Talk:Electrical connector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Electrical engineering (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Could we add something about SMEMA connections here? I don't know enough to write about them, just that they are a pretty big standard used in machine inter-connectivity. (signals etc) Lsjzl 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Found this link in the case that it is useful: Smema pdf

does anybody know how the pins for 3 pin plugs are made and what they are made from preferably britishStuart22 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)stuart22

Could we divide connector discussions between electronics and electrical power for buildings/facilities? For example, in building power wiring, the menu of connectors includes lugs, split bolts, wire nuts, various other splice methods, and various types of separable cord-and-plug devices that all tend to be different from electronics connectors. I came to this section of Wikipedia looking for guidance on use of dual-rated split-bolts for connecting copper and aluminum conductors without bi-metallic corrosion. Also, for information on connectors UL-listed for stranded vs. solid conductors. This is all very different from the concerns of electronics, where I imagine aluminum is not used for conductors at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Some of the interwikis seem to be wrong about linking to klemme articles, for example, ru, de, and nl ones. ru probably should be ru:Электрический_разъём, and nl maybe nl:Connector nl:Connector (elektrotechniek) (interesting that it has stekkers too (230 V wall plug connectors) which I have not usually considered a connector, which is more things in electronics like BNC flat cable and such) or something.

Computer terminology: connector vs. header, etc.[edit]

I'm looking for an explanation of differences between:

- connector
- header
- slot
- port

Can anyone help with this? Are there any standards that define these terms?

Thanks, ENielsen (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing connectors[edit]

There are many other forms of elecrical connectors, such as IC sockets and PCB backplanes, which are highly important in high-performance electronic circuits. More is needed in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, [Molex] provides a good number of electrical connectors to the auto and PC industry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I came to this page (redirected from "wire connector") looking for the correct spelling of "Marrette" and was surprised to not find them included here. These connectors are ubiquitous in residential electrical supply wiring in Canada (and I imagine the USA too) given their history. Does that not warrant inclusion?

I came to this page via the en:board_to_board_connector, might be merged or redirected after inclusion?

Top Importance but C quality, if removed Retain info somewhere ?[edit]

A general comment.

As with some other articles this is rated Top importance already, but only C quality, and is flagged for possible removal due to lack of citations. Whilst I can understand the reasoning, I do wonder if there is also a policy to retain such items somewhere if they are not improved by a re-write and addition of citations. It maybe a good idea for instance to transfer the articles and use them as a basis of a wikiversity item, retaining the title as a stub article if it is decided to remove the article. As a general user of Wikipedia, I often come across articles that hold interesting information but are flagged for possible removal, it does strike me as a waste of useful information, and contributor effort if a simple deletion occurs, and a factor likely to aggravate users who have bookmarked any such item before it is flagged for removal.

I do not have time to wade through your policy documents but thought for once I would comment on this problem, and so have done so on a specific article where I see the problem. (If there is any such policy for retaining information, maybe it could be added to the template for the removal flag ? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent line of thought, and I agree completely. The biggest problem is the philosophical differences among Wikipedians, from mindsets like immediatism and deletionism at one end, to ones like inclusionism, incrementalism, and eventualism at another (with lots of other possible dimensions). (I realize that as someone lacking time to read policy documents, you probably won't have time to read those links beyond a skim, but I linked them anyway for what it's worth.) Not that all immediatism or all deletionism is devoid of respectable principle; but the non-respectable, non-principled bits are what cause most of the firefights. In my own opinion, immediatism and deletionism tend to be most popular among people with certain personality traits and, in other cases, mindsets congealed into stone during the dead-tree era that they aren't circumspect enough to shake. For example, the fact that value has been captured (for free, and with willing participation of the value donor) that should be preserved somehow, rather than obliterated, seems just to be lost on some people, who, I suspect, are just people with very low empathy levels as part of their cognitive makeup. They simply don't care what is lost that doesn't seem directly relevant to their own benefit. Thus, for example, if they don't care about topic X, they will gleefully delete much info related to it, because it's no loss to themselves. So that's the personality-trait aspect. As for the outdated-mindset aspect, there are people "of a certain age" (as the phrase goes) who grew up in a cultural milieu in which colloquial register or low general notability were conflated with proscription from the public space in the sense that "you just don't write published materials in that tone or about those topics. It just isn't done, and it feels weird when I see you doing it." What such people don't realize is that they are clinging to an outmoded historical accident, not any intrinsic aspect of reality. But just try convincing them of their own myopia ... I say rhetorically.

Anyway, bottom line, I think time is on the side of clear thinking like yours, in the long-term view (on a scale of decades). I suspect that future generations will lean ever more strongly toward the concept that you mentioned, which is that there must be some acceptable place to put value that has been captured but that most people aren't interested in, most of the time. Just because random jerk #596423 isn't interested in it and can't fathom its possible significance doesn't mean (1) that no significance exists, or (2) that he should be allowed to wipe it out of existence for the rest of humanity. I think we'll come around to handling this better in future decades. In the meantime, we'll need to make the effort to keep the myopic jerks from killing the project by taking all the fun out of it ... — ¾-10 00:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It's just the standard template for an article missing references. I doubt a proposal for deletion would get much support... (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged content[edit]

I think the merge has made the structure of this article a bit confusing. Wouldn't it be more natural to put the content in the subsection "Plug and socket connectors"? Isheden (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Plugs called "jacks"[edit]

I added a note about use of the term "jack", by those whose first language is not English, to describe a male plug on the end of a removable/portable cord. This is downright startling (to me). I "corrected" a Wikipedia page in Czech (a language I don't know), and had to undo the change; it was distressing, because I had effectively deleted the image, and had to find it to restore it. Also, some audio (and video?) software from Asia notified the user on-screen when a plug had been removed from the computer with the phrase "A jack has been removed". There were other instances that I don't recall, specifically. I'd like to provide proof, but don't have the energy or knowledge to do so. Regards, Nikevich 06:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of English-language words by non-English sources isn't relevant to the purpose of this article. We have enough trouble just descrbing correct things, let alone the vast universe of incorrect things. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
By the term "jack" is meant this type of connector in Czechia: Phone connector (audio)). If you want to buy one, you need to reqiure "jack" in the store in the Czech Republic. That may be a bad english, but it is language reality in the Czech Republic. Czhech wiki is supposed to reflect the czech language reality. So it is not very clever to "repair" the Czech wiki, because you just create a greater mess. English as a "universal language" of our era suffers from vagueness. For example the term "trillion", which pretends to define a number, but is as useful as a "bambillion". --Pteryx (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Electrical cable.

  • Oppose The distinction between cables and connectors is made clear already in the lead section of this article. Isheden (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both source and target articles are weak, and both need substantial improvement. They overlap in coverage with other stronger articles, and somewhat with each other. But combining them into a larger weak article won't help, and will further intimidate anybody competent from wading in and starting to fix things. As a technical note, there appears to be no notice of proposed merge at the target article. I doubt the unsuspecting editors watching there will be enthused about dumping another weak article on top of them. --Reify-tech (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Connectors sometimes don't need cable to work. Cabling is a subject on it's own and deserves to be treated as such! There are e.g. a myriad of cable that can be suitable for an RF connection with two BNC connectors, some differing only by the fact that the plastics used are halogen free or not, which might be important in one situation and not in another. Some larger research institutes even have very specific guidelines which cabling types they allow on site, e.g. CERN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:89F9:1:D545:50C7:1A4C:6077 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Power connector[edit]

Not every entry on power connector that is an electrical connector is listed in the power section, so the hatnote should remain. -- (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

All those power connectors on the disambig page are electrical connectors - normally hatnotes don't point at disambiguation pages. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hatnotes normally point to disambiguation pages. The {{other uses}} hatnote only links to disambiguation pages. Since not all power connectors are listed in the power section of this article, then the hatnote should remain. -- (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Spade terminal[edit]

According to the article spade terminal = fork terminal. But when googling and looking in shops, eg eBay, spade terminal seems to be used for both fork terminals AND blade terminals. And if you want to be sure to find a fork terminal, then search for "fork terminal" instead. Maybe the section title should be "fork terminal", and then aka spade terminal. And maybe under the "blade connector" aka spade connector. ??? (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposed[edit]

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Computer port (hardware).

  • Oppose – The Computer port (hardware) article is big enough to stand on its own, and there is no advantage into mixing it in with a survey of all electrical connectors. Merging it makes as much sense as adding in AC power plugs and sockets and DC connector just because they also use electrical connectors. The proposed merger is just makework, and will reduce the usefulness of Wikipedia, not enhance it. Please use common sense before proposing merges just for the sake of merging. Reify-tech (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that the proposer of the merge is trying to clean up some overlaps and gaps in the articles about electrical connectors. This kind of work is much needed, but merging all sorts of applications for different connectors into a single article will produce a mammoth and unwieldy result. Please think carefully and discuss your ideas before you start to propose more mergers. Make sure you read and understand the Wikipedia guidelines for organizing articles. Reify-tech (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This merge proposal is probably due to an insufficiently wide perspective on what a connector is, and is due to a parochial experience with connectors within the very narrow field of computers, to the detriment of the many more uses of connectors in fields other than computers. Davide Andrea (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction about Jack[edit]

Intro says "Connectors consist of plugs (male-ended) and jacks (female-ended). " which seems wrong. Later in article it clarifies that jack is the fixed receptical for the movable plug. ie Jack is the socket ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electrical connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)