Talk:Cable harness

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

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

Article policies

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

Electrical engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Let's see...

I've done a little work on the article, but there's still work to be done. I may do more later. I work at a small specialty wire harness plant, and will attempt to take some pictures for the article later this week. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! The article still needs references. A clean up was definitely required. I believe it was originally translated from the German article. TINY MARK 01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I've been looking for some references on Google, but I can't seem to find anything. Maybe I'll try some other search engines. On a side note, what do you think about merging that advantages list into the second paragraph? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. I don't see why it needs its own section. TINY MARK 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, but it will be hard to add references. As a wire harness engineer, I do not disagree with anything written. I would like to see more detail about components used as well as pictures. It is difficult to do because each OEM has their own requirements and standard which we cannot reference here.Cmrockwell (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, references are a pain to find for stuff like this. I was curious, though. In your local area, do you call a harness with both wires and cables a wire harness or a cable harness? Here, we generally call all harnesses a "wire harness", but it's a really small factory for specialized harnesses. Here's the old website; it's Bluegrass Wire Technologies, LLC. now. (Not advertising!) And as far as more detail and pictures, add them! It's Wikipedia. Anyone can do it. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looming error

As a long-time electrical engineer who's designed and hand-assembled a few wire harnesses in person, I've noticed that the term "wiring loom" seems to be exclusively used by the automotive industry. As far as I'm concerned, it's a misnomer, because a loom is the machine on which a textile is woven, not the product of the machine. Moreover, wire harnesses are not made on a loom at all, because they don't lend themselves to weaving technology. I've added a footnote to that effect in the article. If we were to follow the tortured logic of the auto industry, we'd be wearing "clothing looms", or some such silliness. —Quicksilver^{T @} 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words take on new meanings. If it's widely used then it's correct. —Pengo 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balls is widely used to mean testicles. Are you trying to argue that this is correct, also? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a man says he has itchy balls, do you laugh and say "Balls are lifeless objects. They can't feel itchiness, you silly fool!" No. You understand his meaning. "Balls" has taken on another meaning in the English language. "Balls" is not the term you'd use when talking formally about testicles, but it's not incorrect, no. —Pengo 01:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, "I warned you she had crabs." But, it'd be informal. Encyclopedias are not informal. It can contain informal information, however, but said information needs to be noted as informal. I believe that was what Quicksilver was attempting to do. In fact, if you were to click the links to balls, crabs, tits, or any other slang word, you'd see that the definitions are included, as I said. They are also noted as "slang", as I also said.
On top of this, "wiring loom" is very ambiguous, as, in the wire industry, "loom" can refer to molded synthetic conduit, weaved fabric/synthetic sleeves, and the actual loom used to produce weaved fabric sleeves. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the term "wiring loom" is ambiguous, not slang and not incorrect. —Pengo 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the?

"Cable harnesses are usually digitally according to geometric and electrical requirements"

Huh?

150.101.206.3 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Dfred (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison page

I've started to compile a comparison page as I could not find a single place that does this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Initial_list_-_very_incomplete This is my first Wikipedia edit so be kind

Junk sources

All the sources are WP:Linkspam except the Japanese source which is a link to a collection of links. It is not a reliable source. So, I removed them all and the article returns to referenced. Lest someone plead that spam links are the best we can do, that is not a good argument. At the very least there should be articles in trade journals that can serve as sources without being spam.

I see that less spammy links have been found. Constant314 (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]