Talk:10P10C

Untitled

 * This page just seems to be a rant about proprietary connectors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydroksyde (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
I readded the POV tag, as the article is written with a bit of a POV. For instance, these are some POVish statements in the current article: "best (though incorrectly)", "one of the myriad". An option would be to put the wikify template on the article- either way, it needs some improvement. tedder (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The POV template is only for ongoing article/content disputes and it isn't being used properly here. What you describe isn't an POV issue, but something for Copyedit. The 8P8C connector is commonly referred to (albeit incorrectly) as a RJ45 connector, see the 8P8C article. The statement for 10P10C being one of many connectors used as a serial connectors is also accurate, RS-232 covers the industry standard connector types. The 10P10C isn't industry standard for serial connections; it is used where space is at a premium such as on high density serial concentrators and terminal servers (such as those from Digi), etc. Different vendors use different pinouts for such purposes, however. If these statements concerned you, they could have been tagged with fact instead of adding POV to the whole article, although I think Copyedit would have been the most appropriate thing to use. Those statements will probably end up rewritten anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, copyedit would be better. I'll replace it with that. tedder (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Have you following the discussion on Talk:Modular connector? These articles really are quite a jumbled mess. Tothwolf (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's how I stumbled over here. They definitely need to be sorted out, somehow. tedder (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your name over there. If you have any suggestions, post them there, I'd like to hear other ideas if anyone can think of better ways to sort it out. Tothwolf (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV redux
I can't say I'm terribly impressed with these last edits that effectively "gutted" the article. I saw absolutely no "NPOV violations" and given that the connector itself is only used for nonstandard/proprietary applications, discussing them, especially the most common ones (which were listed) is more than appropriate here. Unless someone can think of a valid reason not to I fully intend to restore the content that was removed. If we need to move or remove anything that doesn't fit the final article we'll do it after the various articles are merged, not before. Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Material cut from the article included, in this order, unsupported speculation about why the 10P10C connector is referred to as RJ50, phrasing which carried a distinctly condescending tone about referring to the 10P10C as an RJ50, followed by a large section complaining about the use of this connector in proprietary applications, including a diagram which was only useful in proving this point. The fact that this connector is used in proprietary applications is certainly worth mentioning, however, the wording and tone suggesting that this is bad, especially at such great length, is in fact NPOV. See WP:SOAP, also see WP:NPOV. Simply put, while everything in the deleted content may have been fact, the tone, arrangement, and detail in which it was described was certainly bias. If it is possible and desirable to actually have that material in the article, it should be done in a way which does not explicitly or implicitly constitute a judgment about that material. In other words, try to work that material back into the article without in any way, giving the impression that proprietary connectors are bad.RevZoe (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you are working some of the material back in so I'll leave that to you for now. RJ45 (no hyphen) itself is also not the correct designation for 8P8C connectors but it is so commonly used in the industry now that when the articles are merged, that will still redirect to the common use. Criticism of companies such as APC who did indeed used a 10P10C in an attempt to keep people from making their own cables is valid, but it is slightly misplaced in this article. It would be better included in whichever article covers APC UPS devices. I actually found I had some of these very cables in my spare parts inventory and I may see about getting a high resolution photo of one showing the connector to upload to commons. The keying of the plug is actually on the pin 10 side, or the right hand side if you are looking at the plug with the tab up and the front of the plug facing you. The chart was also similarly misplaced but still helpful to readers. I'm not sure why it ended up on 10P10C, but I'd guess the fact that APC used these very connectors probably had something to do with that. Readers do check these articles for common pinouts and diagrams, one example is on the 8P8C talk page. RJ45 currently redirects to 8P8C. It would be better off redirecting to TIA/EIA-568-B but I'm holding off making that change until the larger article merger gets underway. The main discussion had been on Talk:Modular connector. Tothwolf (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a PDF drawing of an 8P8C (RJ45) connector with the same type of keying: Tothwolf (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning on doing too much with criticism for the use of proprietary connectors, simply because I wouldn't know where to begin sourcing that. To keep the subject NPOV, as well as WP:NOR, all criticism should come from an outside source, and be properly referenced. The goal is to make it clear that Wikipedia itself does not have an opinion one way or the other. Also, does the keying somehow impact operation? Because it looks like you can replace the 8P8C in the drawing with a standard one. RevZoe (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be possible to source but it may take some digging. The keying does affect operation. A keyed 8P8C or 10P10C plug (they have the same dimensions) has a small protrusion on the right side of the plug if you are looking at it from the top (as in the PDF drawing). It prevents a keyed plug from being plugged into a non-keyed jack. A jack that accepts keyed plugs will accept non-keyed plugs though. Tothwolf (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you can use any old cable on their proprietary applications, but not their proprietary cable on like, home network? This just seems a little stupid to me :/ Otherwise, if you can find a source for those things, that would be wonderful, as the proprietary hardware world can be really dumb, and its nice to highlight. But, its very important to keep it all within WP standards. RevZoe (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, kinda. You could plug a standard 8P8C (RJ45) plug into the keyed 10P10C jack on the APC UPS but because APC used the outermost pins you couldn't use it for USB. It would work for serial mode though, so a standard 8-wire cable and properly wired DE9 adapter could be used for that. I think APC went with keyed modular plugs on the USB cable to prevent people from plugging the proprietary cable into say a network or phone jack (8P8C/RJ45 being very common in commercial phone systems). The voltages present in POTS or a digital phone system could do damage to a computer (or at least the USB port) if it was somehow connected to the computer's USB port. Because they used the outermost two pins in the 10P10C plug (which wouldn't contact anything in an 8P8C phone jack) the risk would be lower though. I have some keyed 8P8C plugs here in my inventory and I'll see if I can get a photo of those as well for the modular connector article. Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, with the safety concern, that makes a bit more sense. It seems like there isn't anything to keep someone with a wiring diagram and a crimper from making their own, though. 10P10C connecters are just as cheap as any of the other ones. RevZoe (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, thats the sticky bit. 10P10C plugs are difficult to obtain in small quantity and are much more expensive than the more common 8P8C. Inexpensive consumer-grade crimper tools such as you often see for 8P8C are not available for 10P10C. The least expensive option for crimping 10P10Cs would be a $25-30 die set for a $40-$100 crimper frame, and on the high end $250-$350 for an OEM crimper such as one from Tyco/AMP. Either of those would be well within reach of someone who make cables in volume but out of reach or difficult to justify for the average hobbyist or computer enthusiast (especially for just one plug). Tothwolf (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (indent reset) It seems as if it is possible to justify some discussion of this in the article. Care will need to be taken to show that as a proprietary connector, the 10P10C is used to make it difficult to manufacture at home, while maintaining NPOV. Can you find any references that could show the price difference between 10P10C connectors and 8P8C, or that only the expensive crimpers are capable of crimping these connectors? RevZoe (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be suitable to reference price lists for the tools/connectors themselves? That information is readily available and I should be able to find some links. Some of this information would also apply to other modular connector types so I'm unsure how much of it would go into 10P10C vs final merged article. Tothwolf (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the short one that would probably work, I think. My only concern on that is to try to make an inference from one or two prices to the average price, without weasel words. But yeah, if you added some references on prices, that could definitely be evidence that the use of 10P10C is effective at making it proprietary. It would also highlight some of the economic unfairness of the situation without making a judgment in the article itself. We should be able to, in the end, let the facts speak for themselves. RevZoe (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)