Talk:Phone connector (audio)/Archive 3

Terminology and caption

Tip/ring/sleeve terminology says that the ring is used for the "non-inverting" signal. The caption on the accompanying picture indicates that the tip is used for the "positive phase". Based on Binksternet (talk · contribs)'s confidence in a recent revert, I have updated the caption to match the text. --Kvng (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Twisted pair in Telco is Ring Hot, but in pro audio it is most often Tip Hot. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not clear from the article text. If you can supply a reference, I can edit to clarify this. --Kvng (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2.5 mm and 3.5mm AUDIO JACK

why is this called TRS connector? that is not a commonly used name. Try to ask salesman if that phone has TRS connector..... 50.9.109.170 (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(Audio) jack is neither the proper name nor specific enough. Similarly, If you asked A TV salesman whether a TV had a D-sub 15 port, you are also likely to get blank looks, whereas if you were to ask if it had VGA or a PC input you would probably get an answer. The type of connection in that case is VGA (or, more properly RGBHV) but the actual connector used is a 15 pin D-subminiature connector. Besides, Audio jack redirects here.

Also, you might want to read the 4th paragraph of the lead, and see where Jack (connector) goes to.

As a side note, it has always bugged me a little that the Article is labelled TRS connector but also refers to TS and TRRS connectors. If anyone can think of a way to remedy this (without splitting the article) then I'm all ears.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectly cited material.

The statement "The connector's name is an initialism derived from the names of three conducting parts of the plug: Tip, Ring, and Sleeve[1] – hence, TRS." is not backed by the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.243.147 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More unusual types

As well as the 1/4" B-type with the small tip (of which there is a photograph but no mention in the text), there is also a "long" variant of the 3.5mm plug, about 5mm longer, which was used by GEC and GPO telephones.

Also used for telephone (and occasionally other audio) purposes in the UK is the multi-way (up to eight contacts I think) connector, about 8mm in diameter and of variable length depending on the number of contacts. See [1]. They were used for headset connections in exchanges and for plug-in telephone extensions in homes and offices before the plastic mudular 600-series connectors (BS6312) were introduced. G7mzh (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mobile phones

Page mentions iphone and nokia would share the same pins for mic and ground. At least nokia n9 has it different from iphone. Adapter is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmalmari (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

frac

{{frac}} looks awful. The only Customary size that needs to be discussed more than once is the ¼-inch version (the others can be described, after the introduction, simply as 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm) so use of {{frac}} should be avoided. (The "¼" character is available from the "Symbols" section of "Special characters"; you don't have to be able to type it directly.) 121a0012 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The frac template displays well enough for me. I don't have a problem with it. I am viewing it within Mozilla Firefox 7.0 on a PC running Windows XP. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's something wrong with the template, perhaps it should be discussed at Template_talk:Frac. --Kvng (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is for the record more than anything else (since the actual discussion took place 6 months ago), but the Wikipedia Manual of Style specifically discourages the use of Unicode fraction characters (and super/sub-script numbers). See MOS:FRAC. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 04:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Article title still incorrect

After all this discussion this article is still incorrectly titled. I don't understand where the confusion is coming from? TRS is a type of "Phone Plug". Phone plugs come in different sizes (mentioned in the article) and may be TS TRS or TRRS. It is not possible for a plug to be both TS and TRS and thus TS plugs should not be listed under the title "TRS connectors". A term being widely used by common people doesn't justify its consideration as the title for a technical article. I've never seen a technical audio/sound text book that refers to a phone plug as a "Jack plug"? A jack is a socket and a plug is a plug. Technical facts. Reference 5 (one of the few actual references) will tell you this. Can I also point out that this article is within the scope of "WikiProject Professional sound production". People confusing a "Phone Plug" audio connector with something to plug in a modern day telephone line is not relevant and does not need to be a consideration. It is quite normal for two different things to share the same name. People cope with it. The title of the article needs to be technically correct based on audio texts and historical evidence (they were originally used on telephone patchboards!) Can I propose correcting the title of the article and listing both TS and TRS as separate headings. (LinusWebb (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)).

I agree that the "TRS connector" title is not the best. Perhaps someone could review some of the references and see what term is most commonly used in the generic sense? From my personal experience I'd lean toward "Phone plugs and jacks", with a "see also" for telephone connectors (RJ11, etc.) and redirects from "TRS connector", "TS connector", etc. (Yes, I know, RJ11 is a wiring scheme, not a connector type!) Jeh (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I quote from Newnes Telecommunications Pocket Book (2001): "The standard telecommunications jack plug is 0.250 inches in diameter..." For older readers, there's this Popular Science project from 1938: "Handy Condenser Key Made from Jack Plug". I'd be happy with 'jack plug'. In the beginning there were telephone jacks and telephone jack plugs, but now they are used for more than telephones and come in different diameters, so we call them jacks and jack plugs. A jack plug is a plug that fits into a jack. I can't think of another term that's inclusive enough. --Heron (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Glen Ballou's encyclopedic Handbook for Sound Engineers (my copy from 1987) calls the connector "phone plug". He writes on page 1047 about the connector, "The term 'phone' comes from the telephone company who used a type of phone plug in their early nonautomated switchboards. Recording studio and other patch bays are close relatives of these telephone switchboards and often use some type of phone plug. The most common type of phone plug used in pro audio has a ¼-in. [one quarter inch] diameter shank and comes in two-wire (known as tip/sleeve or T/S) or three-wire (known as tip/ring/sleeve or T/R/S) versions." On the following page there are diagrams of various connectors, and the TS and TRS connectors are labeled "two-conductor phone plug" and "three-conductor phone plug". Elsewhere in the text Ballou varies his terminology. On page 1049 he writes about Hi-Z unbalanced microphones usually using a "¼-in. phone plug connector", but he also says that line level devices might use "three-conductor, ¼-in. tip/ring/sleeve (T/R/S) connectors." Hence the present name: TRS connector.

Throughout the book Ballou uses "phone plug" the most but he also uses "quarter-inch" connector, "tip/ring/sleeve" connector and "T/R/S" connector.

In the 1980s and '90s when I was getting deep into audio technology, I heard the term "quarter phone" applied to the connector quite a lot. It is probably a hybridization of the quarter-inch size and the "phone plug" name. The "quarter phone" term is not so commonly found in the literature, but there are a few guides using it: Television 101" by Greg Burden for some Alabama schools, and "The products of Pro Co Sound, Inc." a large 14.1 MB catalog of parts.

The major problem we have with "phone plug" is that the same term was commonly used for RJ11 plugs used for household telephone connectors. In fact, from 2007 to 2010, the phone plug term redirected to "phone jack" for a disambiguation page determining whether the reader wanted audio or telephone usage. I think that is why something other than "phone plug" or "phone jack" was decided upon for this article's name.

"Quarter-inch" is a poor name because there are other sizes that go by the same general name. Minijack is typically one-eighth of an inch while sub-mini is smaller. Bell & Howell 16mm film projectors used a .210-inch connector for the loudspeaker jack, the same size as firefighter's phone jacks. Tiny telephone patch cables use 4.4 mm connectors. All of these go by the same basic name: phone plug, jack plug or phone jack. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be terribly unhappy with "jack plug".

"Jack plug" is ambiguous as there are several types of connectors called "jacks". I am not talking about just differences in diameter. In addition to the phone plugs and phone jacks described here, there are phono ("RCA") plugs and jacks, and banana plugs and jacks. Even XLR connectors are sometimes called "XLR plugs" and "XLR jacks".

I checked manuals that came from a few pro audio manufacturers: Mackie, Rane, Behringer, Allen and Heath. The first two never seem to mention "jack plug". The latter do. Both of the latter are based outside of the US.

I checked the major electronics distributors in the US (Newark, Digikey, Mouser, Allied). I could not find "jack plugs" listed. At each site, once having selected a connector type (RCA or phone or banana) I was then offered a choice between "plugs" and "jacks". Same at the infamous retailer Radio Shack. I did check Maplin in the UK; they have a few plugs listed as "jack plugs" but for the most part they follow the "plug" and "jack" terminology too.

Re. Newnes and telecom (i.e. the telephone industry), I have to believe that that passage has not been updated for a long time. Not regarding the term "jack plug", but because I cannot imagine how anyone who is reasonably current would describe these things as "the standard telecommunications" anything! Phone plugs and jacks, of any diameter, are hardly ever used in telecom and have not been for decades. They were of course once common on switchboards, but switchboards are no more. The most recently surviving "common" use was probably for headsets that plugged into an operator's console, but no new designs use cylindrical connectors for those either. They've all gone to modular plugs and jacks. (And no, the males of those are not called "jack plugs" either. Even though they fit into jacks.) Jeh (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a US/UK/international problem. RS (Radio Spares) in the UK, while not a definitive source, is likely to be used as an example by most British engineers, and it has two sections for what WP calls TRS connectors: 'bantam connectors' and 'jack connectors'. The 'bantam connectors' are 4.4 mm (0.173") diameter, and the 'jack connectors' section contains the 1/4-in, 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm jack plugs and sockets. RS's main supplier seems to be Switchcraft Inc. (apparently American), who in their data sheets refer to 'jack plug' and 'jack socket'. Farnell/CPC, the UK's other major catalogue supplier, calls them 'Jack Plugs & Sockets' (including 2.5mm, 3.5mm, 1/4-in and bantam). In the US, DigiKey uses the term 'barrel connectors' for phone and RCA types combined. Unfortunately this contradicts WP, which uses 'barrel' for the DC power connectors. Within that class, DigiKey uses 'phone plug' and 'phone jack' for all sizes of TRS connector. Neutrik (European) use the generic term 'plugs and jacks', then more specifically '1/4 in plugs and jacks' and '3.5 mm plugs and jacks', and also refer to TS/TRS in their more detailed documentation. So I think the pattern is this:

US: phone plug, phone jack

UK: jack plug, jack socket

Europe: jack plug, jack

I think we should decide arbitrarily on either 'phone plug and jacks' or 'jack plugs and sockets', and then define TS/TRS/TRRS as sub-types. TS/TRS/TRRS were never intended as the top-level terms. Personally, as a Brit, I don't mind if we use the American terms, as they apparently invented the phone jack in the first place. We will just have to explain in the intro that the word 'phone' is historical. --Heron (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good arguments, folks. I think "Phone plug" is the best solution. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw in a point here, there seems no reason to use "plug and jacks" when "connectors" is sufficient. Why complicate things with an unnecessarily long title?

Also, I agree with Heron that this seems to be a regional English issue as much as anything. In principle, I have no objection to using the US form (I'm British btw), but would personally choose "jack connector" or similar due to the ambiguous nature of "phone connector", i.e. the easy confusion with RJ11 connectors, BS 6312 connectors etc.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered another long discussion on this at Talk:Jack_plug#Move_concerns. Let's make sure we don't get stuck in Groundhog Day. --Heron (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Jack connector" is also easily confused with phono jacks, banana jacks, etc. And "jack" and "connector" are redundant, because a jack IS a connector. Regarding the confusion with connectors used with telephones, we have to accept the fact that said confusion is baked into the commonly used term "phone plug". If distributors' and manufacturers' catalogs can tolerate it, so can we. A see also or similar note can lead people to RJ11 connectors, etc. Personally I like "Phone plugs and jacks". The article is about both, after all. Jeh (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose (although jack and connector aren't redundant outside of North America; a jack is what we'd call a socket). Regardless though, I still see no reason to use "plugs and jacks" when we have a term the encompass both ("connector"), especially when "jack" is region-specific as a term for the receptacle. There seems to be no good reason for doing so. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then are there any strong objections to "Phone connector"?? It seems to me that all of the people who live in "jack plug" countries have said they wouldn't insist on "jack plug." That leaves us with "Phone something". Of course we would have redirects from "Phone plug", etc. Jeh (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of books and articles use the term "phone connector", so that would be okay with me. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no obviously good solution now or before. I don't see any of other proposed titles as being an improvement. I propose we put our editorial energies elsewhere. ---—Kvng 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me as if there is good consensus for some sort of "Phone" related name, more so than for keeping TRS. I think it would be constructive for us to decide between "Phone connector", "Phone jack", "Phone plug", "Phone plug connector" and "Phone plugs and jacks". Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To Kvng: I don't see how you can support the current title. I see NO support here, except yours, for keeping "TRS connector". A TRS connector is a sub-type of phone connector, and the term is not familiar to the general public; this title is like having an article on the entire Kennedy family titled "Patrick Kennedy". The "principle of least astonishment" applies; I think most nontechnical people are pretty surprised when they search for "phone plug" or "jack plug" takes them to "TRS connector".

I cannot defend TRS connector. Whatever gets this finished I support. Due to regional variations and other issues, I don't think there's an universally optimal solution here. A rename to one of the current suggestions may make a small improvement. There are a lot of redirects, disambigs and interactions with other articles; A rename is not going to be simple. -—Kvng 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Any of the "Phone xxx" in Binksternet's list just above would be an improvement. The principle of using the more general term rather than specific subtype eliminates "Phone jack", "Phone plug", and "Phone plug connector". That leaves us with "Phone connector" or "Phone plugs and jacks". I think we have a definite, though not the strongest possible, consensus that "Phone connector" is the right choice. Jeh (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use a parenthetical term to disambiguate, something like Phone jack (audio), or Phone connector (audio). Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. There is ample precedent. I'd prefer "Phone connector {audio)" as both "plug" or "jack" would be specifying a subtype. Not as narrow as "TRS connector", but still. Granted that the things are sometimes used for non-audio work (like power connectors, and TRRS even carry video too) but that is purely an "edge" case; they are far and away most closely associated with audio. Jeh (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Phone connector (audio). I am now cleaning up the many redirects and links. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay. You know, you don't necessarily have to clean up links. If a redirect works, that's fine, and per WP:RDR, double redirects are usually cleaned up by a bot. Jeh (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to slowly make my way through the links anyway because this is a good chance to update the terminology used in those article. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll work on them too, maybe starting from the end. Jeh (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "Phone plug" redirects to "Telephone plug"

The note at the top of page "Phone plug" redirects here. For the plugs used to connect landline telephones, see telephone plug.

is incorrect. "Phone plug" actually redirects to "Telephone plug".

(I don't know how redirection issues are meant to be handled.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokemill (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

TRRS configuration

I see in various discussions of cellphones comments regarding the pinouts/configuration for TRRS and if there are differences (Left Audio, Right Audio, Mic in, Ground, or Left Audio, Ground, Mic in). It would be helpful if a subject matter expert could add this to the article. patsw (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"The second, which reverses these contacts, is used by older Nokia mobiles" Sure, the older standard is the second one and reverses the contacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.98.244 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

old

2nd

new?

I replaced the first photo with the second one because I thought the first one was so bad. Then I got to thinking that it would be nice to show a plug up there, so I took the third one. (I really need to get out my close-up lens so it won't be so pixilated.) I'm wondering about using the third one, but my daughter says stick with the second one. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

First, there is no question whatsoever about your replacement being better than the original black-on-black!

Offhand I would prefer something showing a little more contrast, perhaps the light green color that is now standard.

Adding the phone plug to the picture does add context. I would suggest using one that does not have the threaded retainer for the quarter inch adapter. Perhaps adding a measurement scale to the picture would help also. Jeh (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The others I have have a black background with a green ring. Maybe I'll try one of them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

1/4 Inch TRRS

Anybody ever see one of these? Stereo aeronautics use? xnamkcor (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That would have to be stereo with a mic. Never seen one. Neither Digi-Key nor Mouser have such a thing available, though they do have them in 7.5mm (0.295 inches)! http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/358/typ_4804.1400-60285.pdf Jeh (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

6.3 mm or 6.35 mm (1⁄4 inch)

I read that "the outside diameter of the "sleeve" conductor is 1⁄4 inch (exactly 6.35 mm)". But I often see the jack diameter referred to as "6.3 mm" (e.g. on the German and Dutch articles of this very same subject). How come? And should this article provide some historical context, if any? MCEmperor (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Legacy Post Answers Dimensional Questions

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it".

                                   — Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797

Who would have thought there was anything else to say about the venerable TRS connector? But it seems we are destined to re-plow old ground.

I believe my legacy post in the 2008 - 2010 section answers the above question. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phone_connector_(audio)/Archive_2#Some_observations_for_consideration

The table at its bottom contains the diameter dimensions in both inches and MMs, for both U.S./European and Asian types.

KathectedBob (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phone connector (audio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061110052136/http://www.whirlwindusa.com/ftp/Blackbox/manuals/lbs.pdf to http://www.whirlwindusa.com/ftp/Blackbox/manuals/lbs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Any source of info on equipment safety?

I'd like to know if there are conditions under which equipment could be damaged while plugging this type of jack from one piece of gear to another. One already known case is when live speakers are in one end of the chain and there's sound going in - amplified enough it can damage speakers. But I am more interested if there are any conditions in which the electronics could get damaged. The reason is because in computers the "hot plug" connectors insert ground first but I don't think this is a standard practice when it comes to audio cables. Sound card line-in could be used as audio frequency oscilloscope and in oscilloscopes there are conditions that could damage the front end. Are such conditions possible with audio? Eg. perhaps if you put a line-out into phono-preamp in while blasting at full line level volume/voltage? Could line-in be damaged in such situation as well? In some equipment some noises heard through amplified outputs when connecting these cables to inputs in same equipment so this makes one concerned when working with hard to replace gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.31.86 (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

History

This article is particularly strange, because there is no history section. It almost seems as if the article pretends that phone connectors have always existed and there wasn't a time when they did not exist. When were they invented? When did the mini-jack appear? What about the submini? Or those dual minis? When did they come into widespread circulation? What was the motivation for creating them? It seems like a strange omission to this article.

It is possible I've just missed it, since I did only skim the article twice. --Svip^pong 05:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The point that phone plugs and jacks first appeared on telephone switchboards (from which they got their name) is mentioned in the lede - but it's unreferenced and does not appear anywhere else in the article. I agree the info should be here but I expect it is simply unknown, at least as far as RSs are concerned. Do you have any RSs for any of that information? Jeh (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

its not Phone plug ...

its called Aux cable / Aux plug i dont knoww why and when it called like it now but search phone plug and aux cable and see what you get in the results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maorosh11 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any citations that you can back your statement up with? Cables that look the same but have different names usually serve a different purpose, if I remember correctly. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

i try to look for sources ... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maorosh11 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.techopedia.com/definition/1356/auxiliary-port-auxMaorosh11 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

after some thinking at least change the name to audio ???? instead of phone jack 77.125.75.7 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "source" is laughable. "AUX is an asynchronous serial port with an interface that allows the auxiliary input of audio signals for MP3 players, headphones, portable music players, amplifiers and speakers." They're talking about a serial port! That would have utterly nothing to do with the connectors described here.

Anyway, yes, these connectors are called "phone plugs" (at least, the pointy type are called that, the ones with holes are "phone jacks"). The article has ample references.

"Aux cable" would be one specific application, if the devices being connected happen to have jacks labeled "aux" and if those jacks happen to be phone jacks (as opposed to "RCA jacks", XLR, etc.). Too, the word "cable" would refer to the entire cable assembly, not just the plugs on the ends, which is what we're talking about here.

And no, we're not changing it to "audio" because there are a very large number of connector types used for audio; phone plugs and jacks are just one type of audio connector. Jeh (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you have again attempted to put your changes into the page. Please note that per WP:BRD, once your changes have been reverted you should then go to the article talk page to discuss what you want - you should not insist on your changes until they are supported by consensus. You don't get to insist on your changes just because you think they are correct.

Regarding the terminology: On the back of my home theater gear the "Aux" connectors are RCA phono, not phone jacks. On the pro side, I have two mixers with "aux" outputs and inputs ("aux send", "aux return") on XLR jacks. Yes, phone plugs are used for aux inputs but so are many other connector types. It is therefore a mistake to say the phone plugs are "also known as" aux connectors. The latter term describes a role, not any one specific type of connector. It's only an "aux" because it's labeled that way. There's a phone plug on the end of nearly every consumer-market set of headphones made in the last several decades; is that an "aux cable"? Is the jack it plugs into an "aux jack"? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Maorosh11 is incorrect here. The auxiliary input or output is a functional routing method, not a shape of connector. I have seen aux inputs and outputs of a great many variety of physical shapes and sizes, from terminal strips to Phoenix blocks to XLR connectors and beyond. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, it is true that if you look on Amazon or eBay for an "aux cable," some of the cables you find will have 3.5mm phone plugs on both ends. Maybe even many of them. This is because many cars now include a 3.5mm jack labeled "aux", an input for their stereo; some home theater receivers also have 3.5mm "aux" input jacks on their front panels; and what most people connect to those jacks are things like portable MP3 players, mobile phones, and tablets, which also have 3.5mm phone jacks.

BUT! There are many, many other connector types that are also used for "aux" inputs and outputs, and there are many, many other uses of phone connectors (not just 3.5mm, but other sizes too). (As this very article makes clear!) If you are unaware of these, Maorosh11, I can only conclude that your experience is extremely limited.

Case in point - I will say again - is the 3.5mm plug on the end of headphone cords, and also on headset cords. Those are in no way called "aux connectors" and the cables they are attached to are not called "aux cables". Ever. Jeh (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly no source, but in my experience I've always known the phone connector to be referred to colloquially as an 'aux cord', as in "Pass me the aux cord." 'Aux' of course being short for 'auxiliary audio input'. While 'auxiliary audio input' is a description of a function rather than the hardware itself, I believe that the average reader would search for either 'headphone jack/connector' or 'aux cord' in order to find this specific page. Is there a Wiki protocol for redirecting in the case of a commonly used colloquial name, however erroneous? Dstrichit (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, groan... See basically all of the comments above, except for the one from the kid who started this thread. Your experience must be limited to consumer gear and must only go back a few years, because that's how recent is the common use of 3.5 mm phone plugs for "aux inputs". Yes, we can have redirect entries. But it would make little sense to redirect "aux cord" to here, since (again, as noted above) a great many different connector types have been used for "aux inputs" (and aux outputs). Jeh (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Jacks and plugs: vernacular versus pedants

Many people refer to the plug as a jack. Microsoft Windows has a balloon pop-up for some hardware which detects a plug being inserted. The popup says "a jack has been plugged in". Furthermore, sci-fi writer William Gibson penned the phrase "jacking in" denoting the establishment of a connection between the brain and an electronic network. Note the "in". Which part goes in? The plug! Gibson's "jacking in" is clearly, unmistakably a synonym for "plugging in", which tends to make "jack" and "plug" equivalent. The plug is what people manipulate; they don't concern themselves with the receptacle it goes into (so long as it's the right one), or what its name is; and when they do need to invoke its name, they can usually come up with the word "socket" or "hole". Plugs more frequently need replacement. If you are involved in pro audio, or just play guitar, you will likely solder far more plugs in your lifetime than jacks, to make your own patch cables or repair broken ones. Next argument: why would a female receptacle be called Jack? A plug is a kind of penis-like object (which is why we call it male), so obviously it must be the part given the name Jack. How about a jack for lifting a vehicle? A hydraulic jack is a phallic structure resembling a plug more than a socket. It's something active which pushes, exerting a force, and not a passive receptacle. How about "jacking off?" That refers to male masturbation; manipulation of the plug, so to speak. And you wonder why people instinctively call the plug "jack"? 192.139.122.42 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, this nearly-complete load of specious, facetious rubbish is unsigned....

Making the distinction between a "plug" and a "jack" has nothing whatever to do with pedantry - it has everything to do with reducing confusion, by taking advantage of every available opportunity to correct INVALID USAGE of technical terms by lay people. That's part of what Wikipedia technical articles are all about, wise-acre!

The sad fact that, "Many people refer to the plug as a jack.", is not relevant, and is to be combated, not encouraged.

The sad fact that Micro-squish Windows uses BLATANTLY-WRONG language for many of its pop-up idiocies is also not relevant, and hardly surprising.

When Science Fiction (...or "SF", but NEVER "sci-fi", thank you very much!) "...writer William Gibson penned the phrase "jacking in"...", he was referring to PLUGGING connections into the "wet-wired" JACKS that had been installed in his protagonists' skulls, and PLUGGING the other ends into the JACKS on their network interfaces. This is a colloquial and/or figurative use (or, perhaps more accurately, "abuse"), a form of slang which, IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER, "...tends to make "jack" and "plug" equivalent." It's called literary license, which is, again, NOT RELEVANT here, in a technical, "Stagecraft Project" article.

Next, "...what people manipulate..." and what, in your estimation, "...they don't concern themselves with..." is, once more, IRRELEVANT in a technical article, except as a notation of the various INCORRECT usages to which a term may be subjected. That's one of the many reasons people come to Wiki'pages - to find and learn the CORRECT usage of technical terms!

Now, to give you your (extremely limited) due, you ARE quite right about the general proportion of plugs vs. jacks soldered in a career. (I've been "...involved in pro audio..." for well past thirty years, now, and have soldered more plugs AND jacks, of more different types, than any ten average people are likely to SEE in their lifetimes.)

As for the remainder of your so-called "arguments", I won't even dignify them by directly responding to your preposterous assertions that the etymology of the term "jack" is all wrong, because a "feminine" receptacle can't be given a "masculine" name like "Jack", that the subject under discussion bears ANY relationship to hydraulic lifting devices, or that "jacking off" (other than the "verbal masturbation" you've demonstrated here) even counts as an "argument"....

The Doctor Is On (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To the IP - a simple question: What do you use to fill up a hole? A plug, of course. Not a jack. Any questions? Jeh (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit curious: the "jack" appears to be the "female" part, but it has the "masculine" name "jack". Anybody know the origin of the term?Feldercarb (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Plugging" something has a masculine connotation too, no? Jeh (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mini phono term

There is a set of reliable sources that give the term "mini phono" for the 3.5 mm (1/8 inch) jack.

See for example: [2] (by David Pogue)[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

There are also many commercial technical documents that do the same. Here are some examples (search for 'phono'):

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

and issued patents:

[17] [18] [19]

These sources could be noted in the article text as 'incorrect', assuming that these sources are all mistaken as to an appropriate alternate name for this connector.

This is also relevant because Apple also refers to its 3.5 mm-to-Lightning connector as a "mini phono" adapter.[20]. Infoman99 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As described in our article on RCA connector, this term is flatly wrong. "Phono" refers to the RCA connector. Nor is there or was there ever a "mini-phono" connector. Note that the first ref you gave in the article is quite weak (it's a catalog listing; it just happens to be copied into some more official-looking document) and the second is from Popular Science (not exactly an authority on audio, or much of anything, really). If we must mention this then we must mention it as "erroneous". Jeh (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll compile the sources into a single note and label it with a cautionary note.Infoman99 (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

David Pogue is not an authority on parts-level electronic components. Your ref 3 is from a letters-to-the-editor column! I could go on... but here are some "horse's mouth" references:

Cylindrical audio connectors at Digi-Key

...at Mouser Electronics

or for that matter, online catalog page from Switchcraft, who have made these connectors for many decades Jeh (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeh - We have the same goal here, trying to make this page a better resource for readers.

I think my original phrasing of "in conflict with naming conventions" is a good fit for the situation.

Here are my concerns about the phrase "counter to their manufacturers' nomenclature":

• Two of the sources cited, Digi-Key and Mouser Electronics, appear to be distributors instead of manufacturers.[21] [22].
• Even Mouser Electronics itself carries a manufacturer's data sheet that refers to a "3.5 mm mini-phono connector" [23]
• A number of system manufacturers refer to 3.5 mm as "mini phono". See, for example:

• Alpine Electronics [24]
• Avidex [25]
• Bosch Security [26]
• Fisher Scientific [27]
• Gefen LLC [28]
• Runco International [29]
• Seiki Digital [30]
• Smith & Nephew [31]

• I'm not familiar with Mandarin or Cantonese, but to make a claim that current component manufacturers' terminology does not allow for the use of the phrase "mini phono" (as in, "manufacturers' nomenclature" is "counter" to the term mini phono) would probably require a review of manufacturers' documentation and trade media coverage in those dialects, given the extent of electronics manufacturing in areas speaking those dialects.

Given these concerns, I believe the original cautionary phrase is more accurate.

Or, if you really want to delve into manufacturers' terminology, we could have a comparative phrase, such as: "The 3.5 mm connector is also referred to by some manufacturers,[6] but not others,[7] as mini phono." Footnotes [6] and [7] would of course be a list of references, if you prefer this approach. Thanks. Infoman99 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Look. Look at our own page on Phono connector. Phono connectors, by the way, go back decades before anybody ever thought of making a 3.5mm phone connector (but they're not quite as old as the larger-size phone connectors). Phono connectors have a center pin, usually used for the "hot" side of a circuit, of about 3.2 mm and an outer ground shell connection usually comprised of several "petals", which fit around a 9 mm diameter socket. There is no way that the term "mini phono" connector can be correctly used to describe the 3.5mm phone connector, as it is clearly not a miniature version of the traditional RCA phono connector.

On the other hand, the term "mini-phone" clearly refers to a scaled-down version of the 1/4-inch diameter "phone connector", so named because it is commonly used on telephone switchboards and for audio headphones. In fact it is not obvious to tell, when looking at pictures of isolated 1/4 inch phone plugs and 3.5mm mini-phone plugs, which is which if there are no scaling clues visible.

This is not original research or original synthesis. Presented with samples of an RCA phono connector, a 1/4 inch phono connector, and a 3.5mm connector, it would be completely obvious to the untrained eye - even to someone who doesn't know what they are - which one of the other two the 3.5mm connector is a miniature version of.

"mini-phono" is a typo that gained traction due to a lack of competent copy editors. What will make this page the better resource for our readers is to document it as an error.

We could likely find dozens of references for just about any typo you can think of. Does that mean Wikipedia has to accept all of those as authoritative, too?

Re your objections:

Yes, Digi-Key and Mouser are distributors, but the parts selector pages I linked to in turn link to product data sheets from over a dozen manufacturers of the connectors themselves.

That also covers your objection re. Chinese language, as many of the manufacturers listed there are based in mainland China or in Taiwan ROC.

The "system manufacturers" you linked here don't make the connectors.

The "manufacturer's data sheet" that you found at Mouser that uses "mini-phono" is from a manufacturer of a subassembly. Again, that manufacturer does not make the connectors.

I don't understand why you're trying so hard to find justification to give legitimacy what is obviously a mistake. Jeh (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Google searches

All of these were entered with or without quote marks, as shown. I'm proceeding roughly from least specific / most likely to give false hits to the opposite.

search term	hit count
first, some naive searches...
miniphono	2140
mini-phono	30600
miniphone	72100
mini-phone	520000
how about with "3.5mm" added
3.5mm miniphono	9650
3.5mm mini-phono	14
3.5mm miniphone	2480
3.5mm mini-phone	44900
put the name in quotes and include "connector"?
"miniphono" connector	193000
"mini-phono" connector	20200
"miniphone" connector	360000
"mini-phone" connector	405000
put the size in quotes along with the name?
"3.5mm miniphono"	17
"3.5mm mini-phono"	2090
"3.5mm miniphone"	2470
"3.5mm mini-phone"	38800
...add "connector" to the preceding?
"3.5mm miniphono connector"	19
"3.5mm mini-phono connector"	331
"3.5mm miniphone connector"	8
"3.5mm mini-phone connector"	4990

Even considering the concerns in WP:HITS, there is no support here for the notion that "mini-phono" and "mini-phone" should be given equal shrift. Accordingly I have added two more refs to the "not-miniphono" list and removed many from the "miniphono" list; WP:DUE requires that presentation of opposing views be proportionate to the documentable weight of the various views. Jeh (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Claims of distinction between 3.5mm and 1/8 inch connectors

There are several completely un-sourced sentences in the first section arguing that 1/8" and 3.5mm jacks are different connectors. I have never heard of such a thing as a truly 1/8" audio jack, nor of anyone having compatibility issues with these two differently-named connectors. As I understand it '1/8 inch' is a nominal size used in nations on the Inch-Pound system to represent a connector which is actually 3.5mm.

I will be removing these claims from the article; please do not re-include them without some citation. Walkersam (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I should add that the section I am removing makes the claim "The common jack in things like portable music players and computer sound interfaces is the 1/8 inch size." While I may be willing to believe that actual 1/8" diameter connectors have been used in some place and time for some niche purpose, this claim here is demonstrably false. Walkersam (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 3.5 mm and 1/8 inch are the same jack. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur. For example, Mouser Electronics' parts selector makes no distinction between 3.5mm and 1/8 inch. Perhaps the OP is thinking of 2.5mm, formerly commonly used for headsets on mobile phones. Jeh (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but 1/8 inch = 3.175 mm is the diameter of the RCA plug (male) and jack (female) connectors, see RCA connector; while 3.5 mm is the diameter of the connector widely used for audio exchanges in portable audio devices, and often called "audio 3.5". The difference (.325 mm = .0128 in) is of course way wider than what could work in real life, as you can verify by inserting an RCA plug into an Audio 3.5 jack (much too loose) or by trying to insert an Audio 3.5 plug into an RCA jack (totally impossible). And in real life you will see plenty people asking for "a 3.5 plug (or jack)", or "an RCA plug" (or jack), yet oppositely I never saw someone coming and asking for "a 1/8 inch plug" (or jack). Michel Merlin (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Merlin, you are mistaken. Long before the small phone jack was called "3.5 mm", it was indeed called "1/8 inch". And it still is. See the Mouser Electronics reference above. Also, try searching other distributors, or the web in general, for "1/8 inch plug" and see what you find. You'll find a lot! Even though you "never saw someone [sic] asking for a 1/8 plug", nevertheless the term is very common. btw, I just measured a couple of them that happened to be around my desk. One is 0.136 inches, the other 0.139. A true 3.5mm would be 0.138 inches. A true 1/8 would of course be 0.125 inches, but that's only 14 thousandths of an inch smaller than my 0.139. The thing is, I don't think anyone ever claimed that "1/8 inch" was an exact measurement, it's just a conveniently close fraction, what the thing is called rather than what it really is. Jeh (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Article should be called Audio jack

Why on Earth is this article called Phone connector (audio)? This term is both wrong (because audio jacks are used on many other devices) and it is convoluted. The article should be renamed to Audio jack (already a redirect here). I plug my 2.1 speakers into my PC with an "audio jack", or "audio cable", "phones" do not come into it. Just because a lot of people use this connector for phone-to-headphone, does not mean that is what Wikipedia should refer to it as. Wikipedia should be correct, not popular. --Hibernian (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. There are a handful of common connectors that are used as audio jacks, so it would be ridiculous to decide that one of them is the One True Audio Jack. The XLR connector has a long tradition and just as strong a claim to be the One True Audio Jack because of its very wide use in the entertainment industry. The RCA connector also has a long tradition, in this case being the main audio jack that home users saw until very recently. So this TS/TRS/TRRS connector article should not be the redirect for audio jack. I think we should have a disambiguation page at Audio jack (disambiguation). Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Correct, not popular" is exactly why the present title is correct. The term "phone connector" long predates mobile phones, going back to telephone switchboards, as the "History" section here describes.

I agree with the proposal for the DA page. Let's do it. Jeh (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:UCRN say " it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." thus I believe it mean wikipedia community favor concise, popular and simple name over technically correct name as exampled by the move of article Taiwan from Republic of China several years back.C933103 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Most frequently used in reliable sources" is not necessarily the same as "Popular". Manufacturers' and distributors' catalogs for the connectors are reliable sources for the names of their products. What umpteen bazillion people have written about these connectors in the plague of poorly- or completely-unedited text that has inundated the planet since the Web showed up? Not so much. Jeh (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2 Mono and stereo compatibility

The results of this physical compatibility are:

"If a two-conductor plug of the same size is connected to a three-conductor socket, the result is that the ring (right channel) of the socket is grounded. This property is deliberately used in several applications, see "tip ring sleeve", below. However, grounding one channel may also be dangerous to the equipment if the result is to short circuit the output of the right channel amplifier. In any case, any signal from the right channel is naturally lost."

This is actually not true. There is a workaround for mono plugs plugged in a stereo socket: If the plug is not plugged in fully, but just that the grounding contact of the stereo socket is covering the grounding cotact of the mono plug, both (the left and right channel) contacts of the socket touch the the contact of the plug. This results in both stereo channels combined to a mono channel. (e.g., both speakers of mono headphones would play the same, mixed audio of the left and right channel.) This also eliminates the threat of grounding the right channel.

Just a remark that the signal from the right channel is not lost and a tip how to prevent damage because of grounding a channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.16.137 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite...

When a 2-conductor (TS) plug is "half-jacked" into a 3-conductor (TRS) receptacle, the Tip & Shell of the "mono" plug will contact the Ring & Shell of the "stereo" jack. While this does avoid shorting the "unused" contact to ground, it only picks up the RIGHT channel of the "stereo" jack, unless both Tip and Ring of said jack have internal "Double-Throw" switching capability, and have been wired such that the "Normally-Closed" switching pin of the Tip is "normalled-through" to the "Normally-Open" switching pin of the Ring. (...pretty easy to see in schematic form, kinda difficult to "get" when only described verbally, and I'm nowhere NEAR conversant enough with Wikipedia to attach a drawing here, yet, if that's even possible on a Talk page....)

The Doctor Is On (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with this idea, if we're talking about a stereo source socket and a mono sink plug, and if you actually get the tip and ring in the jack connected to the tip of the plug... is that you are flatly not supposed to do that: combine two outputs with a simple "wye" connection. Outputs are low impedance and should never be connected to each other. "Wye" adapters are fine to use to connect one output to two inputs, but not, repeat NOT, the other way around. For more, see "Why not wye?" by the pros at Rane Audio. Jeh (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: disambiguate phone connector. Sometimes less is more when making an argument if you want someone to read it... Anyway, there was a clear consensus that the current set-up is undesirable, but no consensus on where to move this article. There were, however, no clear objections to making the target page into a dab. The easiest way to do this, seeing as there was agreement it should duplicate what is at phone jack and that having two duplicate dab pages is pretty pointless, is to move phone jack to phone connector, which I will now do. There was no consensus to retarget phone jack after the move; I would suggest taking that to WP:RFD is you feel strongly about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Phone connector (audio) → Phone connector – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:D, we need to make a decision here. Is this the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "phone connector"? If so, move as proposed. If not, retarget the base title to the existing disambiguation page at Phone jack. I'm also open to a move to a completely different title, and then we can sort out the redirects. For some background, see this RfD and this edit and revert. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with simple "phone connector" is that it is ambiguous—it could mean any one of a variety of audio jacks/connectors or it could be any one of a variety of telephone jacks/connectors. The parenthetical "audio" helps to disambiguate by specifying the application. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, in a general sense, that "phone connector" can refer to multiple things is clear. But in a Wikipedia sense, is there a primary topic for the term? The status quo is an aberration. Disambiguation isn't just used to give extra information in the title. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Aberrations aren't the end of the world. Poor titles are. Jeh (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• For the rest of the background, see the discussion that led to the current name, over four years ago.

Yes, it's the primary topic, but no, that doesn't demand that it be moved. (I consider BDD's "either-or" a false dichotomy.) Per WP:CONCISE: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." That is why the article is called "Phone connector (audio)". "Phone connector" would not provide sufficient information to do that.

Also: Redirecting "Phone connector" to "Phone jack" was and remains an absurd idea. Why would you assume "oh, you must be referring to female connectors only"? As it is both specific to female connectors and ambiguous (it might refer to telephone connectors, or it might be a typo of "phono jack" i.e. RCA phono, "Phone jack" should not be a top-level DA page. It should redirect to "Phone connector", which, if we must, can be a DA page with "Phone connector (audio)" as one of the options. Same for "Phone plug". Jeh (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iff it is the primary topic, by definition it should not have a parenthetical disambiguator and it should be moved. If it is not the primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at that title (or it should redirect to a disambiguation page that includes the term). older ≠ wiser 22:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The real world (and readers' prior experience with the names of these connectors) doesn't always fit Wikipedia's rules. I (and, I believe Binksternet) feel that this is the title that will best serve the readers. What would you propose as an alternative? Jeh (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, if it is the primary topic then it should be titled Phone connector. If it is not the primary topic and Phone connector becomes a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page) then the current title is just fine. older ≠ wiser 22:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"It should be... " why? Jeh (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing there that requires that we delete "(audio)" from the article name. Yes, it is the primary topic, but IMO the "(audio)" is desirable to tell readers that they have the right article. Jeh (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see the cause for confusion. A redirect to a primary topic is described at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. That is not the case here. If there is a need to "ell readers that they have the right article, then perhaps it is not in fact the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Sometimes, a disambiguated article title, such as Apostrophe (punctuation), may be moved to an unqualified title based on a consensus that this is the primary topic for the unqualified term." One, if there's no DA page leading here, then this isn't a "disambiguated article title", is it? (Is there anything that requires, without exception, that parentheses in article names only be used to identify DA'd titles?) Even if this is a "disambiguated article title", the phrasing ("Sometimes"... "may"...) doesn't say it has to be moved; quite the opposite.

And I didn't say there's an absolute need to tell readers they have the right article. I said it's desirable. I think the references I supplied below very well establish that "Phone connector" ("connector" being generic for "plug" and "jack") should be in the name. It would be acceptable if "Phone connector" was the name. But I (and the others who participated in the 2012 discussion) do feel that "(audio)" adds useful specificity to the name and does no harm that anybody has so far described. Still... if anybody can show how the encyclopedia has been harmed, even a little bit, by having it called "Phone connector (audio)" for over four years, I'll shut up about it and concede to "Phone connector". Jeh (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the parenthetical phrase is to disambiguate. That was stated from the very first discussion where that title was proposed. But if it is the primary topic, there is no need for any parenthetical phrase. It goes completely against any logical consistency. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring my point. No, there is no absolute need for it. Nevertheless the parenthetical phrase here is desirable, because it assists the reader. Binksternet and I just don't think that "Phone connector" is as useful a title as it could be. Hence "(audio)". But there's nothing else that should be titled "Phone connector (anything else)". "Telephone connector", yes, but not "Phone connector". So there's no need for a DA page called "Phone connector".

Anyway, I have yet to find any P or G that requires that parenthetical qualifiers in article titles must only be used on targets of DA pages.

And I have yet to see any believable claim of harm to the encyclopedia, either from the existence of this name for four years, or from its continued existence. I do see a whole lot of handwringing from hardline passgauge types saying "it MUST be renamed", but not a lick of a reason of why, other than "it breaks the rules!!!" (what rules? be specific), and now "it's inconsistent".

Well see, there's your problem: These and many other audio connectors were not necessarily named with any "logical consistency". Unlike, say, the taxonomy of organism names, they "just growed." So it is not surprising that trying to fit them into an rigid set of rules for article titles does not result in the best names - not as far as the reader's experience is concerned. Jeh (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday I renamed the article to be without parenthesis, without realising the discussion is still ongoing and misread it as some kind of consensus. Now I search the term "phone connector" with quotation mark on google, it seems like Telephone plug is another major definition of the term, and different mobile phone charging connectors are also referred to as phone connector. Thus this article probably shouldn't get moved to phone connector name and that page should be converted to a disambiguation page instead. C933103 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  This discussion hadn't started when you moved—no worries on that point. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't "ongoing", it had concluded over four years ago and the article title was fine as it was.

"Telephone plug" is most certainly not a "major definition" of "Phone connector"; they are not used for plugging in telephones. Phone plugs and jacks have that name from their original use on manual telephone switchboards, but those boards are long gone. And they've been used for decades for headphones.

That some writers of manuals of consumer electronics gear refer to a charging connector on a telephone as a "phone connector" should not even be taken into consideration. Put another way, if we do end up with a DA page, we are not going to include "any old connector that happens to exist on a phone, whether used for a headset, charging, or data transfer" in the list. "Phone connector" specifically refers to the connectors referenced in my links below. Jeh (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Disambiguate Phone connector. My searches on google also indicate that this article is not the primary topic for the search term (telephone plug has the possibly the strongest claim). I would also argue that "phone connector" is not the common name for the subject of this article, so it should be moved to audio jack, headphone jack or jack plug, as these are more widely used in contemporary non-specialist publications (I make no comment about historical usage or specialist publications). Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well... that sort of conclusion is what comes of relying on Google searches and non-specialist publications rather than about five decades' experience in the SMA.

• Any name with "jack" or "plug" in it refers only to one gender of the connector, and is therefore completely unsuitable for an article about the general connector type. Unless you really are proposing to have separate articles for the plugs vs. the jacks! (You're not, are you?) All such names should be redirects to "xxx connector". The reason Google searches are misleading you here is that one does not often write about the general case covering both male and female variants. One writes of inserting a "phone plug" into a corresponding "jack". That doesn't mean that "xxx jack" is the right name for an article about the xxx connector type. The term "connector" makes it clear that the article covers both.

In the following I will accordingly respond to the rest of your ideas with "connector" substituted for "jack" or "plug".

• "Audio connector" would be far, far too ambiguous. A very wide variety of connector types are commonly used for audio, including phone connectors, RCA/Cinch ("phono") connectors, XLR, etc. And then there are the less common ones (but more prevalent in professional use), like Barrier strips and Euroblocks and even RJ types. Search hit counts are misleading here: just because you find xxx hits on "audio jack" doesn't mean they're writing about phone connectors. They may have been writing about RCA phono. "Audio connector" is, however, a fine name for a DA page, covering the above.
• We've also had "aux connector" proposed. Same problem as with "audio connector": Lots of different connector types are used as "aux" inputs and outputs. That is a use, not a connector type.
• On the other hand, "Headphone connector" is far too specific to a particular use. Phone connectors are used for many, many other audio-related things. In the PC world alone they are used for mic in, line in, line out, center/sub out... Many cars and small home audio items are now equipped with "aux in" jacks on 3.5mm phone, and I assure you that if you plug a headphone into one of those the results will be absolutely nil. (But decades of home audio equipment, up to and including current stuff, have had "aux in" on RCA phono jacks.)
• "Jack plug" is a British abomination usage that refers specifically to the male quarter-inch phone connector. As such, first, it has the problem of being gender-specific. They call the female side a "jack socket". But "jack" is also widely understood to mean the socket side of the plug/jack pair, which makes "jack plug" sound like badly grinding gears a self-contradiction. Anyway, these connectors were invented in the US, so per ENGVAR the American-English name should apply.

-- Jeh (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I will second Jeh's response. My decades in the telephone and audio industries have shown me that there are too many widely used names for the series of audio connectors that are based on a usually tip-hot cylindrical jack inserted into a very slightly larger hole which is usually serving as ground. I think phone connector (audio) is a good compromise name for us to use. The main problem with renaming is that there are no stronger candidates, only similar candidates that require the word "audio" for disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Move to "Phone connector", with the existing hatnotes, Disambiguate with a DA page called "Phone connector", if we absolutely can't keep things as they are.

My rationale:

1. The name must be specific to this connector type. Hence "audio connector" or any similarly general term is out. That name refers to the function of the connector, not its type. Lots of other connector types are used for audio.
2. The name must not be specific to any particular use or application of the connector. Hence "aux", "line", "headphone", etc., are out. (And other connector types are used for all of those, too)
3. The name must not include any gender-specific words (jack, plug, socket, male, female), unless the article somehow morphs into being specific to one gender. "Connector" is the widely-used generic term that covers both.
4. The name must include the phrase "phone connector". "Connector" because that is nonspecific to male or female, and the article does, and of course should, cover both. "Phone" because that's the most commonly accepted name for this general connector type, per first-line distributors and manufacturers. In other words, if I want to buy some of them, "phone plug" or "phone jack" is what I look for. Oddly, two major manufacturers simply call them "plugs and jacks" at an upper level in their catalogs, but when you drill down to individual items they use the "phone plug" and "phone jack" terms.
5. The points that other things are sometimes called "phone connectors", or that the name sometimes is used to refer to other things, are secondary, and can be addressed by commentary in the lede or by the existing hatnotes.
6. However, there are other things that could plausibly be searched for under the term "Phone connector". The hatnotes here already mention the most obvious: It could be a typo of "phono connector", i.e. RCA connector, or it could be referring to connectors used for wired telephones, like the RJ connectors used in North America.
7. I don't like making "Phone connector" a DA page because a reader who types "Phone connector" should not have to click again to get to this page.
8. But, new realization: I doubt many people are typing that name. They're typing "phone plug" or "jack socket" or etc. All of which can be RDs to here.

This would all seem to argue for moving it to "Phone connector" with the existing hatnotes, and call it a day. But the reasons arrived at before for adding the so-called "parenthetical disambiguation" still apply. I think "(audio)" improves the functionality of the title for the reader, and isn't that what's most important? Can't we just agree that it's not a "disambiguation", it's "qualification"? Hey, how about if we change it from parentheses to an em dash instead?

Seriously - what name best serves the reader? Sure, conciseness and consistency are important, but is the reader best served by "Phone connector"? I think the reader is better served by "Phone connector (audio)", with "Phone connector" redirecting to here. If there is a rule precluding this, I argue, and will continue to argue, that this is a justifiable exception.

But if the rules really are more important than service to the reader, then ok... make "Phone connector" a DA page. That way we can keep the "(audio)" in this article's name. Right?The hatnotes here can move to the DA page. move it to "Phone connector" and let the hatnote do the qualifying/disambiguating.

I will admit, too, that removing "(audio)" does get rid of the little problem that these connectors are also used for video (e.g. TRRS connectors on camcorders) and for other things too: Foot switches, DC power... Where used for mobile phone headsets they also carry signals for call control, volume up/down, etc.

"Phone plug", "Phone jack", "Jack plug", "Jack socket", should all redirect to this article, whatever it's called. "Audio connector" should be a DA page. Jeh (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As an incremental step, someone should create Phone connector (disambiguation). ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And then make Phone connector a redirect to that. Any objections? Jeh (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no conclusion about what to do next but creating the page will give use a clear inventory of how the term is used and we can hopefully have a more productive conversation from there. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is no primary topic (i.e., rather than make Phone connector a redirect to Phone connector (disambiguation), the disambiguation page should be at Phone connector -- otherwise it would result in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So this can be done simply by repurposing (editing) the existing Phone connector page? Is there any reason not to do that right now and end this time-sink of a thread? Jeh (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. BDD had originally attempted to retarget this to an existing disambiguation page (phone jack), but you reverted which is what set off this discussion. would there be any significant difference between what is at phone jack now and what would be on a disambiguation page at phone connector? If not, it probably makes more sense to have a single page rather than duplicate the content. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No difference initially - we might well add a few more things to the DA list. Phone jack should IMO redirect to this article. Should this article have a hatnote? "This article is about the family of connectors originally designed for manual telephone switchboards and long used for headphones. For other uses, see "Phone connector"" ? I'm being maybe overly cautious here because the rules on this make so little sense to me that I don't think I've ever so much as fixed a typo on a DA page without it being reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either support per WP:PRECISE or disambiguate, and honestly don't have a preference which one. The decision on that can be decided by others during the course of this discussion. Either way, I oppose oppose ... er, I mean I oppose the status quo/nothing happening. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto User:Steel1943. Either support per WP:PRECISE or disambiguate (I slightly prefer disambiguate), but either way, I oppose oppose, i.e. I oppose the status quo/nothing happening. I also oppose a move to another lest accurate title per User:Jeh. —  AjaxSmack  02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• ***Done?*** Ok, I copied the text from Phone jack to Phone connector, fixed Phone jack to point to here, etc. Are we done? Can we remove the MFD, etc., templates? Jeh (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, first you should never cut and paste content to effect a move. Second, I don't see there is agreement (or even any discussion other than the off hand comment you recently made) that phone jack should redirect to the audio connector. That seems counter-intuitive to me. In my non techie experience, whenever anyone mentions a phone jack, they are almost invariably referring to the plug in the wall. I don't think I've ever heard or seen an audio connection on a phone refe referred to as a phone jack. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about "audio connections on phones". If you'll look at the manufacturers' and distributors' links I gave above you'll find that "phone plugs" and "phone jacks" are what the audio connectors described here are called. And "Phone plug" did and still does redirect here, so why "Phone jack" should not is beyond me.

As for the C&P, the need for attribution of a DA page with two entries on it seems to me to be de minimis. We can just ask the edit histories to be merged. I think going through an RM, which would be necessary to move "Phone jack" on top of "Phone connector", is silly. Jeh (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I didn't claim these connectors are not known as plugs or jacks. But I'm doubtful that they are the primary topic. "Phone plug" has history of switching about between targets. It hasn't been explicitly discussed here, but I think it is ambiguous in precisely the same way and probably should redirect to the same disambiguation page rather than to a presumed primary topic. I'm not sure why you felt you had to move the disambiguation page. Simply redirecting phone connector to phone jack would have accomplished the same effect without creating a confused edit history. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We decided on the DA page because it was agreed that there is no primary topic for "phone connector".

Re the title of the redirect, I explained above: The title of this article should not be specific to the male or female version of the connector. If both are covered in one article, then the title should not be specific to one or the other. So - neither should the DA page.

Besides, it would be completely silly for "Phone connector" to RD to "Phone jack", only to have that as a DA page with one of the offerings be "Phone connector (audio)". Jeh (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No more silly than having "Phone connector" redirect to "Phone connector (audio)". And a proper page move is always preferable to a mangled edit history caused by a unilateral cut and paste implementation of an option that wasn't even being explicitly discussed. older ≠ wiser 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Re "Phone plug" redirecting here: Remember that WP:COMMONNAME does not refer to ~"the name most of the general public calls something". Instead it refers to "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." By that light, a phone jack is one of the common names (in the RSs) for the things described here, not for a jack on the wall into which you plug a telephone. Jeh (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And reliable sources also use phone jack and phone plug to refer to connections for a phone to the network. Just do a Google books search on the terms. These terms are ambiguous older ≠ wiser 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

I don't understand your revert of my edit to Phone connector. Aside from the method, I thought my edit was exactly what was discussed, and what you yourself agreed to with your comment of 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC). Please explain. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect that you would cut and paste or that phone jack would become redirect to this page. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss where "Phone jack" should redirect to later.

But, your only objection to making Phone connector a redirect, a copy of what is now at Phone jack, was the way it was done? It seems to me that everybody else had stopped arguing, and it seemed that you agreed that the new contents of Phone connector should be what is at Phone jack now. So I didn't think my action was at all a "unilateral" change, let alone a "unilateral implementation of option that was not even being discussed", as your edit summary accused. Jeh (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No. While I can see where my comments could be misinterpreted, I was not suggesting you should go ahead and perform that action. I was trying to point out that your proposal was complicated by the fact that there already was an existing disambiguation page and I was questioning the value of duplication. older ≠ wiser 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I addressed this before. The existing disambiguation page should not be named as it is, as the name is specific to one gender of the connector (either type), and all articles in this area cover both. Google searches for e.g. "telephone connector" may mislead you here because one does not often write about the general case covering both male and female variants. One writes of inserting a "phone plug" into a corresponding "jack". That doesn't mean that "xxx jack" is the right name for an article about both genders of the connector - or for a DA page for both genders of several types of connector. The term "connector" makes it clear that the article (or DA page) covers both.

Several other editors here support disambiguating "Phone connector". I don't see the existing DA page at "Phone jack" as a "complication", it's a mistake to be fixed. Jeh (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is a different discussion, and in any case not something you should unilaterally implement while this discussion has not been closed. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: proposed addition of content onto the article.

I have previously suggested that content related to stereo balanced connection use of the connector as well as comparision versus other connector are missing from the article, however the addition of such template is undid by @Jeh:. They cited the line "TRS jacks are sometimes used for balanced connections" from the article, but problem with this is that since TRS only have 3 contact, when used for balanced audio connection it cannot be used for transmission of balanced stereo signal, and instead would be used for balanced mono. Likewise, well you ctrl+F the article with keyword "balanced mono" you can see many part of the article mention how the connector can be used for balanced mono, unbalanced mono and unbalanced stereo but missed out its application for balanced stereo signal.

On the other hand, while the article should not spent too much in focusing comparision against other connector, but I believe it would be helpful to compare the connector against other connector to let readers aware of the benefit and drawbacks of the connector. Other comparable connections include XLR/RCA/TT connnectors which have already mentioned in the article a few times but does not really take about the advantage or disadvantage of choosing this connector over any of those connectors, and other comparable connector would include for example USB and lightning connectors that some phone manufacturers integrated the audio output function into as well as wireless interface like bluetooth which some phone manufacturer have favored such interface over providing an audio jack on their phone.C933103 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Oh, you're talking about the TRRS version, used for stereo 'phones with the L and R sides completely isolated? Ok, that's an easy add, but do you have a reference? Would this reference: https://www.headphone.com/pages/balanced-headphones-guide do?

2. We also have articles on other connectors commonly used for audio: XLR, RCA, etc.. A comparison of audio connector types in this article would elevate it above the status of the others, and we're not supposed to do that. I would like to put such info in Of course, the great and almighty Wikipedia Rules prevent us from having a disambiguation page named e.g. "Audio connector" that also includes details like comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of each type. Maybe we could have an article, "Comparison of audio connectors"? It would, in practice, be a DA page too, we'll just have to not tell anyone that it is. ;) Of course, references will be needed for anything except the most obvious claims. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The TRRS 4-conductor balanced stereo application is not widely used. It's not worth talking about it if there is nothing about it in the literature. Let's not make the mistake that a bit of promotional website explanation can substitute for a reliable source. What would make this connector important enough to mention would be multiple discussions of the application in magazines, books and other independent third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well... Notability doesn't apply to items of content only within an article, only to the existence of articles. Still, the principle of WP:DUE weight applies. My impression is that balanced 'phones are more commonly on four-conductor XLR connectors. Jeh (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1. The focus of https://www.headphone.com/pages/balanced-headphones-guide this site is headphone itself not connector, and while it do have a section for plugs used, only XLR connector is covered in that section, so I suppose that could not count as a reference.
   • That TRRS 4-conductor balanced stereo application should be widely use enough that when I generally search "2.5mm headphone" without description in google in chinese, all the results are about how 2.5mm TRRS stereo connector is now the industrial trend replacing 3.5mm TRS from the past few years (instead of old nokie headphone that i expected), for instance [32][33][34][35]. Not sure why there are so little result off google in English though.
2. Nah, the main reason I would like to add comparision with other connectors is to provide a more clear view on the benefit and drawback of the phone connector, for instance in the USB article, there is a section named as "Comparisons with other connection methods" which outlined benefits/drawbacks of USB compares to those different kind of connections and can give a clear view on advantage/disadvantage of the particular connector over other connectors.

C933103 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. The 3.5mm TRS connector was already the Worst. Connector. Ever. used for audio (or analog signals in general). (Heck, even the quarter-inch version is not all that reliable, especially for connections that are not made and broken often.) The TRRS version was of course worse, as adding another pole makes the tension in the jack's contacts, and particularly the contact to "sleeve", that much more tenuous. Then they took the 2.5mm version (by definition, worse than the 3.5mm due to even less possible contact area) and made a TRRS version?

And the fools are claiming that that is what they want for the sonic advantages of balanced stereo headphones?!

I suspect you're not seeing much mention of this in English language searches because you're seeing a lot of chatter in "enthusiast" forums... from people who don't know any better.

Comparison between phone connectors and other connectors used for similar purposes belongs in the Audio and video interfaces and connectors article.

Oh god, now I've mentioned that title in front of rules-uber-alles types. There will now no doubt be a campaign to remove the plural from that title. All of Wikipedia will collapse if this is not done!!! Jeh (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It might not provide any meaningful increase in audio quality, but as they have been made I think they should be covered in the article. C933103 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE we'll need a WP:RS to establish that this is worthy of inclusion and not just a fad among a bunch of modders and fringe-level manufacturers. A lot of different connectors have been used for a lot of things over the years; we don't need to include every last one, particularly new applications that have yet to see anything like widespread market adoption and longevity. WP is not a newspaper or even a trade journal; it's not our business to report everything new. Jeh (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Internationally it appears that products like Onkyo DP-X1, Astell&Kern AK70/AK240/etc., Oppo PM-2 and headphones like Pioneer SE-MHR5 are all coming with this type of connector...

And JEITA have also defined a 4.4mm TRRRS standard RC-8141C for balanced stereo output last year...

C933103 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)