Jump to content

Talk:AC power plugs and sockets/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Assessment

This article is rated as an A-class article. I agree that it is worth to be nominated to be FAC, if it will be better referenced. However, without additional references it should be downgraded to the B-class. Please help with adding missing references.Beagel (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

References, pictures and data has been added to the Type L section. --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Type E live neutral

I found a 1994 Belgian plug with live and neutral marked, see http://picaros.org/key/plugbe.jpg for a photo. Left is live when looking at a socket installed with the earth pin upwards. 81.83.8.132 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Australian plugs in Italy?

Never saw one in all my life, nor I see any reason why anyone may adopt it here. I'm adding a "quotation needed"; but in case no one brings evidence, Italy bust be deleted from the list of australian-type plugs adopters. Marco Gilardetti (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone removed the bogus sentence. Problem solved. --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the stage pin connector is there?

It seems to me that the so-called stage-pin-connector is misplaced to say the least. Has it to be considered a domestic mains plug in first place? Isn't it a specialized, professional-use connector which should be moved to another more appropriate and specific page? And in case it is qualified to stay here, shouldn't it be moved to the obsolete and unusual connectors section perhaps? --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, because it's an AC power plug? Note the present title of the article. It's not obsolete, and I imagine theatre lighting electricians wouldn't consider it unusual. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The title of the page has been a poor choice in first place IMHO. This page used to be relative to DOMESTIC power plugs. See archived discussions above and the change of title below. Unfortunately, due to the complaints of one single man in the world who failed to understand the word "domestic", the word "domestic" has been removed from the title without replacing it with an equivalent substitute, so now almost every kind of AC connector fits here, and there are BILLIONS of them. But who comes here wants to understand what he may expect to find in foreign houses or offices, not at theaters, in cinemas or AC plugs he may find if he's hired in some specific profession. That said, it seems clear to me that stage pin connectors are not found in houses, thus I propose to move it to another page or delete. Is there a page dedicated to profession-specific AC connectors perhaps? --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate the article title again - that ship has sailed a long time ago. I wanted the articles named after "single phase" and "three phase" connectors, which is clear-cut and world-wide and makes no assumptions about what sort of building the connector is used in. Consensus means we all agree collectively to something that not one of us would agree to individually.
The purpose of an article title is to identify the article's contents. Ideally, an article title would be a word or phrase that someone would type into a search box, but the present title will never be typed in anyway and I can't picture any revision that would be accurate and also a likely search string. This is what redirects are for.
It was rather silly to restrict the article to "domestic" applications since the exact same plugs and sockets are used for non-residential purposes as well. We do have an article Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets but I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to move the stage pin connectors. I was somewhat interested to see the theatre industry has its own proprietary plugs and it's not likely I would have found any theatre electrical articles otherwise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that a decision has been taken long time ago doesn't mean that the decision taken was good. "Mains plug" and "Line plug" are both sentences that all english speakers all over the world understand perfectly. Only british and americans simulate they don't understand each other. However, both could have been satisfied by naming the page simply "Mains (Line) plugs" or anyhting similar.
Now back to topic, cause we talked of anything BUT my first question so far. Is there some specific reason why the stage pin connector shouldn't be moved to the "unusual plugs" section? What about creating a "single-purpose connectors" or "specialized connectors" section, as long as soon we will have thousands of them on this page?--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both "mains plug" and "line plug" sound very odd in my ear- I can work out what they mean, but these are not typical Canadian (North American) usages. If any of 300 million English-speaking NA residents are going to type in a search phrase it will most likely be "plug", "socket" or maybe "power plug" or "AC plug". The British and the Americans really don't understand each other and when you start talking about putting the spanner into the boot of your lorry on your way to fix the lift in a block of flats, any American not a fan of "Masterpiece Theatre" is going to give you a funny look. Let alone the way the letter "u" makes a word completely untelligible if added or omitted. We Canadians are superior to this sort of thing, of course. I'd agree with the stage-pin connector moving to the "industrial" connectors article. That, too, is a bad title. "Single phase" and "three phase" would have been the way to go. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with going that way is that many industrial plugs and sockets come in both single and three phase versions. There is also the problem of what to do with the split phase connectors that are common in north america.
I think this article group needs a major restructuring in general though, i'm just not sure how best to do it. This article is clearly too big as it is (especially after someone merged in "unusual and obsolete plugs and sockets"). It doesn't help that the article group as a whole has a LOT of information on some countries and very little on others. Plugwash (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The merge-in of unusual & obsolete was my doing after something of a tenuous consensus on the matter, overly entangled with the (clearer, stronger) consensus for the present article title. We were and are grappling with "Unusual and obsolete plugs and sockets" being too specialised and picayune for a standalone article — the trouble being that such articles usually stagnate at a low quality level. There is an easy way to mitigate the length issue, and that is to use a hidtab for the "Unusual and Obsolete" section. That way the article is effectively only as long as it would be without that section, but the section's existence gets better and wider exposure than it would in a backwater standalone; those who wish to view or edit it can access it with a single click, otherwise it stays out of the way. Please go take a look at the article now I've added the hidtab, and see if you think it adequately addresses this aspect of the length issue.
The article title itself has indeed been the subject of engaged discussion — please see Archive 2 of this page — and I do think the present title is probably as close to optimal as has yet been proposed. Marco Gilardetti, much as I wish I could support your proposal for something like mains plugs and sockets, I can't; that terminology is concise, but it simply is not used or familiar in North America, and probably elsewhere besides. Line plugs and sockets is only slightly better from the North American perspective, but only engineers and repair technicians refer to "line cords", so this too fails the common-use test. Let's keep in mind that it's fairly common on Wikipedia to use for a limited-scope article a title that could refer to a whole umbrella category, and refer to additional standalone articles for subcategories large enough and of general enough interest to support them. We have Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, which could be cleaned up, perhaps renamed along the lines of Industrial and commercial power plugs and sockets, and that would seem to serve as a good place to ofload the stage-pin connectors that don't really belong here in AC power plugs and sockets. Pursuing such a strategy as this would probably tend to reduce the length of this present article (which is on the long side) and increase the length of the industrial/commercial article (which is relatively on the short side) and thus alleviate the overlength concern without creating new problems. What do we think? —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Split phase is single phase. Stage pin connectors could move to the "industrial" article. The problem with naming is that a NEMA 5-15 or a Schuko receptacle is just as likely to found in an industrial setting as residential. I like reading about the obsolete types - there was a standard for DC receptacles which I'd like to know more about (but which is a little off-topic for us here). --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't say i'm a huge fan of the collapsable box. It doesn't seem much more conviniant than a see-also and it means everyone downloads the crap whether they want it or not, it also causes issues with the toc (solved for now by removing toc entries from it's subsections). IMO the unusual and obsolete article is destined to remain low quality forever whether it is included as part of this article or not. Indeed if it were to become good quality it would be several articles worth of content (there must be hundreds). As it is it's a handfull of the particular unusual and obsolete plugs and sockets with little in the way of references (finding references for stuff that was obsolete before the internet era is hard at the best of times, particularlly when you don't even know it's proper name). In some ways I wonder if it would be best to put it out of it's misery and delete it altogether but while a lot of the stuff has homes elsewhere some of it doesn't in the current stufcture. Plugwash (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, stage pin connector gone to industrial plugs page.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How we got here

After reading this, what I would like to know is how we ended up with all these different types? It's hard to believe that there wasn't some attempt to make the plugs incompatible for industry protectionism or the like. 121.45.243.94 (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're looking at it backwards. When the first power companies were established each one developed their own plugs and sockets. These were mostly small (by today's standards) local companies. As the industry grew and consolidated (usually within individual countries - this was way before globalisation was "invented") the different types were reduced. Once electric power reached a critical mass and level of interconnectedness within a country there was often intervention from government or a collective industry organisation to set uniform standards. In some cases "related" or neighbouring countries adopted the standards of the "dominant" country. For example many Commonwealth countries use current or former UK standards. Since "wallwart" appliances became common the 2-pin "Europlug" has become the de-facto if not de-jure standard for many countries using 230-250V 50Hz current. The process of reducing the differences is still ongoing. Roger (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
To expand on what the previous poster said the UK once had around 25 different types of plug !. In the 1920's the Government tried to to sort out the mess by setting a "standard" (or rather family of standards) called BS 546 only to realise in the 1940's that the situation was still somewhat messy and conclude that the answer was yet another standard called BS1363 Other countries seem to have had similar experiences although most of them (e.g. France, Germany) managed to settle on a single (albeit not international) standard a lot earlier. Unfortunately there was less impetus for a global standard back them as international travel was not as frequent and the political orthodoxy of the time tended to favour national protectionism over international free trade (and the resultant economies of scale and conveniences which a single standard would have brought) 86.112.87.162 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Much of the oddness comes from trying to devise different ways to keep people from getting shocked by getting too close to the exposed metal contacts.
  • Some plugs recess into shallow pockets on the outlet so that a thin metal object can't fall between the plug and the socket face.
  • Some plugs only have metal on the tip of the pin with plastic further up the sleeve for this same reason. A metal object falling in between wall and plug would land on the plastic sleeve and stay unpowered.
  • Some plugs use what seem to be huge and excessively large insulating plug heads, which works to increase the distance of the user's hand from the live plug prongs.
  • If the plug has big fat pins, then the socket holes are big and fat and pose a shock hazard by themselves. Some outlets have a built-in electric power switch and use internal mechanical interlocks so that an unused outlet cannot be turned on.
  • In the United States a recent small but important change is to start installing 3-prong outlets "upside down" with the ground pin above the slots. This way a thin metal object falling into the gap between wall and plug will land on the ground prong and stay unpowered.
So, essentially, it's just a hundred different ways of trying to keep people from accidentally getting hurt with no real decisions on what is the best across all types. DMahalko (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We really should not be discussing this here; article talk pages are for discussing the article, not its topic. This thread will likely get removed at or before the next old-discussion archive operation. That said: I don't believe you are at all correct regarding the "upside down" installation of U.S. outlets. Did you see a reliable source supporting your idea? TTBOMK, there is no formal or informal standard for the rotative orientation of electrical outlets in the U.S. National Electric Code, nor in its Canadian equivalent. Outlets may be (and, with seemingly random distribution, are) installed ground-down, ground-up, ground-left, or ground-right. This has been the case for quite a long time; my previous house in the U.S. was built in 1966 and had a mix of ground-up and ground-left; the brand-new (opened last month) public library building in my present city has all wall outlets installed ground-down. The notion that ground-up is safer is easily debunked; Wall-warts, heavy-duty line or extension cords with low-profile plugs, and other devices, depending on their design, may be much more prone to leaning/falling or being inadvertently pulled partway out of a wall socket with grounds up rather than down or sideways. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion that this should not be discussed here is precisely that: your opinion. I believe this an important background issue and potentially could be included in the main article. An engineering background discussion of why various plugs/sockets were designed the way they were would be a useful addition for Wikipedia, but this is such a long article already I don't think we want to drag it out even further. This information (if it can be found) should probably put into separate articles for each plug/socket type.
As to the plug orientation, this is also a "to the best of my knowledge". I seem to recall seeing something in the US National Electric Code. I'll see if I can find it again.
DMahalko (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well…no, it's really more of a fact than an opinion that this present discussion is not appropriate. Please do go see the link you seem to have overlooked; it goes to the WP talk page guidelines, which state (inter alia) Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects).

Moving to more appropriate topics for this page: I agree with you that verifiable coverage of the factors that went into the various particular designs, if robustly supported would be very germane and appropriate material, probably — as you say — concisely here, and in more detail at articles for specific plug and socket designs.

I'll be very interested to see what you turn up to support the notion of a technical prescription on the rotative position of outlets in the U.S. NEC. —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They were discussing the inclusion of a section explaining the derivation of these various forms of plugs. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that would be using the talk page to discuss the article. If they were starting up a conversation about how much Europlugs sucked, then by all means, ride in on your high horse and start laying down the law. This is innocent. Stop being overbearing and let it go. 82.211.214.40 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How to manage the unusual and obsolete plugs section

I saw the work done with the collapsible section. Though the work was very good, I'm a bit on the negative side with it. My personal opinion is that the article is still not too long, once the treated argument is considered (different plugs from all over the world). Moreover I liked to read the section concerning the good old stuff. I thought that maybe the "obsolete" section can be better managed with a review and grouping of other subjects. I then tried to: 1) rename the main section "plugs and sockets in present use"; 2) promote type A to type M subchapters up one level; 3) promote the "unused and obsolete" section up to chapter; 4) group together the leftover subjects under the new "from one standard to another" chapter. (I reckon the title could be better so feel free to change). What do you think? It looks to me that the "obsolete" section is better recognized as a complement to main topic of the article in this way.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In general I like your edits, and I've built on them. For now I've commented-out the hidden tab so the unusual & obsolete section is once again visible by default — you may well be right that it ought not be hidden, and if that's the general feeling we can delete the hidtab code altogether. On rereading that section, it seems to me we ought to split it in two: obsolete plugs and sockets in one chapter, unusual plugs and sockets in another. They really are two different subtopics; many plugs and sockets were once ubiquitous and can now only be considered "unusual" by dint of no longer being common fitment — compare the reaction of a present-day 14-year-old to a rotary-dial telephone. Unusual plugs and sockets such as the NEMA 1-15 shown in the article, on the other hand, were never common fitment even when they were in current production. So I think a sectional split is warranted; the obvious benefit is that it will give us some breathing room on the length of each individual chapter.
I also removed (old) material that ran afoul of WP:NOT — mostly by rewording the adapter chapter and its heading and making other similar changes. Our job is to describe the world as it is, not to caution Harry Homeowner that he mustn't ever do X, Y, or Z lest he get an electric shock. Along that line, does the wire colour code section really belong here? These same colours also apply to every other device and cable run; they are not unique to plugs and sockets. Inclusion in this plugs-and-sockets article doesn't necessarily violate WP:NOTMANUAL, but it comes close, and it seems to me this information would be a better fit in Mains electricity or Electrical wiring or Electrical wiring (United States) or Electrical wiring (UK) (some of which should probably be intermerged, but that's another discussion for elsewhere). Seems to me we could better handle the wire colour code by putting it in an article dealing with wiring in general, and linking there from here.
One well-intended critique, if I may: Please take care with section heading length and tone. "From one standard to another" is neither concise nor especially encyclopædic, and didn't really describe the contents of the section. Likewise, this is an article about plugs and sockets, so we needn't repeat the phrase "plugs and sockets" in section headings. "Plugs and sockets in present use" can become in present use without loss of meaning or clarity. Likewise, "Obsolete and unusual types of plugs and sockets" can become obsolete and unusual types. And this present heading here on the talk page could've been "Unusual/obsolete plug section" or somesuch. Long headings easily grow unwieldy, particularly in the table of contents. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the changes you've made to titles; I'm not an english as mother language speaker, so I was the first to say that my titles were poor. I just wanted to see if there was consensus in moving and de-grouping some topics. Splitting obsolete and unusual plugs/sockets is okay for me, this might give us better control in case the "unusual" section will grow up to a mess of useless local curiosities. I am persuaded that the "obsolete" section is far more useful for readers in search of information. I'm giving it a try, feel free to undo if it doesn't look good.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What do we do with the colour code table?

I split this discussion from a previous thread. In my opinion, there are some reasons why it is appropriate for it to stay here. However its place, if indeed it has one, is definitely not at the page's end. What if we move it into the "The three contacts" chapter, after the "Terminology" subchapter? Or perhaps immediately after the "The three contacts" introduction, where the fact that there are three wires is explained?--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here at all - if it should go anywhere, it should be in Electrical wiring, perhaps with a note that says "Here's the way some countries (say that they) color their wires (now). Many local rules and exceptions exist. Older installations vary in color codes, and colors may shift with heat and age of insulation. " --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't belong here. It's not directly relevant to the subject of the article, for wire colours are not specific to plugs or to sockets. Furthermore, wire colours within a line cord (terminated in a plug) may be different from wire colours within a building's electrical installation (connected to a socket). And as Wtshymanski notes, there are several different kinds of substantial divergence from nominal specifications. So…out it goes! —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. But can we make sure that a new home for it is found? Just becuase it doesn't belong here doesn't mean we should lose it completely. It is good content. I can't see equivalent information in any of the other associated articles. I can't see an obvious place to put it either. Should it get its own article? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Polarised plugs section opinionated?

I was going to write few notes on unpolarised plugs, so I first gave a deep read to the polarised plugs section to see how the argument was treated. That paragraph sounds opinionated to me. By reading it, one would think that using unpolarised plugs is unsafe and countries using them are fool. But, as far as my knowledge goes, security can't and doesn't rely on the fact that the "hot" cable is switched or that the socket is wired properly. All modern appliances are at least IP2X so all arguments mentioned there make no difference. Those with europlugs must be at least Class II so polarisation is not a problem (even the earth plug can be omitted, and is in fact omitted). In the remaining cases, the appliance is provided with a bipolar switch that radically solves any problem. Switching the hot cable MIGHT help security in older, less safe appliances, but older type appliances often have NEMA type A plug which is UNpolarised. In conclusion: I think that security is not an argument toward polarised plugs and the paragraph need to be reviewed. Your thoughts?--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An unpolarised plug combined with an appliance with a single pole switch can lead to an appliance that is apparently off but still live. This is not immediately dangerous but can increase the risk if either there is another fault, or the user tries to work on an appliance (say removing what is left of a broken bulb) with the appliance switched off but not unplugged. Fuses cannot protect against live-earth faults if they are in the wrong side of the supply (not an issue if there is a RCD/GFCI but very few countried have those on every socket).
Thats not to say unpolarised plugs are nessacerally dangerous, just that the appliance designer (if selling into a market where unpolarised plugs are normal) or the user (if using equipment they have brought themselves from a market were polarisation is expected to one where it isn't) must be aware of the potential issues and take appropriate precautions. Plugwash (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you bring evidence that household appliances lower than IP2X are currently being legally produced and legally sold in the United States? Otherwise, polarised or unpolarised makes no difference. However, this page is about plugs, not security-related issues. There are specific pages where Mister X is being told what can happen to him if he opens his old toasts machine and touches the heating wires with the plug still into the socket.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Every screw-base lamp socket has a significant exposure of the terminals if the lamp is unscrewed. (Not many appliances of any kind are being made in the United States!) "IP" levels aren't used by North American manufacturers. I didn't detect opinions in the section, but I'm coming at this from the point of view that every national standard is particular to that region's overall practices - you can't take one feature in isolation and claim that the resulting system is or is not safe because of it. In my opinion polarization of plugs is a very minor contribution to safety of a product, but I am not a member of any UL, CSA, NEC committee that sets these standards. Presumably national standards committees know what they are doing and come up with the safest solutions they can. Having read some of records of meetings for NEC and CSA code changes, and seeing just how much exhaustive detail is discussed for this sort of item, I'm sure European proceedings are just as meticulous (with the memoranda being in 6 languages). Wikipedia articles shouldn't state opinions on the relative safety of different national standards unless citing reliable third-party evaluations. (Oh, and thanks for the pictures of the Italian lamp socket adapters...similar things are still sold at my local hardware store for NEMA plugs and Edison screw bases.) --Wtshymanski (talk)
For the sake of discussion, Marco, can you provide a link to a definition of what this IP safety standard is, and what the various levels represent? It is hard to discuss a topic where not all international participants know what you are referring to. DMahalko (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
And of course we have an article IP Code - which is now on my watch list and which needs editing - which explains the degrees of protection. NEMA enclosure levels are not precisely the same because they have a different purpose - IP is strictly about ingress protection. Any plug or socket would be IP00 anyway so it's not terribly relevant to this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While looking for info on double insulation I found another page, that is apparently sort of a duplicate of that one: Appliance classes It looks like double insulation is what Marco is referring to as "IP2X". Also there is another related page, double switching, which he is also mentioning here.

While double insulation and double switching can reduce hazards of unpolarized power connections, probably the biggest reason to keep using polarization is that neither are considered absolute, global design standards against which every manufacturer must follow or face severe fines and penalties for making unsafe equipment. Polarization is just another fallback layer of safety and protection for the public.

Also, it may be that the standards organizations accept that if manufacturers comply with double insulation, they don't have to also use polarization. I have seen major-brand power tools in the United States which say they are double insulated and are not polarized, and I don't see how they could do that unless they had permission to do it.

But I am not a electrical safety standards expert so I can't discuss this any further. DMahalko (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Double insulation and double switching have nothing to do with enclosure protection codes, and the reverse. An IP2x enclosure must keep out a rod of thus-and-so dimensions, typical of a finger poking into a cabinet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for having made things harder than they could have been at the beginning, I thought that IP codes were used worldwide and not only internationally. However yes: IP codes and Classes and double switches are not directly realated to each other, but the three are related to the safety of the appliance and to the plug with which it is provided. IF the plug is unpolarized BUT the appliance is IP2X or more (which is the lower today standard for households), the switch on live wire cannot be claimed as a safer feature for the reasons mentioned in the text. IF the plug is unpolarised BUT the switch is of double type, the possibility of energized wires inside the appliance cannot be claimed as a lesser safe feature. IF the plug has no ground (earth) prong BUT the appliance is CLASS 2, the earth wire and earth connection cannot be claimed as a safer feature altogether. I don't know if I explained my points. The "polarised plugs" section clearly sounds opinionated to those who deal with unpolarised plugs everyday. It's obvious that IF you switch the neutral only AND the appliance is made with garbage so you can put your full arm inside it you'll get a shock. But there are NO appliances made like that with unpolarised plugs since the 1960s at most, so this situation can't be claimed as a today safety feature if you ask me. IP2X (and Class 2 in most cases) are mandatory standards for household appliances. However: is it safer a polarised plug with a switch on the live wire (which can be mismatched), or an unpolarised plug with a double switch that interrupts BOTH cables? I'd say the second one.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way Wtshymanski you got it wrong: ALL the plugs and sockets in the pictures of Type L section are at least IP2X compliant. They are higher to be exact: IP42 for the sockets, probably even more for the plugs but I'm not sure of the rating. All the plugs (and relative cables) pictured are Class 2.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the pictures of type L (and all other type) plugs,I can see the bare pins - so I can't see it being higher than IP0X. A reference showing that thus-and-so-type socket is tested to IP NX would be useful. It's all besides the point of the discussion anyway since the Type L sockets aren't polarized and we were discussing polarized sockets. If you were to cut off the polarized plug on a desk lamp and replace it with a non-polarized plug (or wire it backwards), you have theorietically increased your changes of getting a shock from the lamp shell - the fact that this doesn't happen very often seems to indicate the safety standards are good enough, and there's no way to protect someone bent on self-destruction (for example, wrapping bare wires from the plug around the tongue). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look at them BETTER than you did, you will notice that they are insulated up to half of the prong. Only the tip is metallic. So: when they're not inserted full way into the socket, the portion protruding from the receptacles is isolated with plastic and thus safe; when they're fully inserted, you can't touch them as they're all inside the receptacle. There goes IP2X. Plugs and sockets made by Bticino are all rated IP4X, you can check by yourself on their online catalog.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely this should be two pages?

Why is there one page for two distinct topics. I propose we split this page into two articles: 'AC power plugs' and 'AC power sockets' Seo01 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Such a split would lead to massive duplication of effort and coverage; plugs and sockets are reciprocally contextual. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every plug has its socket and neither is meaningful by itself. It's hard enough to keep one article coherent - imagine trying to sychronize separate plug and socket articles. Anyone who ever actually reads this thing will appreciate the fair and balanced coverage of both sides of the connection. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most people come to this page to understand things. Questions like "what's this weird plug this appliance is fit with, and which socket do I need to use it" are rapidly solved by reading this page. Trained electrical engineers who come here and have a chat on AC standards are clearly a minority. Splitting plugs and sockets would make this page almost useless to most people. --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When I created this article, it was about plugs. I then realised there was already short article about sockets, so I merged them. This avoided a lot of duplicated effort. — Chameleon 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a new unusual socket for this article

A random mention in the Dec 1918 Popular Science, no specifications or brand, just a photo. The two vertically aligned slots look normal enough but what about the two offset side slots? I've never seen anything like it:

Even though Google Books says it is "copyrighted material", while that is technically true, according to the US copyright laws anything from before 1923 that is printed in the United States is PD so this image can probably be safely converted into a Commons image for this article. But I'll let someone else step forward to do this. :) DMahalko (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of NEMA 1-15 × 5

KelleyCook, twice now you have deleted an entire subsection from the Unusual types section of this article. In your edit summaries 1, 2 and your comments on your own talk page, you say the info you keep deleting is "pointless" and "non-impressive" and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. These are not adequate justifications for unilateral deletion of content; it's not okay for you to delete relevant material simply because you don't like it. We work by consensus here, so if you feel the information in question doesn't belong, you need to discuss the matter here on the article's talk page and see what consensus eventually develops. In my view, the 5-outlet socket seems germane to the Unusual types section where it is presently located. Some additional information on its provenance and production history would be good, of course, but there's no chance of that happening if the material is simply deleted. Remember, the default state of a Wikipedia article is "unfinished". Please try to participate more coöperatively and less combatively, okay? Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is in-fact a NEMA 1-15 socket which is already covered in Type A - NEMA 1-15. It happens to have five sockets, but why should that make it any more special or notable than any power strip, which clearly exist today both in external and wall mounted form. Is it unusual because it is from 1928? Maybe, but that wouldn't make it an unusual type of socket like the others in this section. Is it solely because it appears to be the same size as a normal dual socket outlet? Probably not since five sockets fit in that space, but I'm sure this spacing was deemed somewhat dangerous and is no longer be considered to code. Bottom line, I consider this yes "pointless" section to be encyclopedic and trivial. I clearly invite others to proclaim why it is notable for Wikipedia. Finally please remember that you don't WP:OWN articles, before you start leaving random generic TW messages on editors talkpages. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose deletion - It's notable in that it seems very excessive compared to most power outlet designs. It is unclear how many devices could really use it since rounded plug grips and oversized plug grips were also common at the time. It may perhaps not even be a "listed" device due to its unusualness and potential for causing overloaded circuits.
At this time information about it is sketchy so it is hard to do much more than say... "isn't this odd looking?" ... the same as with the odd plug type I have just cited in the previous talk section. But that doesn't seem to be reason enough to just outright delete it. DMahalko (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
KelleyCook, I'm glad you're familiarising yourself with particular rubrics like WP:OWN, and again I encourage you to become more familiar with those aspects of Wikipedia protocol central to effective coöperation, such as WP:CON and WP:AGF. Do note the warnings I left on your talk page were not random, they were specific responses to your unilateral, nonconsensual, and presumptuous removal of relevant material from an article. They also were not generic; the text of both warnings was specifically directed at you in reference to your particular edits. Belligerence is unwarranted; please try to keep in mind that WP:CIVIL applies not only to the content, but also to the tone of your interaction with other editors.
Now — let's discuss how best to resolve this difference of opinion. I think we can all agree that the 5-receptacle outlet is unusual per se; it is a seldom-seen configuration. On the other hand, we also can all agree that the plug/socket system it is for (NEMA 1-15) is not at all unusual. All we have on this outlet at the moment is the photo and rough provenance information. Presently, the paragraph KelleyCook finds objectionable simply repeats the information in the photo caption. Unless/until some more detailed information is uncovered (for example, something concrete on why we scarcely ever see outlets such as this), perhaps it's best if the body-text repetitiion of the caption is struck from the article, and the photo, with caption intact, is moved to the NEMA 1-15 section. If ever anyone unearths enough notable material on this type of outlet to put together substantial text beyond what's covered by the caption, then it can be split out again in whatever fashion is appropriate. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise to everyone who cares? —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A fine way forward. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose deletion - Not living permanently in the States, I can not assess how rare and unusual this 5-way outlet is. However, odd it definitely is. In Europe, even today, wall-mount outlets with more than the 3 standard sockets are unusual and must be explicitly asked to the installer, who has to order special oversized mounting boxes and plates. If this happens today, go figure in the twenties. I agree, though, that the text is poor. Nobody of you feels able to edit it and add some content? Yes perhaps the picture can be moved to illustrate the Type A section (I would not oppose to that), but this would shrink the chance that someone would edit and add information to it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gilardetti (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that 5 outlet socket is not NEMA 1-15 compliant. The NEMA standard allows for single, duplex, and triplex outlets, but 4 or more doesn't conform to the standard. So it definitely belongs obsolete section rather than the unusual section and certainly not in the Type A section. Carolina wren (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Safety issues

Without defending the section on "safety issues" that has been removed a couple of times, I think we do need to cover safety issues in this article. It is clear that plug and socket designs have evolved over time to include additional safety features (fuses, shutters covering live terminals, plastic shielding for potentially exposed parts of pins, child proof socket covers, etc. I am sure that serious study must have been done into their effectiveness both before and after they were incorporated in the newer standards. Surely we can cover this in an encyclopaedic manner? We already have some coverage of this in the sections on the individual standards but many of the techniques are common to multiple standards. I think it merits a section of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Safety-related features and design details of plugs and sockets are certainly within the scope of this article, but we need to be careful not to run afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, service manual, installation manual, code compliance manual, or consumer safety information leaflet. That being the case, the present arrangement, wherein safety features and design details are covered in the individual subsections, gets most of the job done. A sentence or two in the lead calling attention to the existence of safety features is probably warranted, but a detailed rundown or discussion of these would create needless redundancy. I've incorporated Image:LethalSocket.jpg‎ and the Swiss plug safety information into the Swiss plug section (which I've rewritten for clarity). The image's previous caption was ambiguous regarding the function of the indicator light, which appears to be a simple circuit-closed telltale as found on numerous power strips and electrical devices all over the world.

—Scheinwerfermann T·C15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless we get an unusual level of quality references or editors with substantial experience in the field, I have misgivings about the quality of any article pretending to expore, explain and contrast the safety features of receptacles around the world. Our electrotechnology articles in general are often about one notch above a home handyman's understanding of the subject. I don't think its particulary informative or useful to see an abusive use of one particular type of plug and pretend that this somewhat contrived sitaution represents a real menace to the Swiss public. Anything abused can be dangerous - do we need to have sections in every article that explains, oh, say, that stepping out in front of a moving Ford Focus could be dangerous, or that you should not put nitric acid in your eyes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no basis for misgivings about providing factual information about all of the features and design aspects of plugs and sockets: Such-and-such a kind of plug has two round hot/neutral pins of 6.35mm diameter and 20mm length, of which the 15mm closest to the plug body are insulated to prevent electric shock from a partially-inserted plug. The earth pin is 8mm in diameter and 26mm length; when the plug is inserted in the socket, the longer earth pin opens shutters which permit the shorter power pins to enter the socket. What in this causes your misgivings? —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Becuase that's not an encyclopedia article, that's a design description. If you want to know trivial facts because you're going into the plug making business, you'll buy the national standard and carry on from there. If you want to know *why* the pins are 6.35 mm diameter and 20 mm long, good luck finding it on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). (Parenthetically, a *drawing* showing the relative sizes of all the plugs to the same scale would be quite striking - the tiny Italian plug and the giant British plug have similar ratings but the mass ratio has to be 5:1. However, many of these plugs are only documented in IEC standards which cost a fortune, compared to the NEMA standard which is a free .PDF) Anyway, a recitation of dimensions is not what the proposed addition was to be about - it was supposed to be some recitation of safety features and their evolution, which will, as I said before, need much better documentation and references than have been typical of this article to date. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

H'mm. Sort of an odd response. Of course that what I put in italics is not an encyclopædia article, it's content appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopædia article. If we were to strip this article of all descriptive information about the design and dimensions of the various types of plugs, it would greatly degrade the article's quality and utility. You're right that this isn't the place for detailed specifications of an engineered product, but just as we describe the particular characteristics of a Chevrolet Caprice so the reader gets a good mental image of what distinguishes it from a Dodge Lancer, so we describe the particular characteristics of each kind of plug and socket covered in this article. Do we really disagree on this point…? —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I am suggesting: I am not suggesting that we give safety advice or detailed design specs. What I would like to see is an explanation that sockets have evolved from ones where it was relatively easy for a person to receive a shock to ones which include safety mechanisms to prevent this, and a quick list of what those mechanisms are. Maybe this should be tacked onto the end of the History section rather than included in a dedicated Safety section. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we disagree on what is appropriate content in degree. Encyclopedia or parts catalog? Encyclopedia or train spotter's guide? There is a William Gibson story with an autistic boy who comes alive only when exploring the world of wristwatches - he could list all the attibutes of an antique Tag-Heur military wristwatch, but couldn't make change for a purchase of a candy bar. He must have been dull company when you got off the subject of reciting watch specifications. The Caprice and the Lancer are more similar than different, only having fairly minor differences in decoration of no lasting signficance. "Ask why?" to quote a slogan...we don't care about the pin diameters and shapes, but we care more about why the Americans, Germans, Britons, and Italians all came up with different ways of doing the same job. Why have European standards been so unstable compared to the 45 years since the last major innovation in NEMA standards? Why is it that you can travel from Cornerbrook to San Jose and use the same plug, but in Europe a week's driving will show you a dozen different plugs? An encyclopedia should have an overview of knowledge, not a recitation of trivial numbers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You make a good case for expanding this article with discussion of the points and questions you raise. Addressing them does not require reducing or eliminating coverage of the design and technical aspects of the various plugs, so we needn't pick either/or. Go ahead, be bold, and start in on the expansion points you've outlined — others will join in. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the editing goof earlier. The problem is, as I started off saying, is that there's no accessible references to give these points any authority. Wikipedia is written by hobbyists, who don't have access to the delibrations of standards committees because the proceedings are costly to buy and not usually stocked in local libraries. It would be very difficult for a Wikipedian to do a trustworthy addition comparing safety standards in world plugs due to the lack of accessible references. I certainly don't have access to the references and I'm far more motivated than most editors to look into matters such as this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't agree with you. It is definitely not the case that all plug and socket specifications are kept under lock and key, available only by substantial expenditure. The proceedings of the meetings of the relevant regulatory bodies are often not generally acessible, but the results of those meetings (i.e., the promulgated technical standards) are usually reliably available one way or another. If I don't want to pay for an IEC document, for example, I might go instead to the (professional-level) documentation of a manufacturer producing products according to that IEC document. Or I might go to the engineering trade periodicals, journals, and weatherlies that exist in abundance for every last niche of every relevant field of engineering.

You're right that without the official proceedings or a reliable account of them it's difficult to support assertions of why any particular aspect or feature of a plug or socket is designed the way it is designed. However, stating something like

the standard UK socket incorporates shutters over the phase slots which open to accept the plug's relatively short phase pins upon insertion of its relatively long earth pin. This arrangement earths the electrical device before power is connected. It reduces the risk of electric shock by preventing insertion of inappropriate objects into the socket except by a deliberate and determined individual

or suchlike is not a questionable assertion, therefore needs no citation, therefore is not problematic.

It's a fine distinction and a delicate balance we have to strike here: we don't want to introduce a whackload of text requiring support that won't be forthcoming because it cannot be had, but we also don't want to crimp the article's development simply because you or I don't think adequate support exists. Even in subject areas in which I'm well versed and have access to a much more extensive library than the average individual, I am regularly surprised by good-quality references to sources of which I was not previously aware. We need to be careful not to decide unilaterally that support can't be provided just because we ourselves cannot readily provide it at the moment. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, I would welcome a well-referenced comparision of the different ways safety objectives are achieved throughout the different standards, but I doubt we're going to see one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Left or right?

These texts are contradictory:

Type E

French type E

France, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia (after 1 July 2008 also Denmark) and some other countries have standardised on a socket which is not compatible with the CEE 7/4 socket (type F) standard in Germany and other continental European countries ... In France the de facto standard appears[who?] to be live on the right, neutral on left when looking at the socket.



Type F

CEE 7/4 (German "Schuko" 16A/250V earthed)... Although Schuko sockets are unpolarised by design, a de facto standard in most countries is to wire them like the French sockets with live on left and neutral on right, but it is not always observed.[citation needed]


Can anyone reconcile this?

--Modi (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the best option is to delete both. They're both statements not supported with bibliography, and aside from that it seems to me they're both based on undocumented personal experience. I'm not an international master of the matter, but when there ACTUALLY is a wiring standard, I see that it is at least marked (as a reminder) with a symbol or a letter near the appropriate connection screw (the IEC connectors are an example that we all have probably seen). Shuko connectors are unpolarised so a wiring standard makes absolutely no sense to me. How can you tell right from left when the connector is perfectly symmetrical? One of the two statements CAN - hypothetically - be true, but this is where a citation of a rock-solid document on the matter is strictly needed. By the way, the fact that these two statements contradict each other sounds to me like an almost-proof that there is not any "de facto standard" at all.--Marco Gilardetti (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the "Type F" above was viewing from the front of the plug or the back of the socket. Just as a matter of interest, are there any wiring conventions anywhere in the world that reverse the "usual" NEL (neutral, earth, live) order when viewed from the back of the plug or the front of the socket (and read from left to right)? Dbfirs 07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no such rule (although it may perhaps exist locally in some country, where are you writing from)? As you can see some plugs have a vertical layout of the poles so you easily understand that a NEL rule is impossible. --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)#
Yes, I appreciate that this rule is local to the UK (where both plugs and sockets are clearly marked and any violation of this rule would be illegal). I also realise that other countries do not have a strict rule, but I wondered whether there is any country where the usual practice is either random or reverses this convention for plugs and sockets that are not reversible (and not vertical). Dbfirs 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DELETE PROPOSAL Okay, this matter is now getting ridiculous. Now we have at least four countries that pretend to have some so-called "de facto standard" on french/german sockets and nothing decent to support any sentence. The "proof" is a forum message in dutch, vlaams or something else, void of any authority. I took time to read the corresponding french page of "AC power plugs and sockets" and - of course - there is not any "de facto standard" mentioned there, because there is no standard at all. If someone speaks a good german, please do the same with the german page urgently. I propose to delete all such sentences, and leave such pictoresque "in my backyard" annotations to country-specific wikipedia pages. --Marco Gilardetti (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The UK standard is not "de facto", it has been enshrined in the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers' standards for at least fifty years, but I agree that we need citations. Dbfirs 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I now realise that you were talking about the reversible plugs where any standard would be meaningless. Any self-respecting British electrician would automatically wire type E & F sockets with neutral on the left and live on the right, but I agree that this cannot be a standard, just a convention. I would be interested to know how widespread is this practice worldwide, but I am happy for the claim to be deleted from the article page because all I can find is mentions here and there, not standards. Dbfirs 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wall sockets in Mexico

From my personal observation, Mexico uses Japanese style polarized wall sockets, at least in Zihuatanejo and the rest of Guerrero. Peter Horn 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

British Plugs, couple of questions

Firstly British Shavers also commonly used in hotel rooms for Kettles and other provided eletrical appliances, so worth adding to that section since this is no longer domestic only article?

Secondly and more importantly whats the 3 pin socket that you see in hotel rooms in the UK quite often that is similar to the standard 3 pin plug but shrunk considerably with the pins much closer together and similarly shrunken wall plates? Im unsure whether its purpose is to discourage use of customers own appliances or if it perhaps uses the lower voltage of the shaver sockets? 83.104.138.141 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Firstly British Shavers also commonly used in hotel rooms for Kettles and other provided eletrical appliances, so worth adding to that section since this is no longer domestic only article?"
It seems highly unlikely to me that a shaver plug would be used for a kettle, the current capacity is far too low maybe you are confusing it with something else.
The comment about kettles using shaver sockets is entirely bewildering. Over the past 30 years, I have traveled to Britain to work and stayed in a range of different hotels in various places there. I have never seen a kettle without the usual "13A plug" attached to the power lead. 184.41.39.44 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Secondly and more importantly whats the 3 pin socket that you see in hotel rooms in the UK quite often that is similar to the standard 3 pin plug but shrunk considerably with the pins much closer together and similarly shrunken wall plates?" what shape are the pins? if they are round then I would guess a 5A or 2A BS546. Plugwash (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Plugs table

I can agree with you that "compact" is meaningless, but about safety... of course, they all are called "safe", but did you ever notice how easy the prongs of partially inserted NEMA plug can be touched by the fingers? ( remark left by BPK on my talk page )

Let's see. There's 300+ million people in North America using NEMA plugs. If every one of them averages one plug/unplug cycle per day, that's 100+ billion operations per year. And yet the death toll is surprisingly small - I know more people who've been killed by alcohol than by a NEMA plug. ( The US CPSC says the total electrocutions are around 0.5 per million per year as of 2000, and less than half of those are due to consumer products. The CPSC doesn't say how many of those are due to deadly NEMA plugs. See http://www.cpsc.gov/library/electro.pdf.) In a society where I can't buy aspirin without at least two seals on the bottle, I'd say the perceived threat of electrocution by NEMA plug is invisible. Also recall just a few months ago we debated on this talk page the death toll of Swiss citizens taken by their obviously hideously unsafe plugs. Let's describe real documented problems referred to by reliable third party sources, and not worry so much about protecting the children from skinning back the wires and wrapping them around their ears. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It would also be interesting to know (unfortunately i've no idea where you would look to find reliable information) why exactly pin touch protection was put in place, was it a reaction to actual accidents or just a "gut feeling" that not having it was unsafey.
One notable factor is that most of the developed coutnries that use ~230V (UK, france, germany ETC) have put in place some mechanism for stopping people touching the plug pins while ~110V countries (USA, canada, japan etc) haven't bothered. 130.88.108.187 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

French plug (type E) standard name

Does anybody know standard name/code for french plug of type "E"? (not hybrid E+F type) For example, type A is NEMA or JIS C, type G is BS 1363 or IS 401. What is the name for "E"?

It would be better when you provide some links to PDF files. BPK (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Regular 2P+T Belgian plugs and sockets are described in the standard NBN C 61-112-1. 81.83.8.132 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian IEC 60906-1

Why Brazilian IEC 60906-1 doesn't have a letter code for itself? Why not M? I'm thinking to take a picture of a mixed socket, with a IEC 60906-1 and a very common mixture of types A and B. 201.82.148.11 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the letter codes are from an old US government publication that came out before the Brazilian receptacle standard was published. It would be great if every national standard affecting receptacles was listed in this article for each type. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you for your explanation. 201.82.148.11 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New photo

I have added a photo of a socket of this type, but there are two types of sockets for NBR 14136:2002  : one for 20A (heavier appliances) and another for 10A, normal appliances. If you could check the text and correct any errors, I'd be grateful. 201.82.148.11 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet connector?

I'm not so sure about the piece about the "soviet" plug in the Type C part of the text. As far as I know it was very common in the Netherlands before the adaptation of the europlug. I believe it saw common use in the Netherlands from the 1920s to the 1970s and was developed by the Dutch company Philips from Eindhoven (N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabriek). A little research dug up these pages: http://verdijk.info/tips-en-trucs/aansluitingen/#stekkers http://www.jvanschaikconsultancy.nl/radiomuseum/divers/schakelmateriaal/index.htm My own home from 1965 definitely has these types of outlets, and according to the first link above it seems to go back to the late 1920s. Most older buildings will have wall outlets that look like the [[1]] from the article, while newer buildings from about the early 1980s and later will often only accept euro or schuko compatible outlets.

This leaves me to wonder what the origin of this plug is, and makes me think the name "soviet" might not be the best. From the two links above, it seems that at least collectors of old radios and electric appliances in the Netherlands call it the "Philips plug". If I find more information I'll add it here. AdriaanRenting (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We lived behind the Iron Curtain and didn't know anything happened beyond it :) So the special inland terminology has been formed. If you know a lot about Netherlands' early plugs and sockets - add the info and pictures and then we decide whether these two types are the same and we should merge them. By the way, Japanese and NEMA connectors look similar, Australian and Chinese too, but they obey different wiring regulations. BPK (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Luminaire Socket

In Finland permanent luminaires (e.g. on the ceiling) are connected to a special luminaire socket (it looks like the French socket). Additionally there is a hook for hanging the luminaire from. Anyone know if it's standardised internationally (or even used anywhere else in the EU) or is it just a Finnish peculiarity? For images, google for "valaisinpistorasia". Totsugeki (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a standard in Norway as well, made mandatory for safety reason (house owner can replace the luminaire). Without this plug, a house owner is not allowed to replace a luminaire in Norway (fast installation), and must use an electrician. --Cyril.holweck (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded a pic for the article. Totsugeki (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The same type is common in Sweden, it's defined in Swedish Standard SS 428 08 31. The hook is not mandatory. There is a standard, EN 61995‑1 and -2, specifying a luminary connector common for all of EU. It will be the required luminary connector in Sweden staring in 2019 (Voltimum article (in Swedish)). --Sajjen (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing some very standard connector types

I would like to find here 2 other types of connector: 

- the plug normally found on desktop PC power supply, IEC 320-C13
- the small plug found on many power supply adapters, IEC 320-C7

--Cyril.holweck (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed those were at IEC connector already linked in see also section --Cyril.holweck (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this article is about wall sockets / outlets and their matching plugs. Roger (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet what are arguably the second and third most common US wall outlets (NEMA 14–30, used for electric clothes dryers and NEMA 14–50, used for electric cooking ranges) are not here. Also (although I hate to reignite the title war), the title is "AC power plugs and sockets," not "AC power plugs and wall outlets." 75.84.238.18 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "wall outlet" is used precisely to make the distinction that Cyril.holweck initially missed. Your sugested title will open this article up to every type of AC connector that has ever existed. About the missing coomon types you mention, why don't you add them? Roger (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
At the Thursday weekly meeting of the Wikipedia editorial board, technology division, plugs and sockets committee, AC task force, the vote was 37 to 17 (with 3 abstentions and one spoiled ballot) in favor of adding the stove and dryer plugs. Who knows how the voting will go at next week's meeting? Let's keep it about wall outlets, which is sufficiently rich and complex to absorb the full attention of the committee. I'd like to see more references for connectors other than NEMA. The Russian house wiring stuff fascinates me, but I realize I couldn't read the Web references even if they existed. --Wtshymanski (talk)

Making article editable for registered users only

If it is possible, it would be great making the article editable for registered users only. It suffers from time to time from vandalism and entirely from unregistered passers-by. BPK (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge sections about oven outlets

I propose to merge two sections: “North American oven and dryer outlets” and “Single phase electric stove plugs and sockets”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPK (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Type B - better photo?

Seems like the photo for type B (standard US/Canada outlet) could be a bit better: show the plug & the 2 types of outlets in the same orientation, instead of some upside-down. 206.55.187.170 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion material removed from intro

The following material was in the introductory paragraph, but should have been included on the discussion page:

This article gives the impression that the British 15-amp system is obsolete; unfortunately, it is not; it's still legal to install within Britain, and it may still be encountered in many of the former colonies; only post 1960 installations may be "presumed" to be the 13-amp plug-top fitting, (except in Burma where their specifically anti-British policy is supposedly to use the Schuko system), with either ring-main (generally within Britain) or radial circuitry (elsewhere?), and generally with an incorrect fuse installed through the user's total ignorance of the system and the way in which plug-tops are illegally supplied. Also, none of the Commando fittings have been addressed here (but see the separate entry for the detail), on the assumption that these are used solely for "industrial" connections; this is not so! The 16-amp blue coloured fittings are in general use (to utilise their limited weather-proofing) for domestic garden apparatus and for camping using a tent or trailer caravan with temporary hook-ups (with an appropriate distribution board and RCD), whilst the larger diameter 32-amp fitting is used where heavy-duty garden apparatus is involved, and for static caravans stands. The yellow 110-volt connections are found domestically, but only attached to portable transformers used to power heavy current power tools used in a home, in order to try to deter the connection of 240-volt appliances.

The above is not my content; it was removed from the introductory paragraph of the article itself. Georgia Yankee (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oversize domestic connectors vs right-sized small connectors?

As a general technical question, does anyone know why some countries opt to use such huge pins on their power connectors? As an American it seems that the bladed connectors we use are generally sized to carry the amperage needed for the job.

Meanwhile other parts of the world use huge pin connectors that seen to be rated for many more times the current than is required for the job. Why is a toaster that only needs 5 amps at 230v using a huge plug that appears to be rated for 50 amps?

I realize a "why" question like this is hard to answer in an encyclopedia article, and would likely require directly addressing the regulatory bodies of the countries involved that do things this way. DMahalko (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll never know. Italian plugs are even smaller than NEMA. It's not like the national standards organization all got together around a big table and optimized the designs; it's more like "this is the one we make, we'll make it the standard and cut out our competitors". You'll notice wiring device manufacturers and cable companies have the biggest representation on Code committees; which partly explains why thigs are as they are. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


I always presumed it was down to safety and surface oxidation. Type G pins are very large, yet a few plugs get hot with 13A load. Tabby (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Type G section errors

"This plug, commonly known as a "13 amperes plug""

Its never called that, always either a '13 amp plug' or more often 'mains plug'


"9 mm (0.354 in) of insulation at the trailing ends of the prongs prevents accidental contact with a bare connector while the plug is partially inserted."

lots of older BS1363 plugs without this insulation also exist


"Using a 13 A fuse on an appliance with thin cord is a fire hazard."

That's very debatable. The view of those drawing up the standard and many others is that its not a risk. In British mains wiring we differentiate between short circuit current and overcurrent, and though both are often protected against by the same device(s), this isn't always the case, and this is one example of such. Tabby (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What is HMVAC?

In the "Proposed Common Standard" section, there is a reference to "HMVAC".

Here's the paragraph in which it's used: "There are two types of sockets and plugs in this system: one for 10 A, with a 4mm pin diameter, and another for 20 A, with a 4.8 mm pin diameter, the latter used for heavier appliances such as microwave ovens and HMVAC[29]."

I'm not able to find any references to this acronym, or what it means. The cited article is in Portugese, so I'm not sure if the term is defined in that article. If we're going to use an acronym, we need to define what it means, especially if it's not in common usage. Jonathan (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Take it out! Editors who use acronyms without definitions are...more to be pitied, than feared. Kill it with fire. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It's most likely just an innocent typo: HVAC is a standard abreviation for "Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning". Roger (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The source document doesn't say what the 20 amp plugs are used for anyway. If the original contributor had expanded the acronym instead, we might guess what he'd meant. Do Brazilians plug in their air conditioners? The document doesn't give examples of what sorts of appliances use the 20 amp version of the plug, at least not in Google's translation of the Portugese original (and once again, I'm awe-struck by the fact I can get even a rough translation of a document for "free" - Google is the coolest thing of the 21st century...even if we don't have jet packs or Rosie the housekeeping robot, yet.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add a compatibility matrix

Columns: plug types; rows: wall socket types; cells: whether plug X is compatible with socket Y.

Thanks!

79.182.242.146 (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If we could find a referenced source, perhaps. The matrix would be pretty sparse if it only listed designed compatability, and we probably don't want to devote a lot of time describing just how big a hammer you need to force plug A into incompatible socket Z. The problem as I see it is that there are so many limitations, exceptions, and special cases that the notes would be longer than the table and essentially duplicate the existing compatibility discussions under each type. Generally plugs and sockets aren't interchangeable with other series, with very restricted exceptions such as the Europlug. That's kind of the point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Terminology - return is NOT neutral

In terminology, it says return and neutral are the same thing. They are two different wires! Return is the return current, neutral is the third safety wire tied to chassis/Earth ground. Confusing or cross connecting the two can cause serious problems including hot chassis! I'm not wikiexpert enough to edit tables and seperate this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.52.105 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to spend a lot of time on somebody who didn't bother to login and may not be listening, but I think the above misinformation should be countered for the record. If you're genuinely misinformed, please read the article on Neutral and ground. If you don't understand it, please get help from your local continuing education resource. If you're just trolling or testing, please find something more constructive to do; there's plenty of real work for volunteers at all levels of expertise. Reify-tech (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I re-read the table and it is correct. Sometimes if you just tweak hyphens and revert vandalism you forget to read the whole article once in a while - after the above I was expecting the definitions had been Wikimashed into inaccuracy, but I was relieved to see they were still correct. Anybody who's wired table lamps soon notices lamps works OK without a ground, but won't work without a neutral. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Voltage/Frequency map has a mistake on it

This image is slightly wrong. The UK is shown as being 230v 50Hz along with the rest of Europe. I believe France is 230V 50Hz (so presumably the rest of Europe), but the UK is definitely 240V 50Hz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibaz (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the map, and the UK is the same color on the map as the rest of Western Europe, coded for 240V 50Hz. The image resolution and color rendition may be problematic on some displays; please try viewing it on a known-accurate display. Reify-tech (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! I just rechecked the map more carefully, and the UK is the same as Western Europe, but the color code specifies 230V 50Hz. I think this discrepancy may have to do with EU harmonization of electricity, which relatively recently designated 240V as the common standard. Don't know how easy it is to change the map without going back to the image source. Perhaps a textual note can be added in the meantime? Reify-tech (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Type L (Italian)

";Other countries Outside of Italy, Type L CEI 23-16/VII (Italian 10 A/250 V) plug is found in Albania, Canary island, Chile, Ethiopia, Libya, Maldives, San Marino, São Tomé e Príncipe, Syria, Uruguay, Vatican City, sporadically in North Africa (Tunisia), and occasionally in older buildings in Spain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.81.241 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AC_power_plugs_and_sockets/Archive_3&oldid=1065774225"