Talk:Connection-oriented protocol

	This redirect 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This redirect is supported by Networking task force.

They are seperate entities within themselves but i see few reasons why you would want to look at one, without the other.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.64.98 (talk • contribs) .

Oppose And how do you plan on organizing their combination? They are seperate entities, and there is no umbrella term.

Kashami 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Connection-orarticle talks purely about connection-oriented protocols, whereas this article discusses not just the protocols, but a slightly more general use of the term. So, at very best, it looks like the two articles are the wrong way round. Not having a great deal of experience of editting Wikipedia, I'm not sure of the correct way to solve this. Should I just swap it around as I see fit, and then wait for comments/flames?

--W33v1l 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read that I should be bold, I've decided to have a go at fixing the above. I have now removed my previous merge proposal, because I believe these edits have precluded such a move by providing a sufficient difference between the two articles. If anybody objects to what I have done, I'm sure they'll let me know! --W33v1l 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Connection-oriented communication Regrding the suggestion to merge into Connection-oriented communication:

Support - of course. Same thing, and that article is more correct than this, since it also covers circuit switching. Mange01 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]