Talk:Telephone socket

Socket to me?
Official documents as well as common usage say jack, as in Registered Jack, not socket. Seems to me [Telephone jack] is the correct name for the article. Jim.henderson 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Afaict we brits preffer the term socket while americans prefer the term jack. I belive wikipedia policy is generally to stick with the variant of english used initially. Plugwash 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. A look at the edit record suggests that "Telephone jack" was the orignal name of the article but as long as the redirects and synomyms are in place, it's not a cause for fuss.  For the most part an American plug goes into a "socket" for power or a "jack" for signals.  If the long pending merger were to go ahead, merging this article into "Telephone plug" would make the problem, such as it is, go away.  Jim.henderson 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this page being redirected there, i'm not sure there is much worth merging in though, this article mainly seems to be a US centric howto combined with some very rough information on registered jack wiring (which imo belongs in the registered jack article with possiblly a small summary in the telephone plug article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistent
If there's going to be a merge down the road, there won't be a problem then, but there is now. I personally don't care which is used, jack or socket, but the article uses one terminology and is named another and the photo uses one terminology, and a decision needs to be made. If people have an overwhelming urge to switch to Brit terminology, then switch it through the article and either get a different picture or write an explanation of how the terminology is Brit/American, or whatever lines it falls down on. And yes, wiki policy is to generally stay with the terminology originally written in, but if everyone wants to change, and makes the changes to the article that are necessary, then it doesn't really matter.

Otherwise, the name should be changed back. Because right now the article looks bad. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the caption using the US term for a particular US jack, while the article title uses the British term, for an idea used around the world. Hmm, I'll look again to see whether the text should be improved or the caption or both, but our British friends have satisfied me that the article is correctly titled even though it's not the name I use in conversation.  If there were a need to change the name, I would recommend it be done by merging into the plug article, since "plug" seems pretty near universal for the connection device that dangles from the phone, and only the part on the wall is differently named in different English speaking territories.  Jim.henderson 07:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, that doesn't bother me...it's not the picture. I'm reread the article and besides the obvious change at the beginning (socket or jack not jack or socket), it's the wording in the entire article.  It's written as though it were still titled jack, and though many of those usages can just be changed to socket because they are interchangable in the particular usage, some of them can't.
 * You really get that sense when you get to the end and it says "A British socket it similar"...
 * Basically, while jacks and sockets have the same functions, they're slightly different, and the article is titled socket, talks about the difference in language and then goes into a description of a jack--specific to North America in some parts of the description so not all instances of the wording can be switched. That's why I was saying that the article would need some rewriting.
 * Personally, I think that the article should have subject divisions. It'll be clearer that way and keep it from getting run-on--right now it's very informal.  But I'm not sure I could do that and again, that's additional work.  Undoing the name change would take five seconds, so I would vote for the path of least work.  It would be easiest and therefore the article would read better faster--not when it was edited or when it was merged but now.
 * Also, if people really perferred to use British terminology, the name could always be changed back (again, five secs) once the article was cleaner and it only took the changing of a half dozen words in the article to match a title switch between American and British English.
 * I would've done it already, but you guys have already had one name change sprung on you, and I don't have any strong feelings about it. But, I do think the article needs to be consistent, so unless someone who can make the kind of rewriting/restructuring changes that I can't wants to or unless people have a strong preference for this name and are going to make those changes, I'll probably change the name back.  Changing the name was against wiki-policy in a number of ways, and right now the article is inconsistent, which doesn't help the overall tone, and the name can be changed back in a jiffy if necessary.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)