|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electrical connector article.|
|WikiProject Electronics||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|Electrical connector has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Electrical engineering||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Computer terminology: connector vs. header, etc.
I'm looking for an explanation of differences between:
Can anyone help with this? Are there any standards that define these terms?
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Top Importance but C quality, if removed Retain info somewhere ?
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 184.108.40.206 (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... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
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"
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)
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)
- 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)
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. ???
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)