Talk:AC power plugs and sockets/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about AC power plugs and sockets. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Need polarity information

I think it would be good to add info on Neutral/Line polarity. What each contact is, or else state it's undefined. This info is surprisingly difficult to come by. I started by adding a description and image for Israel. Would also be good to add it to an overview table. ¤ ehudshapira 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Lundberg Tripin Earthed Plug

User:Marconiphone Has added information regarding earlier non-earthing uses of the Lundberg Tripin plug. The information on Tripin provided in the book which is referenced, "SMALL SWITCHES, etc., and their CIRCUITS" (1911), MAYCOCK, W. Perren, London: S. Rentall & Co. states on page 166:

Complete Three-Pin ("TripIn") Plug-Connections.

TYPES

These are divisible into two types :—

(a) Ordinary. For connecting-up circuits with three conductors. (b) For Earthing. For connecting-up a two-wire circuit and earthing the portable fitting.

One socket and plug is larger than the other two, so that the plug can only be inserted one way, and there is no chance of "mixing" the connections.

In the earthing patterns, the large socket and plug are used for the earth connection, and the pin is then made longer than the others in order that the earth circuit may be made before and broken after the working circuit, when respectively inserting or withdrawing the plug.

The illustration of a Tripin in the article is clearly of a plug having a longer third pin, and therefore, according to the referenced text, clearly intended for earthing.

While I agree that Marconiphone's additions are factually correct, I have a question as to whether they actually assist in the understanding of the brief early history of plugs, or simply add additional information which clouds the issue?

I will agree to whatever the consensus is on this, but in the meantime I have reverted the additions. FF-UK (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am far more interested in this subject than the average encyclopedia user and even I think this might be too much of a good thing. Unless there's something particularly notable about a particular plug design (such as first, most dangerous, or prototype for what is now a standard, etc.), I don't think we need to replicate the 19th century wiring devices catalogs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chinese plugs

Hi,

Just for reference, I live in China and it's actually very rare not to see a Euro socket and Chinese socket combination. While the article is technically correct that there are more Chinese type sockets without Eurosockets,the Eurosocket is very widespread. How you get a citation to verify this though is a bit trickier. Hope this helps a bit.

89.238.156.5 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Single phase electric stove plugs and sockets - Improvements needed

Single phase electric stove plugs and sockets

This section needs improvement. I have added some standards information but it would be helpful to have a photo of the CEE 7/10 and CEE 7/11 connectors used in Norway etc. Here is a link to the Norwegian plug and there are also pictures on the Spanish pages of the plugs and Sockets Museum.

It would also be good to have a standard reference for the Russian plug and socket. FF-UK (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

CEE 7 types - a few still missing!

I have been updating the article to add further CEE 7 type references, and correct some errors.

I have added references to CEE 7/1 and CEE 7/2, the older ungrounded types.

There is a widespread tendency, not just on WP, to refer to both Schuko plugs and sockets as CEE 7/4 (the Schuko socket is actually CEE 7/3) and also to refer to both French (type E) plugs and sockets as CEE 7/5 (the French plug is actually CEE 7/6)!

CEE 7/7 was already in the article.

CEE 7/10 (sockets) and CEE 7/11 (plugs) are a family of 25A 380V flat pin (the pins are all parallel) connectors for both single phase and multi phase applications, with or without earth. The following configurations are included: 2P, 2P+E, 2P+N, 2P+E+N, 3P, 3P+E, 3P+N and 3P+E+N. The 2P+E version was already described under "Single phase electric stove plugs and sockets" but without reference to the standard (now fixed). Pictures of the 2P+E are on the web at Norwegian plug and the Spanish pages of the plugs and Sockets Museum.

I have no idea whether any of the other variants of CEE 7/10 and CEE 7/11 are still in use or are relevant to this article.

CEE 7/8 (sockets) and CEE 7/9 (plugs) are a similar family to CEE 7/10 and CEE 7/11, but rated at of 16A 380V, and with no unearthed 2P version. Again, I have no idea whether any of these are still in use or are relevant to this article.

CEE 7/12, CEE 7/13, CEE 7/14, CEE 7/15 and CEE 7/18 all define mounting hardware.

CEE 7/16 and CEE 7/17 were already in the article.

Can anyone add anything regarding CEE 7/8, CEE 7/9, and the other CEE 7/10 & CEE 7/11 variants? FF-UK (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I am just wondering if this is appropriate for this article. This picture compares the the North American and European pins. If it is, then where should I put it?

Thanks, ^TheSpaceFace _{C'mon talk to me. don't be a wimp} 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about plugs, your picture shows the pins on two chargers so is not relevant to the article. (And, by the way, calling them "European pins" of which, as the article makes clear there are many different types, is meaningless. As we know from your previous picture they are actually pins built into a charger and therefore not subject to any of the standards discussed.)

Comparison pictures can sometimes be useful, and there are already a number included in the article, but a comparison between a NEMA 1-15 plug and a Europlug needs to show those two plugs, and that means the entire plugs, not just the pins! FF-UK (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh... I tried

^TheSpaceFace _{C'mon talk to me. don't be a wimp} 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

revived proposal: move detail on NEMA connectors from here to "NEMA connector" article

Per this archived discussion there was no substantive objection to the proposal. Subsequently the "British and related types" article was created and corresponding extra detail in this article was removed. I've resumed interest in this topic (and time to work on it) and so I want to proceed with the NEMA page.

The idea is that the current article NEMA connector gets moved to AC power plugs and sockets: NEMA and related types and then much of the detail that's here on such connectors gets moved there. Brief coverage of the most common, however (this would likely exclude all of the twist-locking types, except for a simple mention) will remain here, but with more detail in the NEMA article... just as was done with British types.

This should avoid duplicating maintenance issues on the two articles, among other benefits.

Note that due to the choice in article names, if someone types "AC power" into the search box, they will see these associated articles, where at present "NEMA connector" does not show up that way.

Are there any objections? Jeh (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Last day for protests! Anyone? (There's actually not much left to remove from here...) Jeh (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this line of discussion. This should have been elevated to the Village pump.

I agree the detail needs to be split out. I also agree that the general idea of a family of articles on particular families of connectors plus one overview article makes sense.

However, the proposed article titles by User:Deucherman were a terrible idea because they do not comply with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Specifically, if you look at Wikipedia:Article titles, we have a longstanding policy of "Do not create subsidiary articles." There needs to be a separate discussion on how to do those article titles properly in a way that doesn't look subsidiary. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Groan. Yet another case where rules are going to be allowed to take precedence over doing the right thing. Jeh (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The last time I checked, we indicate that articles are part of a interrelated family with headers above the article body (i.e., here is a link to the main article) plus infoboxes on the side or footer, not with article titles. This has been Wikipedia policy for over six or seven years and it works fine. In other words, the correct approach is to rename the article on British connectors to something like British Standard connector and then keep NEMA connector at its current location, then make sure both those articles (and any others) link back properly to this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your ideas for specific names excludes the "related types" aspect, which is important. Jeh (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I believe your last sentence is missing the words "In my opinion" at the beginning. Jeh (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeh I believe that there are two options which actually serve the WP user (as opposed to blind conformance to inappropriate rules). The best is to continue with the proposal which you have revived (and, subsequently, for the other suggested articles) The alternative is to fold all AC plugs and sockets back into a single article. The latter would result in a very very large article, the former ensures that there is a logical relationship between WP content on all of the types, their relationships common purpose, and their history. I think that we need to accept that when these changes were first proposed it was because there was a lack of that logical relationship, but a genuine consensus for your proposal was reached, why derail that now? FF-UK (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

FF-UK Because Wikipedia is apparently filled with people who are more interested in digging through the rules to find reasons to not do things than they are in trying to actually improve the encyclopedia, that's why. And I'm sick of dealing with them. Jeh (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeh Well, please carry on the good work! FF-UK (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Swiss section

The Swiss section has become overcomplicated, far too wordy, and repetitive. Copyright material (tolerancing) has been added (in any case, we do not show plug pin tolerances on WP). The sections have become fragmented and use non-standard formatting. I have attempted to simplify that. I have also moved the descriptions of the three phase types to the proper place in Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, leaving only a mention that they exist. FF-UK (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that it is too complicated, except perhaps for the measure tolerances (easy to remove them).

The so-called "fragementation" is simply based on the hierarchical nature by the presented standard SEV 1011, nothing else.

The information multiphased parts (SEV 1011 Typ 15 and Typ 25) are not industrial power plugs/socjets at all, but are clearly defined as the wiring and cableing of household devices, nothing else. As the standard in its title even says: Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes. So these information exactly belongs to this place, and nowhere else.

Further, I find it blatant that FFUK applies different criterias for, e.g., the UK or the US parapgraphs, where the higher rated plugs/sockets definition are mentioned as well (which is fine). But then follow the same rules for every standard/paragraph. We could only speculate about his aversion.

It does not make sense to devide one coherent part of information and to report it at two different places, leading to misunderstanding by the reader while missing the left off part.

Finally, I can just repeat it for xth time: Only Typ 12 plugs and the Typ 13 sockets of the SEV 1011 standard is what it is called Type C by IEC!! There is no reason to delete such distictive information. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking ZH8000 points in turn

This article is NOT about "multiphased parts (SEV 1011 Typ 15 and Typ 25)" The correct place IS Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets

The issue is NOT about rating, this article is clearly about single phase connectors, there is a separate article about multiphase connectors. There is nothing in this article about British or US multiphase connectors, the criteria is the same for all countries and there is no reason for Switzerland to be treated as a special case because it happens to have a single standard number which groups single phase and multiphase connectors together.

The newly added diagram by ZH8000 provides all the information we need about how the hierarchy works regarding the three phase parts, we do not need to labour it unnecessarily in the text as well.

We do not need to labour the point about whether the unearthed 10A plug is "Type J" or not, but if you insist, then "Type J" would need to be removed from the 10 A plugs and sockets subheading.

The use of all of the unnecessary italics is not standard, not consistent with the rest of the article, and unjustifiable.

We do need to ensure that the article is written in English.

We do not need the confusing pin description "flat rectangular pins", "flat pins" is sufficient.

Having defined the shapes of plug pins, we do not need to also define the shape of the aperture in the socket!

ZH8000 If you really want to make a contribution, concentrate on providing some proper history for the Swiss types!

When were they first introduced?

What was used before?

Also, does the standard specify shutters?

And finally, there is nothing amusing in your distorting my user name into an obscenity!

FF-UK (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FF-UK Pardon-me about my mispelling, this was really not intentional, my apologies.

Your points:

Re multiphase: Yes, I see that there is a seperate article about multiphase connectors. No problem with that. My point is only that it is more convenient to the reader to have all things together at one place, especially if it is alread designed that way. Makes understanding easier.

IEC Type C: Yes, I find it favourably to stay precise. You do as well, don't you?!

Italics: I thought it helped to pinpoint the several Typs more easily (in this huge amount of text ;-). If you do not like it, remove it again (but at all instances, then). It is indeed not an important aspect.

English: sure. We appreciate your knowledge, of course.

Shape of the socket: Generally I agree, but because of the hierarchical nature of SEV 1011, where it is expected e.g. to connect round pins into rectangular openings, this hint could be helpful to the uninformed reader, in order to make it clear that the connectors are exactely designed that way.

I will see what I can do. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BS546 V Schuko

The pins diameter in Schuko plugs is just 4.8mm but they are rated at 16 amps. By comparison The live/neutral pins in BS546 plugs are 7.1mm (15 Amp version) and 5.1mm (5 Amp version) so how come the Schuko plug can safely carry more current over smaller diameter pins ? 90.213.194.216 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AC power plugs and sockets article and This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. The question is both off-topic and makes too many assumptions. FF-UK (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then perhaps an article dealing with differences between standards for AC power connectors should include an explanation of how such important aspects of these standards such as physical dimensions and capacity ratings are/were originally arrived at ? 90.213.194.216 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

An excellent idea, if you can find the sources! We have most history on British standards, but I have never seen any notes on the rationale for choosing the dimensions. We have no history on the origins of the many European styles having 4.8mm diameter pins on 19mm centres. Whoever can track that down will do WP a great service. FF-UK (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Swiss nomenclature and lack of shutters

In my job I regularly have to specify modular mains sockets of many different types, I have never come across any English documentation which uses the German word 'Typ', it is always 'type'. Here are some example links, the first being to ABB, which is of course a Swiss corporation:

Page 5 of: https://library.e.abb.com/public/634b4aa3b318a5e7c1257be400330c19/2CSC446011B0202.pdf

http://docdif.fr.grpleg.com/general/legrand-exp/CEXP2012-13/ex212001_867.pdf

http://www.jung.de/en/888/products/technology/international-socket-systems/international-sockets/

I can see no justification for English Wikipedia using German common nouns! This is my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia page, but when I saw this 'Typ' nonsense I was sufficiently angered to want to do something about it. Of course, there may be some arcane Wikipedia rule which covers such usage, if so please quote it rather than just insisting that you are right and others wrong, otherwise just please accept that this page is in ENGLISH, not DEUTSCH or Schweizer Standarddeutsch, even if a Swiss source uses native words!

On a related subject, it is my understanding that although child protection shutters are sometimes fitted to Swiss sockets, it is not a requirement. If I am wrong, then please tell me, otherwise that point should be noted in the Swiss section of this article. Blitzenlight (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blitzenlight, thank you for your comments.

About 'Typ': Of course, generally spoken, you are totally correct and of course it translates to type in English (and French). But I claim, that in this context (see) Typ xx is used as a name, almost like Schuko. For example, in the referenced multilnguage PDF overview, which is "written" in four languages (ge, fr, it, en), they only use Typ instead of Typ, type, tipo, and type, for the sake of reducing linguistic complexity. Such simplifications often happen in Switzerland due to its multilanguage situation. But it is not utterly important to me, you can keep the English translation, if you insist, but it will eventually lead to (slight) misunderstandings when compared to the referenced overview PDF.
About your sentence "A plug inserted into a socket having a higher current rating presents a safety hazard as it will not be properly protected against excess current": I think this is very wrong. A device will never draw more current than it is designed for, when it works properly (at least nowadays). So in the normal case, you can easily attach a device of defined, lower maximal current to a network of a (by the standard defined) higher maximal current. In fact, this is THE everyday situation. Almost all devices will never ever draw the maximal possible current from its circuit.
However, the other way around, attaching a high power device (e.g. a heater designed for max 16A) to an only 10A curcuit is indeed a danger. BUT, this is prevented by the kind of (the Swiss hierarchical) plug design (and fusing).
However, in case of malfunction by the (a single) device the earthing will protect the device's user, further the fuse of the cabeling/circuit will react additionally to prevent the further drawing of current from the network. Indeed, all Swiss appartments and houses have a central fusing for one or several curcuits in the appartment or house. But the main function of this fuses are to protect the cabeling from overheating (burning), i.e. drawing more current than specified (either 10A, or 16A); for example by attaching too many high power devices (which is not easy). So if you attach e.g. a laptop (of let's say 1.5A max current draw!!) to a 16A circuit, instead of the standard 10A circuit, and assuming the laptop's power adapter will have a malfunction (e.g. burns out), then first of all the corresponding fuse will be triggered (because of short circuit) and prevent further harm. Secondly, this situation is no different at all from the everyday usage when you attach a device to a standard 10A curcuit. – Therefore I deleted this futile and wrong sentence.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

About English versus German, Schuko is an entirely different situation being a registered trademark with no straightforward English equivalent. I am sure you noticed that (in my reference above) the Swiss company ABB uses Schuko on the same page that it uses Type 13 etc. However, thank you for accepting that this article uses English.

I see that you have not commented on my point about the Swiss standard not requiring child protection. If you look again at the referenced ABB document, page 6, you will see that against "Safety Shutters" it states "all except M1011" (M1011 being the ABB modular socket for the Swiss standard). As ABB must be considered an authority on the Swiss standard, then this does suggest that the standard does not require, or possibly does not allow, child protective shutters.

As far as the protection of plugs and flexible cords is concerned, most wiring systems rely on the central fuse or circuit breaker to protect not only the building wiring, but also the plugs and flexible cords which are attached to socket outlets. If, as in America and Australia, the flexible cords are required to be rated at a similar capacity as the protection, then this is adequate. In Europe however the Europlug is widely used, this is rated at only 2.5A and is usually equipped with a cord rated at 3A, sometimes less. It is simply not possible for a 16A protective device to protect such low rated parts (this has absolutely nothing to do with the protection of appliances which must be equipped with suitable internal protection). It is also necessary to understand that the overcurrent hazard can (and frequently does) arise from a short or partial short within the flexible cord, typically at the end where it enters the appliance or appliance connector, a point which is often subject to physical stress. I do not want to push this safety hazard here as it affects most European countries, not just Switzerland, but it is worth noting that the only plug design which properly addresses this is the UK BS 1363 which provides a fuse in the plug which is selected according to the capacity of the attached flexible cord. You should be aware that your interpretation of what constitutes a safety hazard is dangerously misguided! Blitzenlight (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The SEV1011:2009 does neither demand, nor prohibit safety shutters. It's the customer's decision, what one prefers.

"In Europe however the Europlug is widely used, this is rated at only 2.5A and is usually equipped with a cord rated at 3A, sometimes less." – Yes, this is totally safe, since a device with a Europlug will never ever draw more than 2.5A. Otherwise, it would not be equipped with such a cable.

"~~It is simply not possible for a 16A protective device to protect such low rated parts~~" – Of course it does, but I already explained. Here is your thinking error routed!!

"It is also necessary to understand that the overcurrent hazard can (and frequently does) arise from a short or partial short within the flexible cord, typically at the end where it enters the appliance or appliance connector, a point which is often subject to physical stress." – Yes, of course. So what? There is no uncovered safety issue ralated to this.

"I do not want to push this safety hazard here as it affects most European countries, not just Switzerland, but it is worth noting that the only plug design which properly addresses this [what exactely??!!]] is the UK BS 1363 which provides a fuse in the plug which is selected according to the capacity of the attached flexible cord." – The fuse in the socket does not improve safety, BUT only the continuing service of other devices attached to the same circuit (as the text of ABB's products clearly confirms).

-- ZH8000 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is important to understand that the purpose of protective devices such as fuses and circuit breakers is to break the circuit in case of a fault condition. In the example I have given of a fault current flowing in a 3A rated cord, the protective circuit breaker rated at 16 A will allow a current which is in excess of 5 times the rated current to flow indefinitely. But 5 times the rated current will overload the cord to the point that the cord insulation reaches a temperature at which it melts allowing the two cores to touch, resulting in an explosive short circuit which may lead to a house fire! This is a very definite safety issue which can result in fatalities! Blitzenlight (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You did not read carefully enough ... or you just do not (want to) understand it? I assume you are intellectually capable enough!? Well, for the third time now: The 3A rated cord will NEVER EVER experience such a current larger than 3 A. BECAUSE it is attach to a device that does NOT draw more current, never (given it is not attached to a wrong device, but this is secured by industrial standards)!! In the case of a short circuit the fuse will trigger ANYHOW. These are physical/electric laws, you can't fake the nature! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr ZH8000, your confidence in your own knowledge is completely misplaced, you are thouroughly misguided and entirely wrong! There is NO absolute mechanism which will ensure that a device does not draw excessive current, and it is completely impossible to predict the magnitude of the current which is due to a fault within the flexible cord or the appliance itself. This is why we use protective devices, but a protective device which breaks the circuit at a current which is in excess of 5 times the rated current of the cord is obviously NOT protecting that cord. Blitzenlight (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: we are talking about households and household devices, aren't we? And we are talking about law- and regulations-abiding installations, aren't we? Anything else would be futile. And just for your knowledge: since 2009 combined over current and FI fuses (you call it probably RCCD) are mandatory for every household in Switzerland. According to industry standards this is not secure for 100%, but almost (we also take into account the self-responsibility of our citizen!). - So yes, I am very confident about the empirical safety of our electric household networks and devices. The statistics confirm this. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr ZH8000, perhaps you could explain your belief that a 16A circuit breaker can prevent overheating in a cord rated at 3A which is subject to a fault current of 16A. Denying that it will happen, or waffle such as your last comment, would be an invalid response. Blitzenlight (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Even though WP:NOTFORUM, here my answer: According to DIN VDE 0100 the threshold of fault current to protect from fire is 300mA. It is mandatory in every household to use FI fuses (= RCCB?) which triggers at 30mA fault current in less than 0.4s (according NIN2010 (in Switzerland) for all nominal current networks below <=32A). Sidemark: 16A curcuits in households are extremely rare. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As anticipated, more waffle. This has nothing to do with current to earth, but with current between L&N (there is NO earth in the cord attached to a Europlug). Clearly no point in continuing with this as it is not about improving the article but was a futile attempt to improve your understanding. Blitzenlight (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL, well you can waffle as much as you like (thank you for teaching me a new English word :-)), but you reduced your objection to now only unerathed cables after all. Funny, how your arguments gets smaller and smaller. Pardon-me, no arguments, just stubborn dissent, since you did not provide the slightest arguments so far. Perhaps, I suggest you start to provide arguments for a change. And perhaps you should also start to express yourself more clearly? What does "this" refer to? Waffle? – But not today anymore. It's time to sleep for small boys. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr ZH8000, your comments make no sense whatever. The point I originally made, and which you insist on contesting, was "In Europe however the Europlug is widely used, this is rated at only 2.5A and is usually equipped with a cord rated at 3A, sometimes less. It is simply not possible for a 16A protective device to protect such low rated parts" The Europlug is an unearthed plug. Blitzenlight (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, this is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM). – Nevertheless, and as I also already said for several times now: You stubbornly dissent my claims, although without pinpointing what exactly, but neither do you provide any evidence to support your own claims, nor do you explain them. Claims do not get more valid just being claimed!

Further your statements stay to be ambigous. E.g. "equipped with a cord rated at 3A, sometimes less", but you miss to provide any citations to support your claims. Other example, and the main claim I contest: "It is simply not possible for a 16A protective device to protect such low rated parts". What kind of protective device, doing what, in which condition, because of what reason, and finally why is it possible that it circumvent the protection measures??. There are such situations (a few, statistically spoken), but you do not specify them unambigously enough. – And again, you do not provide a single citation for your claims. I provided you with several examples, e.g. standardized FI circuit breakers (Residual Current Operated Circuit Breakers) in household networks prohibits most fire dangers (e.g. due to short circuit) and personal harms, such as electric shocks – independent of the rated maximal current (up to 32A).

Neither you did explain how overcurrents can develop on a, let's say, iPhone attached via a 2.4A adapter/cable with an Europlug attached to a 10A socket despite the available security measures (... any citations available?). Where and why should it take place, I am really curious to read about them, honestly.

Again, WP is not a discussion forum, where everybody can claim what he thinks, how erronously it may be or not, but it has an excyclopedian approach. I.e. any claim must be supported by valid citations! I advise you to (re-)read what WP:VER says! -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr ZH8000, we are not, as has been agreed, discussing what should be in the content of this article. You are completely correct in saying that this is not a forum, AND YET, you persist in prolonging the discussion!!! Why? And as you insist on doing that, why will you not address the challenge I made earlier "perhaps you could explain your belief that a 16A circuit breaker can prevent overheating in a cord rated at 3A which is subject to a fault current of 16A." That demands a basic understanding of electrical engineering principles, and plain common sense. however, all you do is waffle. You waffle about RCD's, completely irrelevant as we are not speaking of a situation involving earth leakage. You waffle about iPhones, totally irrelevant. We are not concerned here with appliances, we are only concerned about fault currents flowing, for whatever reason, in a cord set which has, by definition (the Europlug standard EN50075) a maximum current rating of 2.5 amps. (And please also remember, a Europlug may ONLY be provided as part of a combination of plug and fitted cord, there is no rewirable Europlug permitted.) We do not need citations as to what 2.5A means. We do not need a citation as to what a 16A circuit breaker does (but I am sure that you know it allows 16A to flow without interruption). We do not need to know what caused the fault, faults happen for many reasons, that is why we use protective devices to ensure that the result of the fault is not a life threatening event such as a house fire. All we need is your explanation of why you believe that there is no problem in allowing 16A to flow in a 2.5A rated device. Blitzenlight (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems obvious that you are not interested in a constructive solution, but only to avoid any resolution, I will not anymore contribute to this futile discussion. I gave you several possibilities to justify your claims, as it is requested by WP:VER, since you try to change the content. It seems obvious to me that you do not understand the functioning of FI circuit breakers, since they work independent of whether a device is earthed or not for almost all problematic cases (with only very seldom excptions). So I do not feel any obligation to teach a pupil, who has a tantrum. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr ZH8000, you are, quite simply, unbelievable! We all know that a circuit breaker rated at 16A will interrupt the circuit when the current exceeds 16A by some margin, but it will allow 16A to flow for an unrestricted time (providing that current is flowing between L and N with no earth leakage). Therefore, despite your waffling, it can never provide excess current protection to a 2.5A rated plug and cord if the excess current remains no greater than 16A. No amount of wishful thinking about probabilities will change that. You have made no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. I rest my case. Blitzenlight (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparison table

Using {{notelist}} and {{efn}} templates does not make the table bigger. 217.28.0.236 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

217.28.0.236 I reverted you saying The anonymous IP is the one who needs to justify the unnecessary and inaccurate changes, not me. I note that you have not bothered to do that. If you were familiar with the subject you would know that the normal way of stating the rating for a plug and socket is the primary rating, current, first, followed by the secondary rating, voltage. Separating these with an oblique is a common way of presenting the ratings. I can think of no good reason why you would wish to reverse these values against the convention, it tends to confuse. Your introduction of the category Partial against Polarised and Socket compatible with Europlug was not accurate. It should also be quite clear to you that plugs are either compatible or not compatible with sockets, but a plug can never be described as compatible with another plug! Neither Brazilian NBR 14136 nor South Africa SABS 164-2 defines a two-pin socket, so compatibility with non-existent sockets is obvious nonsense. Finally, on my normal settings for viewing WP pages, what you did makes the table longer. FF-UK (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You initial claim was "Reverting changes to table which are unnecessary, take up far too much space, and introduced a number of errors"; revising history will not help you.
Your assertion that current comes second is merely that. The primary characteristic of mains electrical compatibility is voltage. Electrical equipment of all types will only work with one of the 2 common worldwide mains voltages, with almost sole exception being switch-mode power supplies. I have just checked multiple Wikipedia pages and all electrical appliances in my vicinity which list voltage first, including switch mode power supplies. I would be interested if you could detail the due diligence you have done on the matter. With regard to slashes, I applied MOS:SLASH here, which style item are you applying?
I'm afraid I can't do much with your assertion that the partials are incorrect without your actual reasoning, except to say that mentioned items have notes attached explaining the reasoning (!), and that these were not my original content.
The table as a whole discusses both plugs and sockets. If it your intention that it should not do so, then I will remove all mentions of sockets, including the Europlug column, as the Europlug is defined only in plug form with no corresponding socket, and "a plug can never be described as compatible with another plug!". If alternately, you want to the table to refer to both plugs and sockets, as it, in its current form, could only logically be doing, I will happily change the, at most, 2 words needed to make this clear. Further, I will happily find the original author of the text, so you can admonish them appropriately.
Please, provide screenshots and, ideally, pixel measurements of the change in size, as I, even with your detailed analysis and breakdown of the matter, am still unable to form a reasoned view of the matter.
You seem to have omitted any comment of the standard notes templates. I look forward to your assertions on the matter.

87.254.77.65 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of {{efn}} et al has several advantages, just one of which being linkage between cite and ref. It's by far the better way to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First let me make it quite clear that I am not querying the use of {{notelist}} and {{efn}} templates, if you had restricted yourself to such changes then this dispute would not have arisen. The objection is to the introducyion of non-standard terminology and inaccuracies. If you wish to make the {{notelist}} and {{efn}} updates, that is fine, but please do not sneak changes to the content in at the same time, I do not intend to waste my time correcting your errors which is why I simply reverted the whole sorry mess.

Second, the most recent international standards, IEC 60906-1 "system of plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes – Part 1: Plugs and socket-outlets 16 A 250 V a.c." and IEC 60906-1 "system of plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes – Part 2: Plugs and socket-outlets 15 A 125 V a.c. and 20 A 125 V a.c." make perfectly clear what is the conventional way of expressing the rating of plugs, if you still have doubts about the primary rating of plugs and sockets then I suggest you refer to BS 1363 "13 A plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection units" and CEE Publication 7 which clearly gives ratings in the form '2.5A 250 V' (that example being the rating for CEE7/16 - now known as Europlug). Plug and socket ratings are the maximum working current and the maximum working voltage, this cannot be compared to appliance ratings which consist of the intended supply voltage and normal load current!

Third, discussions on what the table represents (plugs, sockets or both) were concluded some years ago. There is no need to revisit that subject and the table prior to your intervention was correct and sensible. FF-UK (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The third point adequately explains your entire position. That is not how any of this works. This does not belong to you. Further, I'm done interacting with you until your drop your delusions on the matter.46.226.188.202 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A large set of changes to comment on all at once...

Andy is right about {{efn}} et al. The list of notes at the bottom of the table even takes a bit less vertical space that way, but the main advantage is the two-way linking, and the pop-up text when you hover over the reference letter in the body. It's easier to maintain, too (no need for e.g. "this letter no longer in use").
On my screens (I happen to have a setup with a portion that is 2400 px high, so this is easy to compare), .65's version takes slightly less vertical space. (Chrome browser on Windows 10, fwiw.) This is even before the space saving of the efn-style footnotes. The difference is not compelling either way.
I think the "original" wording "socket compatible with Europlug" is more clear than the alternative introduced by .65. "Socket is Europlug-compatible" or "Socket accepts Europlug" would also work and would likely render in one fewer line than the "original."
The primary characteristic of mains electrical compatibility is indeed voltage, but practically everything in this list is for either 240 or 250 volts. On the other hand, the differentiator among many members of several closely-related sets of connector types here is current, not common voltages (as is done now in several of the other detail columns). I think a good solution would be separate columns for V and A. Then the former could use vspan where appropriate to highlight the common voltages, and the differences in current rating would be better highlighted.
I think the slashes between the two ratings just add unnecessary and unhelpful clutter. So I think .65 was correct to remove them. Nothing I can see in MOS:SLASH supports their use here. The text quoted by FF-UK from the IEC standard doesn't seem to use slashes either.
Explicit line breaks should normally be avoided. Let the browsers figure it out unless they are observed to make horrible decisions with common screen sizes. But otherwise, explicit line breaks often prevent rational resizing results when the table is viewed in a particularly wide or narrow window.
I understand the complaint about "partial" but I don't think the previous "yes"s or "n/a" were exactly evocative of what needs to be said either. Perhaps the right thing to put in the table for the "Polarised" column is "special case" or "sometimes". The footnotes do a good job of filling in the needed details.
...and for the NBR case, if Brazil also uses the NBR for 127V, shouldn't that be handled with one or two more lines in the table? Here the "accepts Europlug" would have to say something like "mechanically yes, electrically no" in the 127V case. For the 250V case it would be a flat yes. No?

I think that about covers it. Jeh (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a before and after screenshot showing vertical expansion of table caused by changes to rating column. (Microsoft Edge, widows set at 1024 pixel wide, reduced by 50% to allow side by side of entire table on screen):

You cannot say that the Europlug is not electrically compatible with 125V as it is typically used for devices which work over a large voltage input range.

"n/a" is surely the appropriate comment for socket/Europlug compatibility when the row does not describe a socket! FF-UK (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Re the screenshot, here it is in Chrome on Win 10, not reduced by 50%. .65's version is on the left (you can tell by the column head in the last column). My monitor setup is three screens side-by-side with a fourth over the center section, giving an inverted "T" 2400px high in the middle. As i said, .65's version is shorter here, but either way, I don't think this is a compelling difference.

Re the compatibility column, I see your point, but I think you are failing to consider what information the typical user of this table would be looking for. I think that information is "I have a widget with plug X and I'm looking at a socket Y. Can I plug X into Y and expect the widget to work?" Both of your arguments ("a plug can never be described as compatible with another plug" and "[you can't say anything about] socket/Europlug compatibility when the row does not describe a socket") are correct but I feel they are stressing pedantism over useful information. The ungrounded NBR 14136 10A plug will fit in most sockets that accept Europlugs, no? and the Europlug (if the "flat" type) will fit in the NBR 14136 10A sockets, no? But of course there are widgets with Europlugs that will malfunction on 127V, so that difference needs to be mentioned somehow... I don't have a better wording to suggest (yet, I'm thinking about it) but a simple "N/A" seems to me to be overly dismissive. We can do better. Jeh (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeh (talk) , I think that your reasoning about what a typical user is looking for, whilst probably true, is not a justification for what is in a WP article, we must remember that WP is not a manual. We should also remember that the information should be verifiable. As of now we do not cite references for the socket/Europlug compatibility column, and that may be an issue. The prime source, IEC World Plugs, states "E, F, J, K or N sockets which work perfectly with Type C plugs", so those types are covered. IEC World Plugs also states "it fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres" which supports the suggested compatibility with 'GOST 7396 C 1', type H, 'TIS 166-2549' and the 10A version of type L, but some might argue that this is synthesis, and that an RS should be found for those claims.

You are right about the type N entries being wrong, I have corrected that by referring to (2 pin) rather than (2 pin plug) and changing the "n/a" to yes in the Europlug compatibility column. The compatibility column "n/a" entries for CEE 7/16 Europlug and CEE 7/17 remain correct as these are really just plugs! With regard to your reference to the Europlug (if the "flat" type), a Europlug is always, by definition, 'flat'. As for your comment that the ungrounded NBR 14136 10A plug will fit in most sockets that accept Europlugs, that is very presumptive with no supporting reference. We should remember that the type N plug is larger than a Europlug (17mm x 35.5mm versus 13.5mm x 35.5mm) and that there are many Europlug shaped sockets and adaptors on the market which, whilst not actually conforming to standards, would not accept the larger plug. FF-UK (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of term "National Standard"

The field of plugs and sockets for domestic and similar uses (which is the subject of this article) is an area which is subject to particular safety concerns because of the potential dangers of electric shock and fires of electrical origin. It is also affected by the needs to ensure commonality of access to electrical supply within a particular geographical area. For these reasons, it is normal that the particular system used within a country or territory is determined by the relevant national standards body. Countries adopt a particular system as a National Standard, or, where appropriate (and convenient), determine that they will use the National Standard of another country as their own standard. The transition costs of switching from one system of domestic plugs and sockets to another are very large, and such a switch also has high levels of public and industrial inconvenience associated with it, so changes of system are comparatively rare.

The European Union is an example of a collection of states which have gone to great lengths to harmonize their standards and have adopted many European Norms (EN) to ensure that across the EU there is commonality. However there are some very important exceptions! The EU has not attempted to harmonize the language across Europe, neither has it attempted to harmonize road traffic regulations (including which side of the road vehicles are driven on - 4 EU countries drive on the left, 24 on the right). For the aforementioned reasons the EU has also excluded domestic plugs and sockets from EU harmonization. EU Directive 2006/95/EC, the “Low Voltage” Directive, specifically excludes (amongst other things) plugs and socket outlets for domestic use which are not covered by any Union directive and therefore must not be CE marked. Throughout the EU, as in other jurisdictions, the control of plugs and socket outlets for domestic use is subject to national regulations.

Wikipedia relies on sources, the most obvious source for the subject of plugs and sockets is the International Electrotechnical Commission. The IEC recognizes the desirability of aiming towards a common international standard for plugs and sockets, but is realistic in its recognition of the practical and economical issues which stand in the way of such an objective. What the IEC has done is to create a framework international standard, IEC 60884-1 Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes – Part 1: General requirements, which sets out the type of specifications and tests which form the basis of a standard for mains plugs and sockets, but stops short of defining an actual plug and socket system (most obviously it includes no definition of pin shape and dimensions for any plug). The national standards bodies of individual countries usually attempt to align their plugs and sockets standards with IEC 60884 where possible, for instance the foreword of the 1984 edition of BS 1363 contains the following statement: This standard has been aligned as much as possible with Part 1 of the draft "Standard for plugs and socket outlets for household and similar purposes" which is being prepared by the IEC.

The IEC has also published (originally in 1986) IEC 60906-1 IEC SYSTEM OF PLUGS AND SOCKET-OUTLETS FOR HOUSEHOLD AND SIMILAR PURPOSES – Part 1: Plugs and socket-outlets 16 A 250 V a.c., they state that: The aim of this International Standard is to provide a standard for a safe, compact and practical IEC 16 A 250 V a.c. System of plugs and socket-outlets that could be accepted by many countries as their national standard, even if not in the near future. It is, therefore, recommended that any country in need of a new or a replacement system adopt this standard as its only national standard. As of April 2016 the only country to have adopted this standard is South Africa, it has designated it as one of the South African National Standard for domestic plugs and sockets: SANS 164-2. Brazil has used IEC 60906-1 as the start point for its own national standard NBR 14136, but has modified it significantly, thus defeating the object of the standard. The IEC has recognized that in a world where there are two significantly different domestic voltages in use that a single plug standard for both makes no sense, it is important to distinguish between 120V systems and 230V systems. IEC 60884-1 includes the requirement: 9.2 It shall not be possible, within a given system, to engage a plug with a socket-outlet having a higher voltage rating. In recognition of this issue the IEC has also published IEC 60906-2 IEC system of plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes – Part 2: Plugs and socket-outlets 15 A 125 V a.c. and 20 A 125 V a.c. which is based closely on the American standard NEMA 5-15 (commonly known as Type B).

The IEC technical report TR 60083, Plugs and socket-outlets for domestic and similar general use standardized in member countries of IEC lists the national standards of IEC member countries. The scope of IEC TR 60083 states: The report only contains systems for which standard sheets have been published in a National Standard, which may be a National Standard of the country itself or any other IEC member country. This is a clear indication of the importance of national standards in the field of domestic plugs and sockets.

In the presence of these sources I contend that it is not appropriate for WP editors to attempt to 'play down' the significance of national standards for domestic plugs and sockets, it is national standards (whether of the country concerned, or some other country) which generally determine what is permissible for use within a particular country or territory, not some lesser form of 'technical standard', nor, in practice, is it international standards (other than those which have been adopted as national standards). This is not, as has been suggested, pedantry, it is an appropriate approach to ensuring that the WP article is accurate. FF-UK (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

10A-rated Europlug-like plugs in Italy

10 A-rated Europlug-like plugs can be found in Italy fitted to appliances such as hair dryers. These plugs have the same physical dimensions as Europlugs except that the pins don't appear to converge. One such plug I examined is manufactured by NingBo Qiaopu Electric Co., Ltd, carries an IMQ stamp and is sold as an "Italian IMQ power cord". The plug is sold by another Chinese company which provides technical drawings for it. Such plugs may not actually be legal so I am also unsure about whether they should be mentioned. Perhaps they are only legal to use in Italy where the plugs make adequate contact with Italian 10 A sockets which are designed for 4 mm pins. Perhaps the mention of these plugs belongs on the Europlug page, if anywhere. Opinions? Jdthood (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

These 10A plugs should definitely not be referred to as "Europlug-like". They are, in fact, CEI 23-50 S10 10A plugs which, along with the other CEI 23-50 designations, I added to the article a few days ago. The 10A plug is designed to fit the 10A Italian socket, of which there are both earthed and unearthed variants. The Chinese data sheet refers to the now obsolete CEI 23-16 standard which has been superseded by CEI 23-50. Cord-sets with non-rewirable plugs and sockets are rated according to both the connector type and the cord rating, whichever is the lower, so it is not unusual that the Chinese data sheet shows a cord set rated at 7A. (Just as non-rewirable British BS 1363 plugs, in accordance with the standard, plugs will be typically marked with ratings between 3A and 13A according to the cord rating and/or the appliance connector rating, such ratings indicating the size of the fuse which is fitted). FF-UK (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They are Europlug-like insofar as the body of the plug has the same shape and dimensions as a Europlug, but I get your point.Jdthood (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sticker code

I've noticed that hospitals and many public buildings in the UK now have little numbered stickers on all their sockets. I'm guessing this refers to where it's fused from, but can someone please explain the code used? Obscurasky (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur - the code usually refers to which fusebox and spur or equivalent it's being fed from. Several buildings I work in also have these kind of codes on them, and while they often look similar, they aren't the same and given that all the buildings I've seen them in are a mix of government, private, commercial - and in one case a theme park - I doubt there's a standard code and they use whatever's proprietary and easy to understand to them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. Obscurasky (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: does Hong Kong just merely use British Standards or have its own?

This is to discuss whether the statement in BS 1363 section:

Some of these countries have national standards based on BS 1363, including: ... Hong Kong ...

is proper or improper.

I have added Hong Kong twice in the section, and twice was removed by FF-UK. FF-UK's argument is that Hong Kong does not has its own standards but just use British standards.

I dispute FF-UK's statement that 1) Hong Kong has its ordinance of law (in which Chapter 406 covers the regulations of electrical standards, and 2) Hong Kong government publishes Code of Practice at http://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_443/COP_E_2015.pdf that covers schematics and specifications of outlets. As such in my opinion that while it refers to British standards, it stands on its own.

Rgl168 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement referred to (regarding the 50 countries which also use the BS 1363 type) is quite clearly Some of these countries have national standards based on BS 1363, including: (list of such countries). Whilst Hong Kong uses the BS 1363 standard under the laws governing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, that territory does not have its own national standard in the sense in which that term is normally understood. Hong Kong Chapter 406 Electricity Ordinance does not even mention the word "plug" and mentions "socket" only once, and not in a context relevant to standards. The Hong Kong Wiring Regulations, referenced by Rgl168, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a "National Standard", and the document makes no claim to be that. If Rgl168 believes that a Hong Kong National Standard for plugs and sockets exists, then the standard number must be referenced!

By contrast (for instance) Malaysia does have its own similar standard (MS 589:PT.1:1997), as does Singapore (SS 145).

It would be quite improper to include Hong Kong in the list of countries having a national standard based on BS 1363, it does not. FF-UK (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Hong Kong a country? Does Hong Kong use sockets compatible with or derived from BS1363? We should explain what we mean. --Wtshymanski (talk)

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is clearly not a country! It does use the BS 1363 standard and refers to it in its wiring regulations. FF-UK (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I inserted the phrase "and territories" into the introductory sentence so that it reads; "Some of these countries and territories have national standards..." Problem solved, we're done here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That most certainly does not solve the problem, as clearly only a nation can have a national standard! Hong Kong use BS 1363, not some local standard based on it. The edit has been reverted. FF-UK (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The word "Nation" does not required to be a sovereign territory. For example, Canadian Parliament passed a motion that "...Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Also on Wikipedia's page on "Nation": "that is most commonly used to designate larger groups or collectives of people with common characteristics attributed to them—including language, traditions, customs (mores), habits (habitus), and ethnicity." Therefore to reject HKSAR does not have "national standards" solely because it is not a sovereign territory is inappropriate. 01:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.22.238 (talk)

Rgl168 Firstly, would you please show respect for your fellow WP editors by signing your comments! With regard to your comments on the word "nation", they are not relevant to the definition of a "national standard" in the context under discussion. Your claim that there is a Hong Kong standard for domestic plugs and sockets remains completely unsupported by what you believe that standard to be. You have mentioned regulations, these have the force of law but they are not standards in themselves, they reference standards, and in the case in point the standard referenced is BS 1363! The policy of the Product Standards Information Bureau of the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission makes the position on standards in Hong Kong completely clear in this statement: Hong Kong, China does not have a central standards body developing and issuing domestic standards. Our regulatory agencies use standards as and when necessary, and avoid the position where the setting of standards dictates market development or becomes a means of protecting certain sectors of the industry. Rgl168, there seems little point in you continuing to argue for a non-existent standard, in opposition to official statements of the Government of Hong Kong! FF-UK (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have inquired with Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department regarding the relationship of British Standard and CoP. If HK simply adopts British Standard, then you would think that if the underlying British Standard got changed, it would automatically get applied in HK, right? The answer I got is as follows: "In Hong Kong, the CoP, as general technical guidelines on how the statutory requirements on the Electricity (Wiring) Regulations can be met, should take precedence on BS document. To keep abreast with the development of technology, the CoP will be updated in every 5-6 years." As such, FF-UK's assertion is incorrect that HK simply adopts British Standards. in the next few days, I will modify the document based on the updated information given by Hong Kong Government. FF-UK: if you continue to delete the edits, it will be reported to the Wikipedia admins as vandalism. Rgl168 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A private communication to you is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. (That's a link; please click on it and review.) The document cited by FF-UK, on the other hand, as a document published by the relevant agency and publicaly available and verifiable, very definitely is. In light of this, your intention to introduce text into the article that is not based on a reliable source, and report as "vandalism" any attempt to revert your edits, is very ill-advised. Your threat to "report to admins as vandalism" is also very much not WP:CIVIL.

Remember, the standard for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. (See WP:TRUTH) Claims that are not supported by reliable sources can be deleted immediately, particularly if they are countered by reliable sources. You may have to resign yourself to go away thinking "Wikipedia is a bunch of silly people following silly rules, that won't let me add content here that I know is true." It's happened before and it will happen again. But the insistence on verifiability—even though sometimes annoying—is, on the whole, of great benefit to WP. We won't make an exception for this article. My suggestion? Look for an officially published version of the communication you received. Jeh (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jeh, wise words as ever. Two additional thoughts from me: 1. Nowhere in that reported communication from Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department does it mention the essential word "standard", it refers to "general technical guidelines". 2. Whether or not the BS used by Hong Kong is the latest version or not is irrelevant, it is still the British Standard. The CoP refers to BS 1363, not any particular version. FF-UK (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

NEMA 14-30 and -50 connectors and this article

The scope of this article as defined in its heading is "[connectors] used in domestic and light commercial environments." I find the notion that NEMA 14-30 and -50 connectors don't belong here to be patently absurd. I frankly don't know much about light commercial (or heavy commercial for that matter) but any recently-wired house (hence "domestic") in the U.S. wired for a full-size electric stove will have a 14-50. And if it's wired for an electric dryer it will likely have a 14-30 for that. That makes them "used in domestic environments". I would even say "commonly used". Granted there aren't multiple of them in every room in every house the way 5-15's are, but they're the standard outlet for those applications.

Whether or not NEMA 14 belongs in any other article is an independent question. In particular the question of whether not NEMA 14 connects to "multiple phases" (quick answer: It depends on how you're using the word "phase") doesn't matter here. There's nothing wrong with having two (or more!) articles where the NEMA 14 might belong. So I don't know about any other articles, but this article doesn't need a "major rewrite" to solve this non-problem. Jeh (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#Major rewrite of this page needed.

There is an ongoing discussion of the content of this article and the content of Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#Major rewrite of this page needed. Please contribute to the discussion there. Per Wikipedia talk page guidelines please do not split the discussion (see WP:MULTI). Thank you. CplDHicks (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

YOU are apparently the ones violating WP:TALK, to wit:

"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. " (emph. added)

i.e. discussion about this article should take place on this article's talk page.

Changes to this page that are made without discussion here will likely not be received well by those who have put time in on this article and on this talk page. Jeh (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a notification to everyone interested in this page that a relevant discussion has already begun at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets. It will not be split in two. If you want to contribute to the discussion then follow the link. CplDHicks (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

CplDHicks I will again remind you that the page views for this article are ten times greater than for the article which you wish to be the place to discuss your misguided proposals. Please follow normal WP procedure and discuss this article on this page! FF-UK (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

sigh... Quoted verbatim from WP:MULTI: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link." Discussion has started in one location, and I have advertised in this other location using a link. If certain users are too stupid or recalcitrant to follow said link it's not my problem. CplDHicks (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to alert users that a discussion about Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets is taking place there, but any discussion about THIS article must take place here! FF-UK (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoted verbatim from WP:MULTI: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link." Discussion has started in one location, and I have advertised in this other location using a link. If certain users are too stupid or recalcitrant to follow said link it's not my problem. CplDHicks (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, my quote was verbatim also. And I read yours the first time. And I understood it the first time. Apparently you think that simply repeating the same thing, which I did not find convincing before, will convince me. Instead, it tells me that you have no other argument; in particular you have no counter to what it says at the very top of WP:TALK (which is what I quoted).

Since you are hung up on this "same thread" and "same topic" issue, I'll be more clear: You can talk about changes to the other article and its scope on its talk page. And you can talk about changes to this article and its scope, here. Two separate topics, two separate threads, not "the same thread". There is no need for a single unified discussion as there is no need for a single decision that covers both pages; in particular, regarding the current issue, there is no need for the scope of the two pages to be exactly disjoint. It's not that hard. Accordingly I will regard any changes made to this article without discussion here as "undiscussed". That's not a promise that I'll invoke WP:BRD immediately, but you can assume that I'll certainly lean in that direction from what I've read there so far. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeh, the only reason this notification is here in the first place is because FF-UK refused to discuss at Talk: Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets on the basis that I can't discuss it there, I have to discuss it here because it pertains to this article. It's his means of preventing discussion altogether, and if it's not discussed—if it hasn't reached "consensus" on the whichever talk page he has decided is relevant—then he's justified in reverting any changes and he gets to keep his precious little articles exactly the way he wants them.

It is one topic, that much is patently obvious when the very first lines of this article direct readers to Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, but if you want to split the discussion, fine. I didn't start the discussion at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, I just put a notification here because of that obstinate fuck FF-UK. Do whatever, I don't care. I won't participate any further. CplDHicks (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this article points to an article on a related topic doesn't make it "one topic". I believe the section I added just below, about NEMA 14 connectors and this article, addresses the issue of what belongs here. I do have some thoughts about the other article but I'll address them later. And please do mind WP:CIVIL. Jeh (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AC power plugs and sockets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What about the cords connected to the socket ?

In practical terms, for me a person who wants to replace a cord and a light bulb socket, I need to know how to tell which wire of the cord is the neutral and which is the hot wire. Without knowing this, all this talk about sockets is meaningless. Could we have link to this subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.56.88 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on AC power plugs and sockets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on AC power plugs and sockets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Mostly wrong identifications except for those relating to South Africa and NEMA. Others reverted. FF-UK (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"plug top"

"plug top" is claimed, in the article, to be a common synonym for "plug", as in the subject of this article. While I don't have a cite from a book that's not available for me to check, I've been a native speaker of British English for my whole life. And never, through talking to other British people, watching television, reading, or any other sort of word-use, have I heard "plug top" meaning "plug". Electronics is a hobby of mine, so I'm sure I would have.

I don't know if "plug top" as a term even exists. Perhaps if it did it might refer to a AC-DC power adaptor, because the circuitry is contained in a box atop the plug. But I can't even say I've heard it used for that.

I think to claim "common usage", more than a single, hard to check, cite is needed. That phrase should be removed.

The offending term is next to the [5] cite.

Was the person who wrote that part of the article a native British English speaker themselves? I'd like to know where you heard the term.

94.197.121.119 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

On WP we do not rely on personal opinion, nor do we rely on the lack of knowledge of individual contributors (the fact that the anonymous IP contributor is not familiar with the term is completely irrelevant, apart from demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the subject). We rely on actual knowledge backed up by sources! Firstly, the cited reference is VERY easy to check, it is a Google Books reference which displays some of the pages in that book on which the term is used.

Here are some more Google Books references using the term:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M5IdSDoqJT8C&pg=PA194&dq=%22plug+top%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjplOK9qbXUAhUJJlAKHRUVBSc4FBDoAQgnMAE#v=onepage&q=%22plug%20top%22&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iIAisqtIeGYC&pg=PA34&dq=%22plug+top%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjplOK9qbXUAhUJJlAKHRUVBSc4FBDoAQhIMAc#v=onepage&q=%22plug%20top%22&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ygTBjnUAuwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22plug+top%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZv6fjqbXUAhXRYVAKHXHLDIc4MhDoAQgnMAE#v=onepage&q=%22plug%20top%22&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YFll1VROVaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22plug+top%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjisYCiq7XUAhXSZVAKHSu7DlY4UBDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&q=%22plug%20top%22&f=false

A google UK search for "plug top" under shopping will produce plenty of offers for "plug tops": https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22plug+top%22&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=cr&ei=6fM8WfbtHZD4wAKAw5a4AQ#q=%22plug+top%22&safe=off&tbm=shop

A google UK search for "plug top" under images will also return many results for plugs: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22plug+top%22&safe=off&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS5onA17XUAhUPKFAKHUOOAqw4HhD8BQgGKAE&biw=1301&bih=783&dpr=1

A recent report on a new product launch from a major manufacturer includes the following: "Additionally, the Instinct socket outlets conform to the highest British safety standards and more, because they contain multipin safety shutters which prevent access to the power supply unless using a BS1363 plug top." See: http://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/crabtree-acts-instinct-wiring-accessories-launch

Discussion of this topic is not new, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARing_circuit#Plug-top.3F

Please do not recklessly edit WP unless you have definite knowledge and sources. FF-UK (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"On WP we do not rely on personal opinion," If only that were true, but every time anything "American" gets posted here come "British" speakers out of the woodwork to complain out the wazoo. See Sega Genesis for the most hilariously futile example around.22:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)22:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)22:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40C:8100:768:88E9:6CA9:7F6F:1065 (talk)

Adaptor or adapter?

There have recently been a series of edits changing "adaptor" to "adapter" and an edit comment discussion regarding which is the correct British English form. It is true that both forms are used in British English, but in the context of mains accessories the correct form is "adaptor". The authority for this is the term used in the relevant British Standard, see: http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030297237 which is supported by the IEC definition (International English), see: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=442-03-19 FF-UK (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't necessarily blindly follow standards in such matters. Note that Oxford Dictionaries online prefers "adapter" in "British and World English": https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adapter , but uses both variants in example sentences. See also our own article Adapter, which name is in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There are currently approximately 30 uses of each variation in this article. Should we be not looking for consistency here? A number of the uses of "adaptor" are in the correct names of the standards to which reference is made, there are no uses of "adapter" which are direct quotes. It is clear from this that use of "adaptor" in the article cannot be eliminated, but there is no good reason to use "adapter" in this article.

Jeh suggests that Oxford Dictionaries prefers "adapter" but in fact, in the context of adaptors for electrical plugs, Oxford Dictionaries gives three examples of sentences using "adaptor" and only two using "adapter", so this is clearly not the case. FF-UK (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the standards being quoted are using an archaic form. We shouldn't perpetuate it in our voice.

Re Oxford, did you miss what's at the very top of the page? The ENTRY at Oxford is "Adapter" with "Adaptor" as an alternate spelling (in much smaller type). Jeh (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that "adaptor" is an archaic form? (I can find only that "adapter" is the earlier form).

"Adaptor" is the more common form when referring to electrical accessories, eg, a search on google.co.uk for "travel adaptor" returns over 800,000 results, compared to under 400,000 for "travel adapter"

Neither the IEC nor the BSI are prone to using archaic forms!

The style guide of a leading British newspaper is quite clear that "adaptor" is the appropriate form when referring to plugs. FF-UK (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in making some of the changes, I'm happy to see this discussion. Some of my edits to Wikipedia involve repairing images in articles when they appear in Category:Articles with missing files and I came upon this article when someone changed adapter to adaptor in an image file name, causing a red-link to appear. I hope that the community will decide on one form of "adaptor" or "adapter" to use in this article. I'm happy to use either one that people more expert on this topic decide to use! - tucoxn\^talk 15:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been living in the States for too long to comment on which is more common in UK, but I cannot imagine there is a more reliable source of which version is correct than the IEC! This article should be tidied up for consistency, and as the IEC clearly defines adaptor as the appropriate word for plug and socket related items, that is the version which should be used. JimmiCheddar (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the WP:SNOWBALL here, I support the recent add by FF-UK. Jeh (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This question came up in Channel-to-channel_adapter where IBM seems to have changed the spelling over the years. It was adaptor in the 1960's and 1970's, but more recently adapter. The CTCA is electrical, but not a power plug or socket. Gah4 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)