Info As noted, these are the most common types of connectors. No surprise that wikipedia doesn't have pictures of anything else. The connector used in FDDI networks is also known by that name, follow the external link in the English article. Regarding the MTRJ, what you see is pretty much what you get :) The only connector not listed that I'd like to add at some point, is the MU, mostly used in the telecoms industry (DWDM multiplexers and such). adamantios (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About missing connectors: you're probably right on the fact that they're the most common ones, but some kind of "completeness" is demanded for a VI set, and it is unclear how the limit has been set here. If you'd like to add another picture, then none of us thinks it's complete enough! About "FDDI" connector: is it what the article calls a MIC connector? It's the only one associated with FDDI in the table. About MTRJ, actually I would have liked a more frontal view. This picture, for instance, shows better the connecting part itself. Maybe it is a bit subjective, maybe I could say the same thing about the SC picture.
Only because you seem to insist (??!) on the naming of the FDDI connector, here's the external link I was referring to: The Fiber Optic Association. Since it might still not be clear, here's the description of my nomination (in bold!): The most common optical fiber connectors (not an exhaustive list). Actually maybe I shouldn't have included the FDDI connector, it's considered obsolete. adamantios (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About FDDI: well, if FDDI is the most common name for the connector, let it be so. About the scope: Description is one thing, scope is another. Your current scope is "Optical fiber connectors" (and I already said, I'm very ok with it), and the set should be representative of it. If the set is incomplete in some way, it cannot be representative. What we lack here is a precise limit to define this completeness: I'm not really satisfied with "most common" as a criterion (maybe too subjective?), but other reviewers may have other opinions about it. Additionally, I don't see why we should ignore obsolete connectors. However, I guess you've answered enough of my criticisms for me to remove my opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
