Talk:8P8C

message: Although not the best method for people learning this information, the technically correct statement is xDSL (ADSL/SDSL). 
It would be best to spell it out in something like this:
RJ45 (8P8C) connectors are commonly used with Ethernet and Fast-Ethernet Unshielded and/or Shielded Twisted Pair (UTP/STP) cabling. With the expanded availability of broadband Internet service, the cable connecting either an Asynchronous or a Synchronous Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL/SDSL) modem to a computer is the most easily locatable example of this system. 
-- Enquiren 69.144.174.114 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  xDSL 

message: The section on naming ambiguity has been marked as seeming not to be written in formal tone.  I wrote that section, and would like to correct that to Wikipedia standards, but I would like more guidance.  Formal tone usually reduces the comprehensibility of writing, so as a technical writer, I'm conditioned to avoid it.  So while I can see several things in the section that could be more formal, I don't want to change them based just on a guess that it's what others find insufficiently formal.
Can someone give specific examples of insufficient formality?
This is a very important section; I believe many users of this article will be specifically trying to resolve some confusion they have about naming.  So it ought to be as clear as possible, which tends to imply written in the language of the reader.
Bryan Henderson 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the guide technically says about writing style, but that section of the article definitely does not seem (to me) to meet the criteria for encyclopaedia content. As just one example, using first- and second-person pronouns as far as i know is frowned upon in this context. Even if the rules don't say that anything about that, every other article on the site follows that convention, so it's inappropriate to use them in this article. I'll try to 'improve' it, hope nobody minds. ~ Lav-chan 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, could that whole section not be considered original research? I don't see any sources. I mean i'm sure it's true, but it has to have been written by somebody else of repute first. As i'm sure you're all aware. :/ ~ Lav-chan 20:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: Much of this article does not seem to be written in correct Wikipedia format.
4.154.50.145 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Format 

message: not all connectors used for networking actually have all 8 pins present, and a descriptive title is probablly better than introducing yet another poorly understood acronym. Plugwash 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest move to 8 position modular connector 

message: This sentence seems to have been written by someone familiar with much older applications of this technology.
It neither uses all eight conductors (but only two of them for wires plus two for shorting a programming resistor) nor does it fit into 8P8C because the true RJ45 is "keyed".
This was true about 10 years ago, but since then Full-Duplex operation has become almost universally adopted - and Full-Duplex does actually use the remaining two pairs.
Also, how is an '8P8C' connector not keyed? I've just made sure by trying to put mine in the wrong way and it can't go.
87.194.8.35 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older information? 

message: i believe the lede is incorrect. it states "8P8C neither uses all eight conductors (but only two of them for wires plus two for shorting a programming resistor) nor does it fit into RJ45 because the true 8P8C is "keyed". Despite this, 8P8C modular connectors are nearly always called "RJ45" — which leads to a lot of confusion when telecommunication professionals meet with network installers." but that's almost a non-sequitur. 8p8c is a standard for the connector, and has nothing to do with whether or not a given wire in the cable is used. 8p8c connectors cabled for gigabit ethernet connections require all four pairs for signaling, whereas 100TX only requires two pairs. this is independent of the connector itself. clarity needed! Anastrophe 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion 

message: Why does the search RJ45 redirect to this page when there is a page for RJ45? Is this a mistake or what...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.85.160 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJ-45??? 

message: What is that tab of plastic that keeps the connector in the socket called? You have to push it down to remove it. Looking for the technical definition.... Could we add that to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.20.214 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The piece of plastic that keeps it locked in 

message: Thanks to whoever added that to the article. I required confirmation that RJ11 plug will work in RJ45 socket for some home wiring. The article gave me that as well as the information on what pair to use. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 8P8C → RJ-45 — WP:UCN dictates that this article should be at the most commonly used title, and that is RJ-45. Here are a few published references that specifically attest to the widespread usage of RJ-45 over 8P8C:   . Note that these books are quite critical of the 8P8C terminology, noting that only "networking purists" and "the nerdiest of nerds" use this terminology, and everyone else ignores it. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I really don't feel qualified to weigh in above on the move request, although I would prefer to see correct naming over common naming when talking about technical standards and not other more fleshy topics. That said:
RJ-45 terminology is three orders of magnitude more common than 8P8C, according to this unscientific Google search tool. As such, even if the article shouldn't be renamed, we plainly owe the reader a better explanation. If anything, Registered Jack has a better explanation than this article does of this article's own name. Simply saying "often incorrectly called RJ45)" in parentheses is vaguely insulting given the common usage. 
Also note that the see also section has at least one ugly redirect and probably needs to be axed or rewritten to comply with the WP:MOS. MrZaiustalk 03:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, this is a huge mess as partially outlined in Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal. I was thinking an addition of  in a section for this in Modular connector with Registered jack naming confusion redirected to Registered jack#Naming confusion as a  would probably be the easiest way to go about clarifying this. It would also allow us to address all the different Registered jacks that tend to get attributed to various modular plugs; e.g. RJ11 (instead of say RJ14 and RJ25) for 6P2C, 6P4C, and 6P6C, RJ22 for 4P4C, RJ50 for 10P10C, etc. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Modular connector#Nomenclature. This section of course still needs to be expanded as things are merged and cleaned up. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, partially done, pending merging. I did notice there is a  at the top of 8P8C while editing. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, but the thing that irks me the most is that the only place the confusion is mentioned in the prose, it is so quickly and curtly brushed aside that it seems almost insultingly condescending. Not sure how to resolve the situation without duplicating the work at Registered jack in the interim, but maybe that wouldn't be so bad en route to a merge. MrZaiustalk 11:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MrZaias, and I am qualified to weigh in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that MrZaias and I are in disagreement? I certainly wish there were a few more editors with an interest/background in this area involved in the larger cleanup task here though. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It appears there used to be an entire section that covered the RJ45 naming confusion. While combing through the revision history of the article while sorting out redirects, I found it had been edited out. I'm going to see if I can reintroduce some of the material. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an interesting solution - Thanks for doing the leg work. MrZaiustalk 04:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reintroduced some of the material and rewrote the lead to include information on the RJ45 naming confusion. I'm still working on adding some other missing information though, such as the difference between plugs that are made for stranded vs solid wire. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJ-45 - Better explanation needed