Talk:D-subminiature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] DB-whatever versus the original nomenclature

Based on the useful research and info supplied by others (below) it appears that neither DE9 nor DB9 "wins". Many suppliers use DE9, many other entities use DB9. So this article just needs to make it clear at the front that DE9 is technically correct but that DB9 is often used. WP only has to report the situation, not make a value judgement about the way it should be. Aaron Lawrence 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does being pedantic about the name of the connector come ahead of readiblity? I'm not sure, but reading DE-9 when I expect DB-9 is a little annoying. Chalk it up to the poor marketing of the DE-9 moniker.

Yes, yes, it does. As the Discordian quotes file says " 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong!". Let's try to explain these popular misconceptions and light some candles. I'm annoyed when I read "DB 9" when I'm expecting "DE 9".--Wtshymanski 18:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Once you learn that DB9 is wrong, and why, then it looks stupid for ever after. If you think that the second letter doesn't matter, then leave it out and call it a D9, but don't put in a spurious letter. --Heron 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If "DB9" is incorrect, may I suggest you notify the EIA 232 standards committee, as they use the term themselves. While it may be noble to preserve the intent of a 30 year old ITT part numbering scheme, I feel following the standards committee would be the correct behavior -- and the standards committee is following common usage. —Hobart 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, of course, that the EIA standards committee got it wrong and no one has pointed it out to them yet. It wouldn't be the first time that a standard contained a mistake. (Speaking as someone who has sat on a number of standards committees in the past.)

Atlant 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been an "EIA 232" standards committee in years. See RS-232 and Telecommunications Industry Association. --Wtshymanski 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick survey, courtesy of the Farnell website [1], to see what nomenclature modern manufacturers use.

• CEEP: own
• Cinch: DE9
• Elco: own
• FCI: DE9
• Harting: own
• ITT Cannon: DE9
• ITW McMurdo: DE9
• Lorlin: own
• LTW: DB9
• Multicomp: own
• Phoenix Contact: own
• Tyco/AMP: own

("own" means that they use their own part numbering system). I'm not claiming this as proof that DE9 wins over DB9, but it shows that, amongst manufacturers at least, DE9 is still taken seriously. As for common usage, I agree that DB9 is much more common. I don't mind if you want to call them DB9s, but I think Wikipedia should point out that DE9 is still used, and for a good reason. --Heron 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, note that Farnell itself uses 'DB9'. Go to the site and search for DE9 and DB9: today, DB9 finds 21 cable assembles and 24 other relevent items: DE9 finds 2 D connectors and 300 other unrelated items.

Moving from fairness to cruelty, this seems to indicate that 'DE9' is mostly relevent to the same kind of people who don't approve of split infinitives, and for the same kind of reason. 218.214.148.10 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (david)

I checked out the Site for the RS-232 standards they as so have it listed as DB-9/DB9 http://www.camiresearch.com/Data_Com_Basics/RS232_standard.html#anchor242192 and CompTIA the lead in entery level certifications for US and Canada at the least in both A+ and Network+ refer to it as a DB-9/DB9 depending on how you want to write it. I don't have proof of ComTIA but just check out one of there study guides at the public libary. Deed85 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DE15 versus HD15

The article claims the standard moniker for a video cable (three rows of 5) is DE15. This may be true, but the rest of the world calls it HD15. A web search for "DE15" will not find you a video cable! 44.15.15.109

Did you get to this line in the article?

DE15 connectors are frequently and innaccurately termed DB15, DB15HD, and HD15.

Atlant 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason for keeping the original nomenclature, and that is that there are lots of other D-shell connectors besides those listed here. I personally use a high-density, 44-pin connector that fits in a standard 25-pin shell. Using the original nomenclature this would be a DB44, which is pretty straightforward. Somewhat common high-density connectors include 15, 26, 44, 62, and 72 pin versions (DE15, DA26, DB44, DC62, and DD72). If we divorce the shell size from the pin count then it makes it much easier to specify these parts (note that a DE15 and DA15 both have 15 pins, but in a very different arrangement and they won't mate no matter how hard you push). There was thought and method in the original nomenclature, and until someone comes up with a better plan it's up to the end users to keep their suppliers in line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.157.154 (talk • contribs) .