line is widely known. It's one of the most popular line of infrastructure switches. And shouldn't that be "Rolex (watch)" instead of "Rolex watches"? Which in this case would be "Catalyst (switch)". Though a catalyst is something in chemistry that assists chemical reactions, so a catalyst switch is the change in catalysts, following standard English grammar, so the disambiguated form of this title is still ambiguous. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that MOS:TM applies more to article content than article title. Catalyst (switch) would make sense to me, as would Cisco Catalyst. I'm not sure which is preferable. I'll leave it to other editors to (hopefully) voice their opinion. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging Stackwise

I saw the merge-proposal for Cisco Stackwise. Imho Stackwise is just a feature in a line of Catalyst switches and doesn't need its own article; and even if it would: the Q of the original article is not meetig Wiki standards. Therefore did a quick merge ad redird the old link.JanT (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

Just updating version 12.2(33)to SXJ and mentioning the 15.1.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chigibby (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... to date

It would be nice to specify the date of the "to date". Why? It seems that it is up till now, but the today date is advancing everyday, and some of these "to date" may be untrue already. 193.219.179.254 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we're talking about the "No EoL notices to date" entries. We could just change those to "No EoL notices". That might address your concern. It doesn't keep time from advancing though. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These model lists are getting far out of date (already marked as such) earlier this year. We were down to a single "No EoL notices announced to date" entry. I have removed that because I assume I might find one were I to look. ~Kvng (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]