Talk:Category 6 cable

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category 6 cable article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

RJ-45

Although the RJ-45 link redirects to the 8P8C page, would it not be better to make a more explicit statement of the real name of the connector? Something like: "normally terminated in 8P8C modular connectors (often casually referred to as RJ-45)"

What a terrible (RJ-45) photo!

Rather than resorting to the explanation that the "the plastic latching tab facing away from the viewer", why not just a photo of an RJ-45 with the wire still attached! Much more intuitive...

About C1 C2 Standar

I think that CAT6 cable must be included in addition to actual 6A.

About C1 Standard, this is confusing, the linked page "The standard for Category 6A (augmented Category 6) is ANSI/TIA-568-C.1" However all seems indicate that is C2, not C1.

"The main standard, ANSI/TIA-568.0-D defines general requirements, while ANSI/TIA-568-C.2 focuses on components of balanced twisted-pair cable systems. ANSI/TIA-568.3-D addresses components of fiber optic cable systems, and ANSI/TIA-568-C.4, addressed coaxial cabling components."

"All these documents accompany related standards that define commercial pathways and spaces (TIA-569-C-1, February 2013), residential cabling (ANSI/TIA-570-C, August 2012), administration standards (ANSI/TIA-606-B, December 2015), grounding and bonding (TIA-607-C, November 2015), and outside plant cabling (TIA-758-B, April 2012)."

Since other references:

TIA-569-C-1: Entry installations • Main / Intermediate Cross-Connect) • Back-bone distribution • Horizontal Corss-Connect • Horizontal Distribution • Work areas

ANSI/TIA/EIA 568-C.2: Balanced Twisted-Pair Cabling Components

https://blog.siemon.com/standards/ansitia-568-c-2-copper-cabling-and-components "This Standard specifies the mechanical and transmission requirements of category 3, 5e, 6, 6A, and 8 balanced twisted-pair copper cabling and components."

https://blog.siemon.com/standards/ansitia-568-c-family-of-standards-overview "As shown below, the generic infrastructure topology is actually fully consistent with the commercial building topology specified in TIA-568‑C.1." "balanced twisted-pair channel and permanent link specifications are contained in TIA-568-C.2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark 23 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20110817164505/http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/press_releases/2009/PR-312_TIA_Publishes_New_Cabling_Standards.cfm

Arlington, Va. – The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), recently released two highly anticipated cabling standards: the new TIA-568-C.0 Generic Telecommunications Cabling for Customer Premises and the TIA-568-C.1 Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard revision.

The new standards improve upon and replace TIA-568-B.1 and its addenda, which were reviewed and revised under the cognizance of TIA Engineering Committee TR-42 Telecommunications Cabling Systems, and TR-42.1 Subcommittee on Generic and Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling. These two new documents will be combined with TIA-568-C.3 Optical Fiber Cabling Components Standard (which was published in June 2008 and is available now) and TIA-568-C.2, Balanced Twisted-Pair Telecommunications Cabling and Components Standard (release expected later in 2009) to become the TIA-568-C suite of standards.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/ANSI/TIA-568#Standards

   ANSI/TIA-568.0-D, Generic Telecommunications Cabling for Customer Premises, Ed. D, 09-2015
   ANSI/TIA-568.1-D, Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, Ed. D, 09-2015
   ANSI/TIA-568-C.2, Balanced Twisted-Pair Telecommunication Cabling and Components Standard, Ed. C, Err. 04-2014
   ANSI/TIA-568.3-D, Optical Fiber Cabling And Components Standard, Ed. D, 10-2016
   ANSI/TIA-568-C.4, Broadband Coaxial Cabling and Components Standard, Ed. C, 07-2011

In other site show: The TIA is working to complete a new specification that will define enhanced performance standards for unshielded twisted pair cable systems. Draft specification ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.2-10 specifies cable systems, called "Augmented Category 6" or more frequently as "Category 6a", http://innovave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TIA-568-C.1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210129163522/http://innovave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TIA-568-C.1.pdf

"8.4Recognized cabling Three types of media are recognized and recommended for use in the horizontal cabling system. These media are: a) 4-pair 100-ohm unshielded or shielded twisted-pair cabling: category 5e, category 6 or category 6A (ANSI/TIA/EIA-568-B.2) b) multimode optical fiber cabling (ANSI/TIA-568-C.3), 2-fiber (or higher fiber count) c) single-mode optical fiber cabling (ANSI/TIA-568-C.3), 2-fiber (or higher fiber count) "

Is the new standard ANSI/TIA-568.2-D (replaces 568-C.2)?: https://www.anixter.com/content/dam/Suppliers/Leviton/Brochures/Leviton%20-Cat6A%20Reference%20Guide.%20051518pdf.pdf "TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association)Telecommunications: ANSI/TIA-568.2-D (replaces 568-C.2)Defines: Performance requirements for Cat 6A channels, permanent links, and components"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spark 23 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat vs. Cat.

Is there a reason why we don't include the period at the end of the abbreviated form in constructions such as "Cat. 6"?

Uninvited Company 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UninvitedCompany: Cat 6, Cat. 6, Cat6 and CAT6 are all commonly used abbreviations. We like to keep terminology consistent at least within an article. The WP:MOS prefers simplicity and generally doesn't like extra punctuation and capital letters. However, we do like to use terminology that is already familiar to readers. Can you make a case that Cat. 6 is clearly the most common? ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'See also' for category 5 cable

@Aboudaqn: Your newly added See also section with a single entry that is already linked in both the article body and in the bottom navbox is useless and in violation of WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. The exact same happens on Category 5 cable. Your reverting behavior is also in violation of WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. Please accustom yourself with those community rules and remove the useless section, or at least stop reverting removal. --Zac67 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i strongly disagree with wikipedia's current opinion on this. no one can predict where and how readers view an entry, while wiki-links are probably the one feature that makes this online encyclopedia superior to non-digital encyclopedia (which have now copied wikipedia). who knows if a reader will see links in the article or in the navbar? are you sure they will look there? since you cannot be sure, then why not foster the most information by adding to "see also" sections as well? Aboudaqn (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not digging into that flawed logic that would lead to severly bloated See also sections. If you disagree with that guideline you'll need to take it to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout. You can't simple ignore community decisions and do what you like. --Zac67 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Zac67. I came here based on the third option post at WP:THIRD. And despite my respect for the unconventional argument by @Aboudaqn, with Cat 5 being mentioned so early on and being easy to search for, the justification to break from norms here is not convincing, to me. CT55555(talk) 18:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also here from WP:3O, and I agree with the above: taking the counterargument to its logical conclusion, if we were going to have a see also section there, there's a lot of other stuff of equal relevance - probably at least every link in the first sentence besides backward compatible. Including all of those seems unnecessary, and I see no reason to treat that one link specially. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]