Talk:RJ45

Rational

I was unable to find the discussion of RJ45 vs. 8P8C. It took me twenty minutes. I think this argues strongly that there needs to be a separate page.

Perhaps I am wrong, but as it stand before there was no real discussion at the redirect page, rather you had to realize that it was buried in the 8P8C article. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this mean that articles should be merged with a redirect to the new article? Perhaps it should have the errors removed first... Webwat (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Various relevant items

Glad you wrote this! It's perhaps one of the more extreme instances of error-by-consensus, although computer people have their own [mis]spellings by consensus, such as "kernal" and "compatable".

In the 4th paragraph, do you mean "shorting" a resistor? I don't think so, if the introductory description is correct (which seems likely). I didn't want to change the text, though., becaues I don't know squat about RJ45 specifically. Any chance of getting a photo of a genuine RJ45?

Perhaps it refers to the RJ45S which is a real registered jack keyed for data as suggested here? The phone applications talked about are more related to the RJ61X registered jack. At least the article should accurately define its relationship to IEC 60603-7 8P8C, but not sure how to show that a reference is authoritative compared to all the others. Webwat (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago, I worked for a small company that made least-cost call routers (outgoing call directors). We required ground-start trunks to the CO, and were careful for each new installation to emphasize ground start. Never once did we get a set of ground start trunks! (Ground start seizes a trunk to place a call by grounding either tip or ring; I forget which. Ordinarily, going off-hook seizes the pair to the C.O.) Regards, Nikevich (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is fairly important, yet lacks citation and paragraphs, we need expert on this to improve this article. Plarq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) §§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.133.100 (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One wonders why a plain (un-keyed) 8P8C didn't get called "RJ61" instead. If you'd ordered USOC RJ45, you would have got something with a keyed plug - Ethernet never used the keyed plug. Computer-industry nomenclature could easily be 15% easier to understand if it was internally consistent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

All content on this page is virtually duplicated on Modular_connector#8P8C --Sdamon (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Modular connector#Merger proposal and Talk:Registered jack. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be re-written along the lines of "RJ 45 is formally a code for a registered jack used to specify certain obscure telephone company interfaces. Inexplicably, it has become the nick name for the 8P8C connector used on some Ethernet cables, although the Ethernet cable connector lacks the special keying feature that would have been used on by the telephone companies. " Just because the computer industry messes up the nomenclature doesn't mean we can't have clear definitions here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is bordering on activism. Most of the professionals I work with use RJ45 frequently. Many people are not familiar with 8P8C. I have been editing out statements that indicate RJ45 is incorrect. The usage of RJ45 as a synonym for 8P8C is widespread enough that you can't really call it incorrect - technically incorrect perhaps. But let's not berate users for following common practice. It is not our place as editors to try and change common practice. --Kvng (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We call 'em as we see 'em; if the world is calling the funny clear plug that gets snagged on things an "RJ45", perforce Wikipedia will follow. But...if there's no particular reason to say "RJ45", we don't need to say it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's a disambiguation page, we could really use some expert help to WP:FIXDABLINKS. It's not too bad - there are only 59 of them - and This tool makes the job a bit easier. If you do decide to help, you may want to go to Dab Solver preferences first to tell it not to add every page you edit to your watchlist. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's going to be so much easier. If we're talking about the clear connector on the end of an Ethernet cable, Wikipedia should call it an 8P8C. If we're talking about a Registered jack used for one kind of high-speed modem connection, Wikipedia should call it "RJ45". And Wikipedia can point out as many times as it needs to that often people call an 8P8C an RJ45, though it isn't the same connector as the phone company would have used. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Started bypassing disambiguation. Someone obsessed with this nomenclature either has these articles in the watch list already or wants them in the watch list. I'm half done, starting with article space first. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful with this. When an article is mentioning RJ45 as a synonym for 8P8C, it is not it is not appropriate for someone clicking on RJ45 to end up at Registered jack. --Kvng (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There may be no right way to do a wrong thing. What is the reader seeking if both terms are linked? A lot of places both terms are used; what would seem to make the most sense is to link 8P8C so that it goes to the modular connectors article, then state "Also known as RJ45 after the [[Registered jack]] of the same name ", or something like that. We don't need to say the RJ45 nickname is wrong (though it makes no sense to me), we just need to tie it back to its origins. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Obsolescence" of telephone RJ45

Previous edits suggested this was the case, but it isn't. Telephone (modem) RJ45 is available on serial and USB external modems which are in use where broadband connection isn't available and in many places where it is - not least by people who don't want to be tied to a specific ISP. I wouldn't be without it.

It's like sailing. Or riding a horse. It may not be considered the norm, but while people still do it the charge of obsolescence is unwarranted.

InelegantSolution (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The connector on modern equipment isn't an actual RJ45/RJ45S though, that connector is an 8P8C connector used for other purposes. A "real" RJ45 also used keyed 8P8C plugs and sockets, which means you couldn't plug the keyed modular plug into a normal 8P8C socket. See 8P8C and Registered jack naming confusion for the details. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical points accepted; my issue was a terminological one - while people still use something, it's incorrect to consider it obsolete. The use of the word in the previous edit smelled like under-the-radar advertising by a Broadband ISP - "Tell 'em it's obsolete, then they'll have to buy our stuff".

InelegantSolution (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

How about adding a photo or drawing of an RJ45 to aid understanding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.5.183 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a photo of an 8P8C. We don't have any photos of keyed 8P8C modular connectors but as soon as I can photograph one I'll add it here. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there an image of an 8 Position 8 Contact plug in the RJ45 plug section. there's already enough confusion between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.154.60 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not have an incorrect picture up even as a placeholder. I have removed it. --Kvng (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)