Talk:Optical fiber connector

message: If there is a way to visually tell the difference between fiber connections (SC, LC, ST...) by looking at the ends, it would be very helpful to add it to this wiki. I'm having a hell of a time trying to eyeball the difference between different connections.  It also would be helpful to include (visual based) data such as:  
*  XXXXX connectors are always mounted as (one, two) (vertical, horizontal) ports
*  the XXXXX connector has a notch (on top, on bottom) 
*  simplex = one connector/cable, duplex=a pair connectors/cables
*  It would be helpful to have a picture of the end of a patch cable next to the connector type it fits into
*  it would be helpful to mention that connection caps are normally placed on the ends of fiber to protect them and need to be removed prior to use—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 November 2009 
:Yes, one can visually distinguish different fiber connectors. The differences between the common connectors are pretty obvious. Do the photos not help? More photos would, of course, be useful.
:FC connectors screw on and have a "key" for aligning the fiber rotation. SMA connectors screw on but don't have a key. ST connectors are similar to FC, but have a "bayonet" fitting rather than a screw thread, and the fiber tip is longer. LC and SC connectors are square; LC is smaller than SC.--Srleffler (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now an Image column in the main table. Not all connectors have an associated image. Any contributions are appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Identification 

message: Is insertion loss covered?  it'd be helpful to briefly mention that pluging and unpluging fiber connectors results in insertion loss due to XXXXX; and that there is a definite lifespan to the number of times one can do this without serious signal degradation—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 November 2009 
:Insertion loss is covered in several places. Mating cycles is also mentioned. A connection between the two is not discussed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Signal Degradation

message: I would like to add some information to this article about SMA 905 connectors:
* SMA 905 connectors are routinely used on scientific instruments, especially optical spectrometers.
* SMA 905 connectors have some similarity to SMA electrical connectors.
* There is a variant of the SMA 905 connector called 'keyed SMA'. It features a key on the connector ferrule that aligns with a slot in the corresponding receptacle. This ensures that the fibre angle is (more) consistent when making repeated connections and disconnections.
* The thread on SMA 905 connectors is...what?
129.215.139.65 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go ahead and add the information to the article yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Diameter is in the table as 3.17 mm (0.1247") and is sourced. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMA 905 connectors 

message: There are some really old (c. 2009) unsourced statements in this article, especially in the Mnemonics section. My google-fu may be off tonight, but I can't find any support for some of these claims that isn't self-referential.
Anyone have any thoughts? — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be only one remaining. It is in the SMA 906 row of the table. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really old unsourced statements? 

message: It would be nice to see examples of termination using the various connectors.  In my job, I terminate with only one type of connector by hand in the field, which is ST.  I can imagine SC, FC, etc. are similar because the block in my oven (we use thermal epoxy) has labels for them.  I'm also using in-house developed methods which work well on testing via OTDR and power meter.  But recently I've been reading forum posts and watching YouTube videos that indicate there are better methods.  We do all single mode, and all by hand, since fusion splicers are an expensive pain when they start to malfunction, and I can't (re)terminate in tight spaces with them (small telecom shacks that had a mouse-chew, for instance).  However, a lot of people seem to swear by factory term kits.
In any case, I have yet to find something I'd consider authoritative on the subject, just basically ads, opinions, and owner's manuals on websites.
I read in the other sections on this talk page that references cannot be commercial.  Does this mean if a reference is a white paper from Corning, it isn't considered authoritative?  Where is the line?  Such questions are difficult on such a commercially-driven industry as fiber optics.  Murasaki66 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Murasaki66. Wikipedia is not going to be a good source for the kind of detailed information you're going to want, on assembly techniques. By policy, we don't provide detailed "how-to" information on things; we're a general reference, not a source for detailed instructions. We can reference commercial sites, although of course reference works published by independent third parties are always preferred. We can use simple factual information companies publish about themselves and their own products when the material is not unduly self-serving or promotional. The detailed rules on this are at WP:SELFPUB. Commercial white papers are often cited in Wikipedia articles, although that is not always strictly allowed by the rules. When the material is not controversial and doesn't appear to be an attempt to promote the company or its products, the reference usually stands. Promotional material or material with doubtful claims gets removed.--Srleffler (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and thanks for the reply.  I went into a bit more detail of my personal experience than I should have and I think gave the impression I was looking for step-by-step directions.  I am more interested in commonly accepted techniques for termination.  Like the "testing" section, this would be simply a description of what is usually done or recommended by industry leading groups.  I've used other telecom articles as a springboard in this regard, and in fact the reason I started paying attention to this article in the first place is I've been referring to it in office e-mails with others just getting started in fiber practicals.  As an addition, I can provide a public domain picture to any such entry if it were appropriate.  It's just that I'm not an authority on the subject, nor do I know who is, and I would be interested to know something of general practices, especially on the monstrously large cables like 1728 fiber count Vocus installed in Sydney, Australia.  I think other's might be as well, and again I believe it does dovetail with the general purpose of the article in describing the connector types.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murasaki66 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it would be a good addition to the article, but I don't have the expertise to write it either. --Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two entries in the External links section pertaining to termination: , . An editor could use those as sources for a section on termination. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termination method section could be useful