Talk:8P8C

Archives

xDSL

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)[reply]

I thought ADSL/SDSL stood for Asymmetric.../Symmetric 213.143.18.224 16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It is Asymmetric.../Symmetric based on whether the available bandwidth is unequally or equally distributed to transmit/receive operation. Asynchronous and Synchronous are typically used in a different context and not related to xDSL technologies.

The "x" in xDSL is a variable that can refer to the "A" of ADSL (Asymmetric) or the "S" (Symmetric) of SDSL or the "H" (High-rate) of HDSL, etc.; xDSL is the blanket term for all types of Digital Subscriber Lines collectively, it is not in itself a specific type of DSL (don't ask me why they couldn't just have DSL with no additional letter stand for the collective technologies). JohannVII (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confusion/ambiguity

The registered jack name for telephone wiring is RJ11. The registered jack name for ethernet wiring is RJ45. This is neither ambiguous nor confusing. The confusion comes when ethernet cabling (with RJ45 connectors) is used for multiline phone systems. The point is moot, however, with VOIP replacing POTS in homes and businesses across the country. Xalorous 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the registered jack names are for telephone wiring. RJ11 is the common single-line telephone wiring, and RJ45 is a special single-line modem wiring. The RJ45 registered jack has nothing whatsoever to do with Ethernet. The "jacks" are called "registered" because their specifications were registered with the FCC. The "RJ45" that was registered with the FCC was the modem one (the two middle wires are tip and ring of the modem line, the next two are for a programming resistor that tells the modem how much line loss to expect in that particular run).

Your comment proves, however that the naming is ambiguous and confusing. Because you heard the Ethernet version of RJ45 first, you find the confusion is due to use of Ethernet wires for telephones. Ask any telephone installer from the 1970s, and he will tell you the confusion is due to Ethernet wiring being installed in buildings that already had phone wiring, with the network engineers misunderstanding the registered jack system.

-- Bryan Henderson 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem with this article is that "telephone" RJ45 is effectively dead, being an obsolete modem cabling standard, and "Ethernet" RJ45 is alive, well, and the commonly used description for the connector. I don't frequently time-travel back to the 1970s to talk to telephone installers, but I do frequently talk to suppliers, and order RJ45 jacks and plugs for Ethernet use. If I start trying to call it 8P8C, it will thoroughly confuse everyone else involved, since they use RJ45 to describe the connector. A Google search quickly verifies that RJ45 is FAR more common than 8P8C, and I would contend that with the original use dead, common usage makes RJ45 correct, and 8P8C is a much less common secondary term.

-- XeroxKleenex 10:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I took a CISCO class for computer repair in a vocational setting, and then a CISCO networking class. In both of these two classes, they referred to 8P8C as RJ45, which to me means the terms are interchangeable, even in very technical context.Macai 12:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If RJ45 and 8P8C are not the same thing, why does RJ45 redirect to 8P8C? Doesn't make much sense. --Devnevyn 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is very confusing. The first sentence in the article says, basically, that 8P8C is the same as RJ45. (The article is titled "8P8C," but the first line says "These connectors are properly called RJ45.") But then only a few sentences later, it says that "The 8P8C modular plugs and jacks look very similar to the…RJ45," implying that they are NOT the same. (Emph. mine) Which is it?! Are they the same thing or not? If they're not the exact same thing, then it seems like there ought to be two separate pages, one on 8P8C, and one on RJ45. The 8P8C one might say that people commonly call it an "RJ45", but that RJ45 actually means something else, with a redirect to the page discussing it more precisely. But the page as it stands right now is confusing and self-contradictory. --Kadin2048 06:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seriously, who the #$&@ cares what RJ45 used to mean to telephone installers in the 70s. Clearly everyone producing ethernet hardware these days labels the connectors as RJ45. The article can talk about the 70s phone interface stuff somewhere down at the bottom, but it shouldn't be so prominent. This whole freaking RJ45/8P8C article mess is just about some bull@#%5 no one cares about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.80.254 (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion seems to come from the fact that the Registered Jack specifications are wiring standards FOR JACKS (not modular connector terminations for cables). The article is confusing because the distinction between physical form-factor, electrical wiring, and pinouts (for both plugs and jacks) is never made clear. For example, RJ-11, RJ-14, and RJ-25 all typically use jacks with the same form-factor, 6-pin, but have 2,4, and 6 connections respectively. One may use a 6P6C plug and wire it for use with an RJ-11 jack, only connecting two of the contacts to wires, but the connector still has 6 pin slots and 6 contact points, so a 6P6C modular plug can be accurately described an RJ-11 CONNECTOR (or RJ-14, or RJ-25), but an RJ-11 JACK is a rigidly defined by a certain wiring scheme. By the same token, 8P8C connectors and jacks refer to a physical form factor (USOC-8) with 8 contact points; since these CAN BE wired in accordance with the RJ-45 spec, it's a bit reductionist but not actually wrong to call them RJ-45 jacks and plugs. It's certainly MORE correct to simply call them 8P8C, and if one is going to use RJ-45 in the description, something like "RJ-45-Style" would be best. I agree that the RJ-45 redirect to 8P8C is flat out wrong; a redirect to "Registered jack" would be better, and a disambiguation page listing at minimum 8P8C, a page on the actual RJ-45 wiring standard, and T568A/B wiring would be best. But RJ-11 as an idiom for 6P6C and RJ-45 for 8P8C are probably here to stay, like Xerox for photocopy and Kleenex for facial tissue, and railing against it isn't going to help. JohannVII (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles does not ask for the use of any "formal tone". In fact, your tone is neither offensive nor hard to follow. To inform people about the confusion that lead to the use of "RJ45" in computer network wiring, I can't think of a more appropriate way of writing than yours. And first of all: It's just fun to read. That's why I'll delete the "inappropriate tone" flag (while the template of this flag itself is marked as "not verified"). If someone finds an even better way of writing, she/he still can help improve. --Jhartmann 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can think of a more appropriate thing to say about RJ45 vs 8P8C.

The plugs for twisted pair ethernet ARE the plugs for Rj45 , which are clearly RJ45 plugs. That is all that matters.

If this article was about RJ45 wiring, Then and only then would it be wrong to confuse RJ45 and ethernet.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to be so pendantic and so anal and so misleading , its more than just tone at fault, its stupid "someone told me that it was wrong" hearsay put on as the truth

RJ45 plugs are not restricted to use in RJ45 wiring, so ethernet happily uses RJ45 plugs, its really really simple 202.92.40.202 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Format

Much of this article does not seem to be written in correct Wikipedia format. 4.154.50.145 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggest move to 8 position modular connector

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)[reply]

Older information?

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)[reply]

confusion

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)[reply]

RJ-45???

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)[reply]

Wiring diagrams

Came here for the great wiring diagram that used to be at RJ45. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Clarification: Whats the difference between a CAT-5e Ethernet Cable and a RJ-45 Cable?

Is this correct: They are the same thing, RJ45 is the Technical term for Ethernet cable. If so, maybe this should be clarified in the article. Inclusionist (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are a bit confusing. My understanding of the facts is as follows

RJ numbers do not reffer to connectors alone but to a connector and it's wiring for a specific telephony purpose.
The connectors themselves are most properly known as "modular connectors" and specified by the number of pins and the number of pin positions plus extra details if required for unusual keying or tab position. Under this scheme the connector used for ethernet would be reffered to as an 8P8C modular connector.
The networking industry (ab)uses the term RJ45 to reffer to the 8P8C modular connector (despite the fact that the real RJ45 standard doesn't use a plain 8P8C connector but a variant of it)
Some wiki editors have waged a war against the use of the RJ45 name for ethernet despite it being the most common term. Personally I think this is a bad move but I'm not personally planning to revert it.

-- Plugwash (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The piece of plastic that keeps it locked in

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)[reply]

Thank you

In floodwired [3] environments the center (blue) pair is often used to carry telephony signals. Where so wired, the physical layout of the 8P8C modular jack allows for the insertion of an RJ11 plug in the center of the socket, provided the RJ11 plug is wired in true compliance with the U.S. telephony standards (RJ11) using the center pair.
— From article

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1] [2] [3]. 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)[reply]

Strong Oppose Absolutely not. The industry standard and correct name for these connectors is 8P8C. A true RJ45 is a registered jack with a specific wiring configuration which is not compatible at all with a twisted pair network cable. The same thing holds true for 4P4C, 6P6C, and 10P10C and other forms of modular connectors. While some people may call a 6P6C a RJ11, a true RJ11 is also a registered jack with a specific wiring pattern. It doesn't matter if the handful of books you linked are critical of the naming or not, these connectors are still called 8P8C and not RJ45.
Note that RJ45 and RJ-45 both redirect here and not registered jack due to common misuse of the term RJ45.
--Tothwolf (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I might as well mention some books too... I think page 245 in LAN Wiring [4] ISBN 0071357769 probably describes the RJ-45 naming confusion the best. Lets also go straight to the source. These two BICSI books make it quite clear that the correct name for these is 8P8C but that people often refer to them as RJ-45. BICSI Telecommunications Cabling Installation [5] ISBN 0071372059 BICSI Residential Network Cabling [6] ISBN 0071382119
  --Tothwolf (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — WP:UCN. As an Electronics tech by trade, I know that what Tothwolf is saying is factually true, but that's not what we're concerned with here. The article references, and predominant non-specialist coverage, uses "RJ-45" for better or worse in order to talk about 8P8Cstandard connectors. 8P8C is, by now, nothing but techno-speak. It's very similar to using "Kleenex" to talk about tissue paper, for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I too have a background in this area... I find the actual manufacturers of these connectors tend to refer to both names, depending on the particular literature and target audience. As for common usage, I strongly disagree. I find both names in common use. To call a generic 8P8C modular connector a RJ-45 only serves to reinforce improper use of the term RJ-45. (Again, see page 245 in LAN Wiring [7] ISBN 0071357769) for the specifics as to why an 8P8C should not be called an RJ-45.
  While I don't think WP:UCN applies here at all, WP:UCN#Do not overdo it would seem to indicate that 8P8C is still the correct name for this article. The article lead already mentions both names and uses a hatnote for registered jack. The whole 8P8C vs RJ-45 rename issue will be moot when this article is merged anyway.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another worthwhile read is [8] which is linked from Talk:Registered jack#Naming Confusion --Tothwolf (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The point is, I only ever see 8P8C in tech manuals, trade publications, and tech market specific catalogs. Pretty much everywhere else (like... most everywhere on the 'net) uses the generic RJ-45 name. This is a lost battle, in the general public demographic. It certainly can and should be covered in the article, though (which I see is already done), and such content should actually be more effective if the article actually lives at the "incorrect" name regardless.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Where I most often find 8P8C connectors referred to as RJ-45s is the computer networking field. In the telecommunications field they are usually referred to as 8P8C. In the general electronics field, I find it's a mixed bag.
  IMO what we ultimately need in Modular connector and Registered jack are sections that detail the naming confusion. A similar thing happens with RJ11 vs 6P6C, 6P4C, etc and lots of other modular connectors (see the photo and caption at the top of the Registered jack article for some more examples). I even see people refer to 10P10C modular connectors as RJ50.
  Just because many people in the IT/networking field have over time taken to misusing the RJ-45 name because they don't realize that RJ stands for a specific wiring configuration of a modular connector or jack in the registered jack system doesn't mean we should perpetuate the problem and use the wrong name here. This is very different from your "Kleenex" example above because this isn't a case of a Genericized trademark, which is what has happened with "Kleenex".
  Ultimately, due to how the RJ-45 name is used, both RJ-45 and RJ45 should probably redirect to TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination anyway. This is something I uncovered while mapping things out for Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal. Even #Wiring diagrams tends indicate that RJ-45 and RJ45 should really point to TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination since that is where that content is located.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I know what you're saying, but the crux if the matter is that Wikipedia should always strive to either perpetuate or fix real or perceived problems. The encyclopedia is supposed to simply report. Where we can also make it correct at the same time, of course we should do so, but not at the expense of remaining neutral. Like it or not (and I can agree that this is somewhat annoying), you actually made the case to support this move stronger, yourself.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  My point here is 8P8C and many of the other modular connector articles are going to be merged into modular connector and we won't refer to an 8P8C in that article as simply an RJ-45.
  I also don't see how 8P8C is not neutral – it's the real name for the connector. We have plenty of reliable sources showing that these type of modular connectors really are called 8P8C (8 position 8 contact) and we don't treat other modular connectors differently (again we have a similar issue with 6P6C, 6P4C, etc and all the other RJ* names people sometimes use to refer to them).
  In Registered jack#Naming confusion we do report on this issue but I think this should be linked via a {{main}} or similar in Modular connector as well. TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination already links to 8P8C and the only thing I see missing is it also needs to link to Registered jack and Registered jack#Naming confusion. Once done, redirecting RJ-45 and RJ45 to TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination will link people to the information they are actually looking for. As for RJ11, RJ12, etc with regards to 6P6C etc, I still think these are going to be best dealt with as outlined in Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal in merging/redirecting 6P6C to Modular connector and redirecting things like RJ11 to Registered jack, which can link to 6P6C, 6P4C, etc, which will in turn redirect to that connector's subsection in Modular connector.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Let me try to be crystal clear here: you're correct. No one, least of all me, is actually disputing a single word that you're saying. What we are saying is that it's not verifiable. What you or I actually say just isn't that important. The important thing is what's "out there", in the rest of the world, and no matter how much either of us tries we're unlikely to impact that. Like it or not, people are much more likely to look for RJ-45 then they will look for 8P8C, regardless of the more correct name.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  What exactly isn't verifiable? I have a whole shelf of BICSI books, binders, reference manuals, and training manuals that all refer to these connectors as 8P8C, 6P6C, etc (BICSI is the authoritative source when it comes to communications standards and practices). The TIA/EIA-568-B standards also refer to these connectors as 8P8C, not RJ-45. Again, where I see the term RJ-45 misused the most is in the computer networking field. In the telecommunications field, people generally call these 8P8C modular connectors. Also, see Background Information on Jack Standards
  This article is about the generic 8P8C connector, not just how it is used for computer networking. An 8P8C connector for computer networking use is also made differently from generic 8P8C modular connectors. There are two main differences for generic 8P8C connectors and the 8P8C connectors that are used for computer networking. For 8P8C connectors used for computer networking, the contacts in the body of the connector are shorter to allow for reduced pair crosstalk (NEXT) and the strain relief crimp is done differently so as not to damage or crush the pair twists. These differences allow the connector to work at the higher frequencies required for computer networking. As I mentioned above, while pointing out the 8P8C vs RJ-45 naming confusion, Trulove also goes into quite a bit of detail about this issue in his book LAN Wiring [9] ISBN 0071357769 Oliviero and Woodward also point out some of the naming confusion in Cabling: The Complete Guide to Copper and Fiber-Optic Networking [10] ISBN 0470477075 Lots of books such as Structured Cable Systems [11] ISBN 3540430008, Windows Home Server User's Guide [12] ISBN 1590598989, Handbook of Fiber Optic Data Communication [13] ISBN 0123742161, and numerous others also briefly touch on this issue. There are also books like Networking Self-Teaching Guide [14] ISBN 0470402385 where an author tries to get it right but still doesn't quite manage pin it down.
  Just because there is misinformation out there on the web does not mean Wikipedia should not cover this properly. With all the other bits of misinformation that tend to creep into Wikipedia, I for one hope we can at least get this one right. There are lots of people who refer to an 8P8C connector as a Cat-5 connector too. That certainly doesn't mean we should call it that on Wikipedia.
  Btw, you do realize this article has been moved back and forth a number of times in the past? Also, when Crotalus horridus moved the article on August 27th, [15] he added whitespace to the redirect and used an edit summary of null edit in an attempt to keep a normal editor from moving the article back. Based on these edits that were paired up with the article move [16] [17] that removed information about the naming confusion and other important details, I personally do not feel that this rename discussion was initiated in good faith either.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I probably have the same books around here somewhere as you do, but again that misses the point. Technical books don't count when there is widespread public usage at the same time. As I said above, you're right. I know you're correct, but it's not about being correct. Article titles are supposed to be about the most common general use name for something, and in this case that would be "RJ-45". Thers is a redirect in place from the correct "8P8C" name, and there appears to be (as appropriate) good coverage of the name issue in the article itself. This move is appropriate.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Uh, technical books do count; they are perfectly valid reliable sources. You also seem to be discounting that the actual TIA/EIA standards, BICSI official practice documents/manuals, and information from connector manufacturers themselves call these 8P8C modular connectors. I somewhat doubt you would have the BICSI books I have on my shelf (apart from possibly the handful that were published by McGraw-Hill) since they are only available directly from BICSI and not something most people (even people in the IT or tech industry) would find much use for.
  We aren't calling the connector a Cat5 connector, which is also a name attributed to these that is in widespread misuse. Google that and the variations yourself. I can detail why people even began to call it that if someone cares...
  Again, this is not an issue of a genericized trademark, this is an issue of using the correct name for an item where some people (and certainly not all, or even a majority) have taken to calling it by a name that is used for something completely different. I actually have half a mind to turn RJ-45 into a disambiguation page and the only reason I haven't yet is we can handle it with hatnotes. If I were going to create a dab instead of the hatnote approach I'd redirect RJ-45 connector to TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination, link 8P8C (which will be a redirect to Modular connector after the article merger), and link Registered jack#Registered jack types with some sort of redirect such as RJ45S or whatever my Bell System Practice books call the true RJ45 configuration. Based on the edits I linked to above, that is certainly not what Crotalus horridus wanted...
  In any case, it seems we will never agree and this rename discussion is moot anyway, I'm going to go ahead and start on the article merger that I've not had a chance to get to since March. If this article were renamed, I'd have to rename it back before merging it to maintain GFDL compliance anyway since 8P8C is going to redirect to Modular connector.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Technical books indeed count. That "everybody knows something is true" or "the public knows" isn't sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Another example of a connector we would not want to call by a common name is the Micro ribbon (or miniature ribbon) connector. People commonly refer to it as a Centronics connector (amongst other names). It really isn't that uncommon to find all sorts of application-specific names attributed to popular connectors that are used across multiple industries. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'll reconsider when I can find a package of 8P8C connectors in a store. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Would Digi-Key, one of the largest electronic component stores/distributors worldwide, do? [18]
  Or more specifically Adapters (85 items) Jacks (1,057 items) Plugs (121 items)
  ...or how about we go straight to the manufacturer, Stewart Connector (they make all those modular plugs you see with the WE/SS stamping on the retainer). [19]
  ...how about part number 937-SP-3088 since those are one of the most popular types.
  ...and how about the product datasheet itself? CT300064.pdf
  Please don't assume it is "just that simple".
  --Tothwolf (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's also check ICC, another major player in this market. 8P8C turns up the types of plugs and jacks one in the communications industry would expect to find. RJ45 only turns up a crimper tool.
  Even Leviton usually has enough sense not to call an 8P8C an RJ45 (although like many others they still sometimes refer to patch cords as RJ45 cords). 8P8C Category 5 QuickPort Snap-In Connectors
  --Tothwolf (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideal also lists these as 6P6C, 8P8C, etc [20] although like many others, they also mention RJ45 to make sure people who don't know what these are really called can still find their products. They even mention RJ22, which does not exist at all (see Registered jack#"Unofficial" (incorrect) plug names).
  It would also appear that Leviton and Ideal are the two major brands of 8P8C and other configurations of modular connectors available in US home center type stores such as The Home Depot and Lowe's so I think this should pretty much settle the stores argument.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another manufacturer I forgot to mention earlier is General Machine Products, who makes arguably one of the best modular plug presser tools available. Their catalog and the product packaging for their modular plugs calls them 8P8C, 6P6C, etc. See [21] GMP's modular plugs are carried by companies such as Graybar and Grainger in the US and can also be purchased through Newark and Maplin Electronics, amongst others.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After carefully sorting out existing wikilinks and redirects, I've redirected RJ45 and RJ-45 to Ethernet over twisted pair#RJ45. The term RJ-45 is only being used to refer to the use of the 8P8C modular connector in the context of Ethernet over twisted pair and Computer networking (see [22] [23]) and 8P8C is being used to refer to the generic use of the modular connector (see [24]) so this seems to be the ideal solution. Previously I had considered redirecting to TIA/EIA-568-B#T568A and T568B termination (see Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal) but Ethernet over twisted pair seems to be a much better choice. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is now a hatnote and anchor at RJ45 to avoid confusion, I don't see a need to move anymore, so I'm going to go with Tothwolf on this one and oppose the move. I think it's better to be accurate here and perhaps educate readers a bit on terminology, that is the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't it? :) -- œ ^™ 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

RJ-45 - Better explanation needed

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. MrZaius^talk 03:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, this is a huge mess as partially outlined in Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal. I was thinking an addition of {{Main|Registered jack naming confusion}} in a section for this in Modular connector with Registered jack naming confusion redirected to Registered jack#Naming confusion as a {{R to section}} 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)[reply]

Done 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)[reply]

This is not "done" - As long as this piece remains seperate, the insultingly worded dismissal of the far more common misuse of RJ-45 nomenclature in favor of the correct nomenclature requires a rewrite. MrZaius^talk 08:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, partially done, pending merging. I did notice there is a {{Redirect|RJ45|nomenclature details|Registered jack#Naming confusion{{!}}Registered jack}} at the top of 8P8C while editing. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. MrZaius^talk 11:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrZaias, and I am qualified to weigh in. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting solution - Thanks for doing the leg work. MrZaius^talk 04:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

10P vs 8P

I've seen 10P10C jacks which are the same width as a 8P8C. And there are 10P8C jacks as well.
So if those jack exist, then the corresponding plugs should exist too. That makes me wonder: Is a 8P8C actually a 10P8C?
I can clearly see that the "RJ-45" jacks on the back of my router have 10 positions but only 8 of them have metal contacts.
That means that a 8P modular connector is wide enough to hold 10 contacts, which makes me think finally: Shouldn't a 8P modular connector be named 10P instead??