Talk:Mains electricity by country/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Mains electricity by country. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutral or not?

A recent edit indicates that the voltages here are supposed to be line to neutral. As I understand it, in many places in the Philippines the usual 230V supply is line to line, with no neutral provided. The transformer center tap is (hopefully) grounded, but not brought into the house. It would be interesting to know if other countries also do this. Gah4 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC) In addition, if you use a 230 to 120 step-down autotransformer, with a line to neutral system, you don't usually know if one side of the 120V secondary is neutral. The transformers aren't usually labeled, and the plug is likely not polarized. Most often, this doesn't matter, but sometimes it might be nice to know. Gah4 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article states that "Voltages in this article are the nominal single-phase supply voltages." The recent edit referred to was specific to the supply of three phase power in Finland, and was undone by me because it was outside the confines of this article. Neither the article, nor the recent edit, nor the reversion of that edit, suggests that "the voltages here are supposed to be line to neutral". FF-UK (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if countries have line to line for nominal single phase supply, though. Gah4 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure: the United States and Canada. Nominal 240 V line-to-line. I would revise this article to reflect this reality, however I suspect FF-UK would revert any edits. CplDHicks (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The only US plugs mentioned in this article, and in its reference sources, are Type A and Type B, so there would be no relevance in mentioning the line to line voltage as both of these types are used only with Line to Neutral! JimmiCheddar (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I meant for ordinary household outlets where someone might plug in a lamp. As I understand it, many European countries distribute three phase into neighborhoods, though maybe not all three phases to each house. But in the case of one phase distribution, line to line 230V isn't so bad. Gah4 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

230v is a fairly recent (about 2000) standard made by the IEC. The nominal 220v to 250v 50Hz countries are expected to standardize on 230v. Australia has already dropped from 240 to 230v (or about 233v). It was done mainly at the request of appliance manufactures. Any supply that uses a ground return, and most do, will have the time-mean voltage at ground, across the phases. For the supply to be unrelated to ground voltage, the circuit from generator to appliance and return must be carried entirely over wires. This is true, for example, in a house powered by a diesel generator. It is true on ships where the steel hull is never used for the neutral return, although a generator centre tap may be used on steel hulls.14.203.206.108 (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On the secondary of a transformer, you can ground any (one) point. You pretty much have to ground somewhere, otherwise with a small leakage from the primary it could float to 10kV or more. For a nominal 230V (say 220V to 250V) system, you could ground the center tap, and so have much lower line to ground voltage. It would be surprising to see a grounded center tap for 120V line to line. (That is, each side 60V from ground.) Gah4 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

JimmiCheddar raises a good point: this article relies far too much on a single source, the IEC website. This ought to be rectified, but I get the sense a few users would revert any relevant changes to the status quo on the grounds they don't match the IEC website. It's an interesting conundrum, one which seems to have started a discussion in the past about deleting the page entirely. CplDHicks (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Would confusion be averted by modifying the "Voltage" section to read "Voltages in this article are the nominal single-phase supply voltages to ground."? CplDHicks (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mains voltages are not specified as being "to ground" therefore such a change would be both non-standard and highly confusing. FF-UK (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously already confusion, hence this discussion's existence. If I changed the US and Canadian voltages to 240 V, as that is the nominal single-phase supply voltage, would you revert it? I suspect you would. Obviously we need clarification then. CplDHicks (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave the original phrase as it was, and note the specifics at the entry for a particular country. Let's report the voltage that one would see on light bulbs and hair dryers, and leave the details to more specific entries for each region. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why would we report the voltage one would see on light bulbs and hair dryers when that's not necessarily what the typical mains electricity in a given country actually is? Is this article about hair dryer plugs and sockets, or is it about mains electricity? CplDHicks (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nominal". And are you speaking of the difference between nominal system voltage and utilization voltage? It's probably more useful to the reader to get the magnitude "1XX" volts or "2XX" volts, before we go off into our usual stunning display of Wiki erudition on distinguishing line to line, line to neutral, line to ground or whatever other permutations occur to us. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not speaking about the difference between nominal system voltage and utilization voltage, I'm speaking of the nominal voltage itself. A typical North American home has a nominal 240 V system, which this article completely ignores. The article itself is riddled with factual inaccuracies with respect to the nominal system voltage in the United States and Canada, because in those countries the 240 V happens to be line-to-line. Gah4 posed the question, FF-UK asserted there's nothing in the article to suggest "the voltages here are supposed to be line to neutral", and then JimmiCheddar turned around and said "The only US plugs mentioned in this article, and in its reference sources, are Type A and Type B, so there would be no relevance in mentioning the line to line voltage as both of these types are used only with Line to Neutral!" There's an obvious unwritten convention here then that the voltages spoken of in this article are line-to-ground (or grounded neutral), even though that's not how the mains electric systems in North America work. JimmiCheddar's assertion that "the only US plugs mentioned in the reference sources are Type A and Type B" goes right to the heart of the problem with this article being almost entirely sole-sourced from the IEC website, which has already been decried as an unreliable source. Despite its unreliability it's so firmly entrenched as the backbone of this article that any references that contradict the IEC website are expunged. It's nonsense, really. CplDHicks (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This article starts with the words: "Mains electricity by country includes a list of countries and territories, with the plugs, voltages and frequencies they use for providing electrical power to small appliances and some major appliances." JimmiCheddar has already referred to the fact that the main source for this article lists only Types A and B plugs for the US, it should also be noted that that same source clearly states that the US voltage (or Electric Potential as it terms it) is 120V. However, let us refer to another source quoted in the article which is the International Trade Administration of the US Department of Commerce web publication: "Electric Current Worldwide". As is mentioned in the article, this publication is not without errors, but it is a reasonable assumption that the US Government is aware of the correct details for the US itself. The page for the US in that publication clearly shows only types A and B plugs, and states that the "Nominal voltage" is 120V.

It is completely false to claim that "any references that contradict the IEC website are expunged", there are a significant number of differences to the IEC source, but only where alternative reliable sources are quoted to support those differences. FF-UK (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So perhaps we ought to move the article to a better title then, since this article is clearly more about plugs than it is about mains electricity. CplDHicks (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's fine as it is per WP:COMMONNAME. When lay people think of "mains electricity" (or in the US, "AC power" or similar) they think of the supply they'll get when they plug in a lamp or similar device to a typical outlet. That some higher voltage might be provided at the building's service entry point, or might be available at a few specialized outlets which no common appliance will have a plug for, is irrelevant. If absolutely necessary we could add the peculiarities of each country's supply system, plus details on the availability of higher voltages at specialized outlets, to each country's section here. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so if I edited the voltages in Canada and the US in the table of voltages and frequencies to read "120/240 V", would you not revert that? CplDHicks (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out soon enough; I decided to be bold and make the change. CplDHicks (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we found out, didn't we @Jeh:? Justify your revert. CplDHicks (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we found out that you are unfamiliar with WP:BRD. After you were reverted, you are supposed to discuss next, Not revert again. I justified my revert in my edit summary, and your revert does not address my concerns. In any case, I stand by my reaction: Your edit implies that 240V and 120V are equally common, or nearly so. Also, since your edit made no change to the connector designations, you imply that the NEMA 1-15 and 5-15 connectors would be used for 240 as well as 120, which is wildly misleading. Verb. Sap.: Just because an edit has "100% good sources" does not automatically make it a good edit.

Also, it should be completely clear from the preceding discussion that nobody else here agreed with what you proposed. Well, it's still within your privileges to be however bold you want to be, but don't be surprised when you're reverted under such circumstances. Jeh (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we're right back where we started: is this article about mains electricity, or is it about plugs? You're telling me it's the latter, in which case I'd argue we ought to merge this article with AC power plugs and sockets. If it's about the former then your entire line of reasoning re. the plugs is absolutely irrelevant. What does the commonness of 120 V vs. 240 V circuits in Canadian homes have to do with the fact that mains voltage is defined in the relevant NATIONAL STANDARD OF CANADA as "120/240 V"? Nothing. Your entire line of reasoning is specious and beside the point. CplDHicks (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the purpose of this article is so that travelers know what to expect in countries that they are planning on visiting. I suppose there could be some people who don't know the details of their home plugs and outlets, but I don't expect that is the main use. As far as above, I don't see at all that 120/240 suggests that 120 and 240 are equally common. If it did, there would need to be a way to state that two things were not equally common, and we would use that. But travelers in hotels or other buildings should expect 120V outlets. (Also hotels and such are likely 120/208, and not 120/240.) Gah4 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article was originally created in July 2004 by separating the country list from AC power plugs and sockets. I have seen nothing in this discussion to support CplDHicks suggestion that the articles be merged again. The initial version of this article was headed by the words: "This is a list of countries and territories, with the plugs, voltages and frequencies they use". At some point that has been modified to the current introductory statement I mentioned earlier: "Mains electricity by country includes a list of countries and territories, with the plugs, voltages and frequencies they use for providing electrical power to small appliances and some major appliances." The emphasis in the latter that it is about small appliances is in line with Gah4's comment above: "the purpose of this article is so that travelers know what to expect in countries that they are planning on visiting". It is a safe assumption that very few travellers to the US or Canada will be carrying the type of major appliance that requires 240V (such as stoves, dryers and A/C units) so 120V is entirely appropriate (as Wtshymanski put it: "the voltage that one would see on light bulbs and hair dryers"). I believe that the page as it exists serves a very useful purpose, and because of the efforts of WP editors it remains a more accurate resource than other comparable resources (eg IEC World Plugs or the spam site World Standards). Unless CplDHicks can gain support for his contrary view, there is no justification in his recent addition of 240V to the Canada entry, and I have reverted it. FF-UK (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the heart of the problems with this article: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If you want to maintain this article as a travel guide it ought to be moved to Wikivoyage. Otherwise it needs to move away from being a travel guide regurgitated from the IEC website, which is precisely what my edit was accomplishing by explaining that mains electricity in Canada is 120/240 not just 120 V. CplDHicks (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As Wikipedia is not a travel guide. says: Wikipedia articles should not read like: As it says, an article on Paris should mention the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, and not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants. But that doesn't mean that travelers won't use it as a reference for Paris or power outlets. Note that it doesn't say anything about the street address or phone number of the Eiffel Tower, though. The Paris article might be used by school kids doing a report on Paris, without plans to travel there. I suppose some nerds might do a school report from this article. I think we can still consider that travelers will read this article, as long as it doesn't read like a travel guide. That guideline also argues against the notes: Power cords with type A or B plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard. That is, they are not encyclopedic. Gah4 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Gah4 and FF-UK. A "guide" is something that tells you "do x, you shouldn't do y, z might be good to do but isn't essential." ie it is instructions and advice for doing something. This article is not that. It was a bit clumsy for Gah4 to talk about "what travelers might expect from an outlet in a hotel room in Paris", particularly given your propensity, CplDHicks, for grasping at any and all scraps you can find (and switching your arguments to match).

But the article is about what the general public (remember, most of Wikipedia is written for the general reader) can expect of a typical outlet for small appliances anywhere in the world, including in their own home. True, the information about mains connections in other countries than one's own is generally only useful if you happen to be travelling there, but that does not make it a "travel guide", and to use that to argue against the article's existence or structure has no basis in WP P&G.

(Similarly, the article on Internal combustion engine is not a "repair guide" for car engines, even though it does provide information that's valuable to new students of that topic.)

In general, CplDHicks, you seem to me to have come here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. You want to add info about the 120/240 feed system in the US and Canada but, having encountered objections, you have been thrashing around wildly for justification. Each time one of your justifications is countered, you switch to something else. That's usually indicative of an edit that's poorly motivated in the first place.

You started out complaining that the article relies too much on IEC standards - a point you never raised again.
You argued for change from "line to neutral" to "line to ground", which is absurd, since "ground" is not what carries return current in any system that has separate ground and neutral pins, and is not really involved in either distribution or end-point use.
You then switched to arguing that the article should be talking about the power lines that come into a house, rather than those that come into an outlet, despite that the focus here is clearly on the supply at commonly-encountered wall sockets (otherwise, why would we devote so much space to the wall sockets?).
After I noted that info on 120/240 was "irrelevant" considering the article's stated subject area, but agreed that "if absolutely necessary" we could add supply system info for "each" country, plus details about "specialized" outlets... you went ahead and made the inconsistent, misleading, and irrelevant edit that I deconstructed below (my edit of 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)). With a note that amounted to "I dare you to revert me". Despite that you had addressed none of my concerns (like "absolutely necessary", and emphasis on "specialized").
Then when I reverted you, you seemed to think that that proved something ("Well, I guess we found out" - an empty phrase, signifying nothing. I imagine that you are trying to claim that all of your edits here are simply going to be reverted out of hand without justification. In fact they're being reverted because you're not making a good case for them.
You tried to set up a false dichotomy ("either the article is about plugs or it's about voltage"), declaring that on the one hand the article should be merged back into the one it came from, and on the other hand your edits were justified. (It's conventional for me to say "nice try" at such times but yours was actually pretty clumsy.)
And of course, you re-reverted, in violation of WP:BRD.
Then when it was noted that info on outlets not of one's own country would be of personal interest to travelers, you jumped to "Wikipedia is not a travel guide", claiming " this is the heart of the problem with the article" - funny, then, that you had never raised that point before. But somehow you think that WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE supports the addition of your inconsistent, misleading, and irrelevant edit, because it "moves it away from being a travel guide." I cannot see how this is the case, because it isn't one in the first place. But it certainly moved it away from its purpose, as stated in the lede, because 240 outlets in Canada are not used for the purposes described in the lede.

You know, Hicks, when you have several different experienced editors telling you you're wrong, maybe you should try listening to their objections, and answering them? Instead of trying one argument after another, hoping something will stick?

NOTE: I'm not saying the info on split phase 120/240 in the US and Canada shouldn't be on Wikipedia; I just think it shouldn't be in this article. It would be valuable to have information on the power distribution and feed systems of various countries. I expect that there is enough information there that it could not and should not be compressed into a simple table; each country, or at least each materially different distro/feed system could have its own article. Such articles would be written for a less general audience than is this article. As for this article, simply adding "120/240" as you did to existing entries for countries that use 240 split-phase feeds is woefully insufficient, and irrelevant to this article's purpose as defined in its lede. Jeh (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

reply to CplDHicks' entry of 05:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC):

"You're telling me it's the latter," - no, I'm not. It's about both. It says so in the very first sentence. And in the first sentence of the second graf too. (N.b.: Your demand that I need to pick one or the other is a false dichotomy.) And no, that doesn't mean we need to rename it.

It seems to me to be essential that whatever the article says about plugs and sockets in a particular country be consistent with what it says about voltage in that country. Do you disagree?

To state, as the article did after your edit, that in Canada "some circuits use 240 V, others use 120 V", while only mentioned A and B connectors, is obviously inconsistent - since the 240 V circuits use different connectors. Do you disagree?

The phrasing "some circuits use 240 V, others use 120 V" implies that the two types of circuits occur with about equal frequency. We know that that's not the case, so that phrasing must be changed. Any mention of 240 V must include mention of their relative scarcity.

All in all, the "Canada" line in the table as per your edit seems to be telling the reader that a type A or type B socket encountered in Canada might provide 120 V, or might provide 240, with about equal likelihood. But we know that the vast majority of outlets encountered will provide 120V. Your phrasing is grossly misleading on this point.

How are these points irrelevant or specious?

The fact that these outlets are supplied by "split phase power" is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the purpose of the article. "Mains power" to the general reader is what comes out of the typical wall socket. And not everything in a standard must appear in an article that references that standard. The fact that a standard does define Canada as "120/240 V" mains voltage does not change the fact that the table line, after your edit, is inconsistent and misleading.

You wrote, "Your entire line of reasoning is specious and beside the point." That looks to me to be simply rock-throwing. Exactly which of my statements in this post is "specious", and why? And that your edit provides inconsistent, irrelevant, and misleading information is exactly the point. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mains electricity by country. 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) 22:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If

If we were to put the voltage history of each country here it would become completely unmanageable! This article is about how things are now, not what used to be.) This is certainly true, but I was going off the edit summary of the previous change. Otherwise, it is usual to give {{cn}} for unsourced additions, and give people time to find a citation. Gah4 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

220, 230, 240

There seems to be much discussion on the difference between 220V, 230V, and 240V. All line voltages have a tolerance. Except for incandescent lamps, which are fairly sensitive to voltage, appliances should be able to cover the range. As I understand it, there is a change toward 230V with a tolerance large enough to cover 220V and 240V, without actually changing the line voltage. Is there a good way to explain this in the table? Gah4 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

As sometimes mentioned above, articles are supposed to be encyclopedic. As mentioned elsewhere, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Recent reverts and edit summaries regarding current and previous voltages comes to mind. Normally, encyclopedic includes history. Not only how something is now, but how it got that way. This article is really a travel guide in disguise. Many people will use it when planning a trip, to know which adapters to buy. The history of line voltage isn't needed. But, being wikipedia, that history should be included somewhere. Should we have a new article, Historical Mains electricity by country? (Assuming it would make this one too big to include it all.) Note that history could be important, more than just for historians. Someone might have an old appliance, and want to know what voltage it was expecting. Or visit an older area of some country, where things change slower. Gah4 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of electrotechnology could have been gleaned from the wreckage of a flying saucer, so far as Wikipedia knows - we have no history for most topics. But my goodness, we have lots of variant spellings. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My first try, the transistor, includes Lilienfeld's FET, from before surface states were understood, and the point contact BJT, predecessor to today's bipolar transistor. There is a lot of history that could go here, such as the origin of the 110V and 220V systems, and 50Hz vs. 60Hz, and even DC vs. AC. The change to 230V +/- 10% is much more recent, though. Gah4 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Internal inconsistency

China uses a Type A parallel-blade plug. China uses 230 V. Let's not embarrass ourselves with more internal inconsistencies, though making fun of Wikipedia is about as easy as mocking Presidential tweets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

...and long hidden advice comments to editors are just signs of ownership. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Been there, done that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country/Archive_2#We_shouldn.27t_be_saying_what_people_.22should.22_do

Chinese plugs are rated at 230V, American plugs are rated at 125V, not the same at all. FF-UK (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this the best title for this article?

I believe (could be wrong) "mains" is a peculiarly British-English term (see for example the definition in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mains). I remember once writing "mains electricity" in a book for a US audience and the (American) editor removed it, not knowing what it meant. Presumably this is intended to be an international article, so would a title like "Electricity supply voltages by country" (or whatever) be more appropriate? 82.71.0.17 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Some will no doubt object to the "peculiarly" word in your comment; they think that American usage is the "peculiar" one. And that is exactly why I agree: a more neutral and more widely-understood term would be preferable. Now it is true that most of us ugly 'murricans who happen to have specialized knowledge in the field will recognize "mains" (just like we recognize, in between swigs of our hideously chilled beer, "valves" when the Brits are referring to electronic tubes, and "earth" instead of "ground", etc.) but Wikipedia should be written for the general reader. Jeh (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is MOS:ENGVAR, but then also MOS:COMMONALITY. The former seems to me to suggest keeping it, the latter suggests changing it. Gah4 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The existing title is a better term. Take for instance North America. An establishment can have half phase, full phase or three phase supply. Three different voltage potentials, and all in one city block. Aspro (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The article appears to have been created and initially developed in British English, but I do not see a template to this effect on this page, or a hidden note at the top of the article, these should probably be added. There are a number of language inconsistencies in the article which could do with tidying up. Having said that, the title is probably not the most helpful as what the article actually deals with is domestic supply voltages and domestic plugs in use in countries. I see no problem with removing "mains" from the title, and devising a new title which uses terms common to all varieties and mentions plugs. Variations in terms can be dealt with in a "Terminology" section. FF-UK (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

...and a "Nomenclature" section, too. Possibly a "glossary" as well. Don't forget the IPA phonetic pronunciations of each term. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Little House on the Prairie may have gone over to adopting half phase on its distribution board but we are now living in the second millennium. If one's home has an immersion water heater one has a full phase 240 volt supply. If one is rich (say like Oprah Winfrey) owning large mansions, one has 3 phase supply to balance out the load drawn from the medium tension supply -the power utility usually insist upon this. Fitting a domestic induction cooker hob? – use 3 phase. There is no 'one' domestic supply voltage. Of-cause, this may not apply to people still living in old Detroit City apartments that have been scheduled for demolition nor people living in trailers. The article is not about the shrinking fringe usage. 'Avenue' is also a European adoption. To be politically correct, should we persuade Trump to rename his address to 1600 Wagon train route to Maryland? Aspro (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Half phase" is a Wikipedia invention and it hurts my brain to try and figure out what that means. If one is living in an apartment in North America, one generally has two out of a possible 3 phase wires in one's local panel board, and gets to contemplate the folly of buying 240 volt appliances with a 208 volt supply. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I do know someone in an apartment that has a 208 to 240 transformer for the oven/stove. But most 240V US appliances are designed to work, though maybe not as well, on 208V. Ovens, stoves, and water heaters won't heat as fast, but they do work. Gah4 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is reasonably obvious that heaters will work fine, though at a lower power, on 208V. I have one of these:[1] though, which has an electric motor to do most of the work. Even so, it seems designed for either 208V or 240V. (and maybe anything in between.) Gah4 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Tut-tut, Wtshymanski and Gah4; what's all this about 240 V and 208 V? Per the International Electrotechnical Commission—a quasi-governmental organization, don't you know—the mains voltage in North America is 120 V. 240, 208 and any other number is clearly incorrect. CplDHicks2 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The instructions for my water heater (see link above) clearly states that bad things will happen if run on 120V. Must be 208V or 240V, and it is in North America.

However, if you think of this as a travel guide (though Wikipedia guidelines specifically say it isn't), then you might believe it is only 120V. (No-one brings a big water heater when traveling.) Gah4 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you see, this article is about the mains electricity, which is clearly 120 V. The US Department of Commerce web publication Electric Current Worldwide clearly shows only types A and B plugs, and states that the "nominal voltage" is 120 V. So too does the IEC, of which I will remind you the United States and Canada are full members. Do you mean to say the US Dept. of Commerce and the IEC are incorrect? CplDHicks2 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If I have to decide between the IEC and a hot shower, I will choose the latter. GE says my water heater, with a 500W motor inside, will fail on 120V. Gah4 (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, even though it isn't a travel guide, it mostly describes what travelers will find. I am not sure about the IEC, but it seems to be close enough. But actual mains in the US is pretty much always either 120/240 or 120/208. This article is actually a travel article in disguise. Gah4 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

gasp* I am appalled by your temerity, Gah. I can't believe you have the gall to say this article is a travel guide in disguise. The nerve! The cheek! This is a well-sourced article! It's not as though it relies on an IEC webpage that explicitly says it's "aimed at informing travellers of the types of plugs and sockets they may come across in a specific country" as its primary source. It's like you don't even know what mains electricity means! CplDHicks2 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And all this witty exchange is helping the article ...how? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Call it... encouragement. CplDHicks2 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Three kinds of type C

It appears that the wording of both this article and the IEC guide confounds three kinds of "type C" plugs. The 2.5A CEE 7/16 Europlug for low energy devices are compromise plugs that fit in as many 230V countries as possible at the cost of the strength of the connection. The larger 10A/13A/16A plugs (including CEE 7/17, but others too) are primary non-grounded standard plugs used in many countries, but not all those that accept the mechanically smaller Europlug. The 10A plug standards seem to come in two general pin sizes: 4mm and 4.8mm with limited (unreliable) compatibility between them. Even for the "travel guide" scenario, many travelers will carry some equipment rated above 600VA and thus need to know which countries accept their larger "type C" plugs, and which ones need an adapter.

Thus for Wikipedia purposes, maybe this article should label these as:

C2: 2.5A CEE 7/16 Europlug with 4mm pins and hexagonal body.
C4: >3A GOST-style round with 4mm pins and a circular body or any smaller body that fits within that circle.
C5: >3A CEE 7/17 with 4.8mm pins and a round body with various cutouts or any smaller body that fits within that outline.

Examples:

Typical German/Spanish sockets accept types C2, C5 and F but provide poor connections for type C4.
Typical French sockets accept types C2, C5 and E, but provide poor connections for type C4.
Typical Swiss sockets accept types C2 and J. Older Swiss sockets (not recessed) may or may not accept type C4 (I don't know).
Typical Russian sockets accept types C2 and C4, but maybe do not accept the insertion of types C5, E(no ground) and F(no ground).
Traditional Italian sockets accept C2, but I don't know if they are wide enough to accept C4 or C5.
Typical Danish sockets accept types C2, C4, C5, K, E(no ground) and F(no ground).
Rare Danish sockets accept types (C2, C5 and E) or (C2, C5 and F) . Those are legal since sometime between 2007 and 2015 but are not widely installed as of 2017.

(Note 1: Traditional Danish 6A and 10A plugs were like C5 but without the cutouts and thus will not fit in German and French sockets, modern ones fit inside the C5 outline).

(Note 2: Older Danish 6A ungrounded plugs had 4mm pins but the narrower rectangular shape, hence the continued acceptance of C4 plugs in Danish sockets).

Because this is a talk page comment, I have not included sources (most are pay-walled anyway). Jbohmdk (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The designated letter types are defined by the IEC, not Wikipedia. IEC World Plugs states clearly that: "The Type C electrical plug (or Europlug) is a two-wire plug that has two round pins. It fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres." It is not the business of WP to add additional designations, that would be something akin to WP:OR. FF-UK (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IEC an unreliable source ?

An editor made the following revert. The restored tag states that: "Article self proclaims this as an unreliable source", but I don't understand where is the proclaim. --Robertiki (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity_by_country#Main_reference_source—IEC_World_Plugs

The problem is that the IEC does not give sources for its information and does not quote the relevant national standards! The article is slowly being improved as editors are able to add valid sources for the information shown. FF-UK (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Tolerances needed

Where the voltages and frequencies are tabulated, the lawful ranges of those need to be given as well. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No. As the article clearly states "Voltages in this article are the nominal single-phase supply voltages." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity_by_country#Voltages FF-UK (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, just because it says nominal doesn't mean it can't have a range, but it does allow without a range. Since the purpose here is to be useful, a range could help some users. Gah4 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be usable information. Presumably commercial power supplies are within commercial tolerances for that region, so that you have a reasonable expectation that your appliances will work when plugged in. But if you really need to know if it's +7,-5% or +9, -10% for some particular place, isn't that a little too specialized for a general encyclopedia? And badly-run grids may not meet "official" tolerances in any case, nor do grids experiencing any one of a number of routine upsets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Most appliances have enough tolerance for the usual line tolerance. About the only one that has an unusually small tolerance is the incandescent lamp. Incandescent lamp lifetime is fairly sensitive to voltage, and in that case, one might want to know the claimed tolerance. I wouldn't say that we need to go out of the way to find the specified tolerance, but also it doesn't seem that we need to forget about it, if it is available. Gah4 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with OP. Just because the article clearly states "Voltages in this article are the nominal single-phase supply voltages." Doesn't mean we should simply ignore the lawful ranges. Some companies now waste thousands of Euros (€) on thinking they now have to buy line-conditioning equipment to bring them into line with the nominal voltage because they don't understand it. It has left us with having daft and misleading sections like Voltage_optimisation#United_Kingdom where the average voltage in the UK is still 240v plus or minus 6 volts but the new 'declared' nominal voltage is 230v plus +10% to -6%. Which is identical (VA wise)to the former except that the standards allows a lower voltage - as is common on the continent. But there is no point in the UK, Australia, etc lowering the supply voltage, because it is more efficient to supply at higher voltages. So it is misleading, not to have the ranges because this article appears to suggest that countries still declaring 240 volts (Uo) have higher supply voltages than countries now declaring 230 volts (Uo) when they are the same. As an Encyclopedia we should make this clear by adding the tolerances. Go ahead 94.30.84.71 and add the tolerances (but do supply references). --Aspro (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a tag to the article in case this discussion section gets archived. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

240V outlets in the U.S.

Greetings, editors...I just added back comments on the United States row noting that NEMA-10 and NEMA-14 plugs are used for 240V equipment in homes and offices. This was previously removed by User:FF-UK with the edit summary "This article does not deal with split phase or multi phase." The title is "mains electricity by country", and given these outlets are in common use and connected to mains power, it seems they fit under that scope. I think Wikipedia isn't doing a good job covering the subject if it just leaves these out, since they are supported pretty much everywhere in the country and used by common major household appliances. I think it would be good to document these plugs for all countries, not just the U.S., and probably make the U.S. entry more concise at the same time. That could be done in the same table or a different table, and in the same article or a different one. I'm open to opinions. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe start a new article/list on multi phase around the world. This one is already pretty long. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A number of relevant articles already cover that subject. This is an article about the voltages and plugs used by small appliances which do not include that. I have once again reverted this info FF-UK (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The article title doesn't mention appliance size, but yes, air conditioners are a common use for 240V plugs for portable (so they say) appliances. They are not commonly brought along by travelers. Though for people buying one, it is nice to know which plugs they use. Gah4 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Is there a particular one that would be appropriate to add a list like this? -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I found Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, which as it turns out, is exactly what I was looking for. I added a link from the intro so readers can easily find it. (This has been a long-standing need; I found this in an archived talk page discussion where someone was looking for the same thing.) -- Beland (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), that article, as well as a number of equally relevant articles on mains plugs, are all correctly listed in the normal place ″See also″ at the end of the article, before the references. We do not need to repeat them as it is obvious what THIS article is about. FF-UK (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, without the link I added, it was unclear to me where to find information for heavy appliances, which is why I thought it was simply missing from the table. It seems we simply directly disagree; what do other editors think? This is what I added to the intro:

(For larger home appliances and industrial machinery, see Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets.)

-- Beland (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

FTR, the "see also" link was removed and the link added to the intro so as not to be redundant. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Consolidation of comments

This edit shows reverting by User:FF-UK of some consolidation I had previously done. I thought the older text regarding "IEC World Plugs" was too long, not very interesting for readers, and more or less the same thing could be said in fewer words anyway. I think there's no need to spend prose paragraphs explaining the contradiction between the Indonesian standard and the IEC page, since that's made clear when we cite that as a source in the table. The "Voltage" section I consolidated with table notes because it doesn't seem important outside of the table. If we want it to apply to the whole article, it should probably go in the intro? Did other editors have opinions about this change? I'm surprised it was contested. -- Beland (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Map of voltages and frequencies

I made a pair map of maps based on the data in the table. Would they be useful in the article?

The maps are generated right at the bottom here: https://gist.github.com/notionparallax/3a5b448e3226417b3c5de99e61828794

I'm sure that there should be lots done to these to make them conform. Any pointers to what those changes are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.doherty (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not useful. You can't resolve national boundaries, there's no physical significance to a region picking a particular voltage or frequency standard, and the map implies there's electric power available in the middle of Greenland, which is just stupid. It's also wrong, as Japan has both 50 and 60 Hz grids. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that there is value in alternative methods of communicating the information. The table doesn't make it obvious that the bulk of West Africa is homogeneous but Liberia is different. There is potential to improve these maps considerably but I disagree that they aren't useful. Ben.doherty (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wtshymanski is right, maps serve no useful purpose in articles such as this. Decisions on what voltage and frequency are used are not related to geography, but to political decisions made during the early days of electricity use. A table is the appropriate way to convey this information about any particular territory. FF-UK (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that it isn't quite that bad, as nearby countries tend to make similar decisions, especially as it makes it easier to get along. Smaller countries might want to share power across the border. (Well, voltage isn't hard to change, but frequency is pretty hard.) Also, it makes cross border trade easier if things work the same way on both sides. Smaller countries might not have any power plants within the country, buying power from outside. But I don't think I will try to argue one way or the other about a map. Gah4 (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is interesting to see where 50Hz and 60Hz are. The small variations in voltage might not be so real, though. As I understand it, but don't have a reference, the US chose 60Hz based on the silicon transformer steel available at the time. Europe didn't have that, and the steel that they did have worked better at 50Hz. Once the decision is made, it is hard to change. Higher frequency means smaller transformers. Gah4 (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the view that decisions were made on the availability of silicon steel. In any case, silicon steel was a British invention (patented in 1902). FF-UK (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that these maps serve have no useful purpose. Not only do they summarise a difficult to read table in a very compact form, but the voltages used in a country are political decisions encoded in regulations, and the political decisions are bounded by country boundaries.GliderMaven (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found the evidence for how the decision was made, or if it was based on Si steel, but that doesn't mean that it isn't out there. It might be that US had better, for some reason not known to me, Si steel. In any case, my vote is to keep the frequency map, but not the voltage map. Gah4 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Utility frequency talks about this. 50 and 60 Hz both were used in the US until after WWII. Nothing to do with silicon steel, at least as far as as B. G. Lamme and company have written. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Wtshymanski and FF-UK are anti-map, GliderMaven and I seem to be pro-map. What is the standard Wikipedia way of resolving these sorts of disagreements?

Wtshymanski and FF-UK, do you believe that the map diminishes the quality of the information provided? Or do you just believe that the table does a better job? I'd say that the map does a better job of providing an overview of the data, but the table does a better job of being specific and accurate.Ben.doherty (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And note that I am pro the frequency map. Does that help? Gah4 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The map is wrong showing Japan all one frequency. It's redundant, we've got a similar map at Utility frequency. It's a poor way of organizing and retrieving the information, as it's impossible to discern political boundaries on this scale and the countries aren't labelled,. It's misinfomation, there is no geographical significance to picking 120, 240, 50 or 60 as a number. It's misleading, because Norther Canada, the Greenland ice cap, the Australian outback, and the middle of the Sahara Desert have no meaningful electric power generation, in spite of the nice uniform color.

The standard way of resolving this is for one side or the other to create a vast army of sock puppets supporting the position, then a drive-by administrator will protect what ever the last version was in use. There is no good resolution. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If it needs editing for accuracy, I completely support doing that.GliderMaven (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

An area that is governed by a specific country would seem to follow that countries' rules. Greenland seems to be both Sweden and Denmark. The fact that there aren't any power plants in a region doesn't bother me much, as people could buy portable generators, which would normally run at the voltage and frequency of the country. Gah4 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose of adding maps to this article?
How does a map provide more information to someone seeking information on what plugs, voltage and frequency is used in a particular country?

The table provides all of the information relevant to a particular country. In this case a map is just a confusing feature that is irrelevant to the purposes of the article. FF-UK (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the article? If it is a travel guide, then readers will know which country they want to visit, and the table will tell everything they need to know. But if someone is interested, without intent to travel to countries, but just interested in understanding which countries do what, the maps are useful. Utility frequency is also interesting to learn about the history without being interested in travel. Gah4 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And if it is a travel guide, then don't forget WP:NOTTRAVEL. The argument against maps could be used in any case where there could be either a table or a graph. The information is all in a table, but often easier to follow in a graph. Gah4 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the maps is to summarise the table for the lead. The table has somewhat more information than the map anyway- it includes the references and the plug types, so it's not like the table is going to be deleted. The maps nevertheless summarise the table fairly well. And it's good to have an overview in the lead. It's rather surprising to me that the idea of this kind of summarisation is being attacked here. I would not have expected that.GliderMaven (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:NOTTRAVEL is not about removing all the information that might be useful to a traveller, otherwise we would nto have an article on the Empire State Building or currencies. Rather, it's about removing lists of 'best establishments' to visit. But we're not listing 'best voltages' just stating the voltages and frequencies in each place. Wikipedia is, after all, a reference work. I can see no relevance at all of that policy to this article or the maps.GliderMaven (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but if we remove content for the reason that it wouldn't be useful to a traveller, then we are leaning toward a travel guide. Considering why someone might read the article, helps guide the content. But even for travellers, the map can be useful. If one is visiting a group of nearby countries, it is likely easier to see the whole group at once on the map, instead of look up each individually. Gah4 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's already been pointed out, but what exactly is wrong with the existing map shown to the side apart from the (admittedly contentious) issue of national boundaries? DocFergus (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ben.doherty: These maps are awesome; I just added them to the article. They are exactly what I was just about to request for the article before I saw the above discussion. We use this type of map all over Wikipedia to present this type of information. In the captions I included the caveat that not all colored areas actually have mains power, and noted the correction for Japan. (Those were the only substantive objections I took from the above conversation.) There are clear geographic patterns that the maps make obvious and the table does not, and this makes it useful well above and beyond the idea that different readers prefer to digest information visually vs. textually.

Doing a map which actually indicates on a local level whether mains power is available from a public utility would be a much larger map-making project, and it's perfectly fine to have country-level granularity as long as readers understand that's what the map is presenting. We may want to present that information on a different map anyway, since it would be more granular and thus somewhat distracting from what these maps convey. And it would probably be more relevant to electrical grid than this article, since it would effectively show the extent of public grids worldwide. I think mains electricity would be a good place for something like File:World Access to Electricity.png (which is still at country-level granularity); it shows how not everyone even in relatively populated areas actually has a local power grid.

As for improvements, I like the way that many Wikipedia maps use dots to increase the size of island countries and micronations, so they can be seen (see for example File:Capital punishment in the world.svg). Some of them also use lines to indicate non-contiguous territories (like connecting the Lower 48 to Alaska and Hawaii) but that's not really necessary in my opinion. Adding those dots to this map would fix the problem it currently has of some countries being effectively invisible. File:Worldwide map of mains voltage and frequency.png has the same problem, and it has the additional downside of having the irrelevant text about merchant ships written across it. -- Beland (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to a map of "Countries that have the letter 'R' in their names". --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Maps are very useful to quickly convey information that varies by geography. A map is definitely appropriate in this article to convey the table info in a very simple, concise way. Many of the articles in Category:Energy-related lists by country have maps, such as: List of countries by energy consumption per capita, Coal by country, List of countries by natural gas production, Oil by country, List of countries by oil consumption, List of countries by oil exports, List of countries by oil production, & List of countries by proven oil reserves. Some other articles with appropriate maps are: Metrication#Chronology and status of conversion by country, List of countries by uranium reserves, Nuclear power by country#Nuclear power policy by country, List of country calling codes, Left- and right-hand traffic, & Comparison of MUTCD-influenced traffic signs#Color differences. Many articles about international treaties (Paris Agreement, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and international organizations (International Maritime Organization, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) also have maps. In these cases the maps are useful to concisely convey the status of countries around the world, despite the fact that in most cases the reason a country adopted a particular standard, joined an organization/treaty, or uses/consumes/produces a certain type of energy boils down to politics or a reason that is not variable by region.

WikiProject Maps gives a good explanation of why maps are useful in Wikipedia articles:"[Maps] are useful in presenting key facts within a geographical context and enabling a descriptive overview of a complex concept to be accessed easily and quickly." And per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." AHeneen (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I like this version of the map. The previous one seemed slightly strange, overemphasizing small differences in voltage. Gah4 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

To restate it again, this is a complicated subject not lending itself to depiction on a map. The tabulated information does a good job, and we should not be relying on a map which relies upon being not primarily decorative. We do no service to WP by dumbing it down. FF-UK (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That is why I like this map more than the other ones. It quickly tells one what they need to know. Say one is doing the ten country tour of northern Europe. Looking at the map, one can quickly see that all of northern Europe is in the 220-240 50Hz range, and not need to look up individually 10 countries. I don't know about dumbing down, but it does make it faster for such cases. Gah4 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that only works where you know the answer to a specific part of the map before you refer to it. If you are actually needing to know what the specific conditions for a particular country (the purpose of the article) then the map does not tell you this, therefore it is a dumbed down solution! FF-UK (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So we need instead an article Mains electricity by geography for people who want to know by region of the world, as they wouldn't look here? Gah4 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But they're no "primarily decorative", they serve the purpose of simply conveying the information from the table. Anyways, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#World maps to convey status by country about this issue, so direct further comments about the general appropriateness of such maps to that discussion. AHeneen (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AHeneen (talk) This is a discussion about this particular article and its complexities. "Simply conveying" the information by country is the problem when the information is not simple! Please do not try to take this to an alternative forum, as there is no conflict with the general use of maps, it is about this article. Please refrain from trying to resurrect maps on this page. FF-UK (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A consolidated voltage/frequency map is useful in several different use cases:

Single country: If I'm going to Brazil and I'm wondering if that country uses US or UK voltages, I can just look at the map at the top of the article and not have to bother finding Brazil in the table. I don't need to know the answer to that question before I look at the map.
Multiple countries: If I'm planning a trip to Europe and I want to know which countries use the same voltage so I can either pack correctly or adjust my travels accordingly if I don't want to buy a voltage converter, I can just look at the map. This will save me a lot of time from having to look up the individual countries.
General reference: It's impossible to get a general idea of the patterns of voltages and frequencies across the whole world just by reading the table; one would have to memorize the whole thing. This is trivial by looking at the map.

@FF-UK: If your argument is that the maps don't include plug type, I think that's an argument for making a map or maps that do show plug/socket type, since maps are a much faster way to get the same information for certain use cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 4 mei 2018 19:44 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing an example of a country which uses two different voltages. It makes the precise point as to why the tabulated form is the right one, and a map is not appropriate. Not all answers are simple. (Similarly, some countries use multiple plug types.) FF-UK (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Literally, so what? You add a little note about that country. We've all solved harder problems than that. The fundamental truth here is that the maps are a useful summary of significant aspects of the article that can go in the lead, which identifies geographic commonalities in voltages and frequencies that the table simply doesn't in any easily comprehensible way.GliderMaven (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I went through the table, and it looks like a map could be generated that completely summarizes the voltage and frequency columns, which has a legend like this:

220-240V @ 50Hz

220-240V @ 60Hz

100-127V @ 50Hz

100-127V @ 60Hz

Both voltages at 50Hz

Both voltages at 60Hz

Mix of 220-240V @ 50Hz and 100-127V @ 60Hz

Unknown

Different areas of Japan and maybe Peru (if we trust the cited source which is marked at possibly unreliable) would need to be rendered in different colors. -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beland: That looks like a good selection. @GliderMaven: The fundamental truth here is that the maps are a useful summary of significant aspects of the article that can go in the lead, which identifies geographic commonalities in voltages and frequencies that the table simply doesn't in any easily comprehensible way. Hits the nail on the head. On. The. Head. AHeneen (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because there are so many variables (multiple voltages, multiple frequencies and multiple plug types) used in some countries, then you cannot convey a simple impression with a map. That is why we do dot use maps in this article as it does not simplify, but vastly overcomplicates the situation. It is not WPs function to confuse the reader, so lets avoid maps here. Time to leave this alone. FF-UK (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Yeah, certainly it would be too messy to try to convey all of that information on a single map. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I don't intend to put plugs on the same map, but I think the worldwide situation for plugs can also be summed up in a single map, like the one on this page does (though I would use more legible stripes). That would leave two maps to summarize the information in the table. Does that make sense? -- Beland (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, I found a frequency and voltage map already in use by most other-language Wikipedias and also English Wikivoyage. (And a separate plugs map, noted in a separate section below.) It is based on the information from this article. -- Beland (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Plug map

I found this map in the archived talk for this article. It is used on a lot of other-language Wikipedias, just not English at the moment, though it is used on English Wikivoyage. It looks like it is being kept up to date, and it looks like it is actually being sourced from this page. -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That map is just plain wrong, based on a very bad version of this article (the current article itself has the sources and has been much modified and updated), but the map simply ignores this and seeks to achieve a meaningless block of colour which is wrong. You cannot ignore sources in a map, they to have to be good sources, and it has to be kept up to date. This map is a travesty which fails all three and should simply be dumped. It is yet another example of why this is not a simple problem, and cannot ever improve the situation. FF-UK (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: The color blocks are not meaningless; the indicate which country uses which kind of plug. The map is supposed to correspond to the table values exactly. If there are any discrepancies, anyone can download a free SVG editor and fix it. I'm happy to do that if anyone notices any countries which have the wrong values. Would you object to a map like this if I synchronized the colors with the table? -- Beland (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), They are meaningless because of the confusing complication of multiple types and mixing of types. It complicates, not simplifies, the exact opposite of what is required. As to the accuracy, when something is based on inaccurate sourcing, then the only thing to do is start from scratch, not try fix it by searching for all the problems. However, given the fundamental unsuitability of the plug map, it would be a terrible waste of anyone's time. FF-UK (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with all of that. A map that shows one picture of the world in 13 colors seems a lot simpler than a table with over 100 rows, and in certain cases is faster and easier to use. If other editors support addition of such a map, I will update this one, because it would be faster for me to do that than start from scratch. -- Beland (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It may be 13 colours, but with the number of countries which use multiple types we end up with a lot of stripe combinations which do not make it all easy to read. Why can you not see that? FF-UK (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If your objection is that the stripes are physically hard to see, we can either make wider stripes or use distinct colors instead of striping. If your objection is that the information is simply too complex to represent in a single map, then we can make multiple maps like we do for languages and language families. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Please get real, how many additional colours do you think would be necessary for all the combinations of different plugs used in various countries? And as for your other suggestion, for many countries (often very small) which use multiple plugs there is no room for the number of stripes already shown, hence making the stripes larger does what? The time has really come to end this obsession with maps for this purpose, they do not work, and cannot work, to give a sensible world view of the subject.FF-UK (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are the options I can think of:

If we force full complexity into a single map with no stripes, a brute-force permutation of all the combinations results in a maximum number of colors of around 60, which I agree is unmanageable.
We could draw maps with stripes, but limit to 2 colors per country, and avoid combinations that would force stripes into micronations. I don't think this is very intuitive for editors or readers.
If we make the map a summary of the table without full detail, on a single map, the minimum number of colors is 15: 13 plug types, plus "mixed", plus "unknown". This would be useful for some travellers since many countries are single-system, and it would be best for general reference readers if they want a simplified single view for a shallow exploration of the topic that doesn't want to know the full complexity.
If we use multiple maps, the number of colors can range from 2 to any arbitrary limit. This would represent the full complexity of the table,but would take up more space.
We could use the existing many-stripe map.

Frankly, I think any of these options other than the 60-color map are better than not having a map at all.

Here's an example of how multiple maps could break down, using at most 6 colors plus lighter shades of those colors to indicate mixing, and no stripes:

Map 1:

A
A and other types (lighter shade)
A/B
A/B and other types (lighter shade)

Map 2:

D
D and other types (lighter shade)
M
M and other types (lighter shade)
D and M
D and M and other types (lighter shade)

Map 3:

G
G and other types (lighter shade)

Map 4:

I
I and other types (lighter shade)

Map 5:

C
C and other types (lighter shade)
C/E
C/E and other types (lighter shade)
C/F
C/F and other types (lighter shade)
C/E and C/F
C/E, C/F, and other types (lighter shade)

Map 6:

C/H
C/H and other types (lighter shade)
C/J
C/J and other types (lighter shade)
C/K
C/K and other types (lighter shade)
C/L
C/L and other types (lighter shade)
C/J and C/K and other types
C/J, C/K, C/L and other types

-- Beland (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "History of similar guides"

I removed the section "History of similar guides". It's a catalog of sources this article doesn't use for references, and which are not useful for readers because, as it points out, they are obsolete or have known errors. User:FF-UK reverted the removal with the edit summary "restoring valid information on sources". I don't dispute that this information is valid, but I think it's just cluttering up the article with text that isn't useful to readers. I can't think of a use case where a reader would want to refer to incorrect or obsolete information when correct, up-to-date information is on this page. I doubt editors are going to change material that's sourced to recent references rather than old ones; if there's any confusion due to errors in other recent sources, an HTML comment on the appropriate row (or a note on the talk page) would probably be better than text that's visible to readers. Thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), what you do not seem to understand is the complexity of this whole subject. The first thing to understand is the plug type letters are purely an informal system of names which are very ill defined (I do not believe that they are ever referred to in standards) and whose meaning varies quite widely. Thus it IS important to try to get an understanding of where they came from, and this is the place to do it. The Americans started the practice of using plug types, hence designating their own plug types (which were quite late to the scene) as A and B. Although the American guide is out of date, it is not obsolete, merely obsolescent and full of mistakes. The IEC took up the de-facto system, although you will not find it mentioned in any IEC standards, just used loosely, and inconsistently, by the IEC themselves! And also, please bear in mind, that is a countries own national standard which counts, and these can vary quite widely so if you take a widely used plug like type F there are actually different standards which define it for each country, and they can have some significant differences despite apparently fitting the sockets of many countries. Anyway, the IEC world plugs guide it still has mistakes, and does not appear to connect to the standards committees which actually define plugs and sockets. That is why we need more valid references to official documents for every plug and voltage as used in every country. But, these have to be good sources, and your additions to the table from an anonymous source (probably self published) are definitely not that, and have been reverted. There are many of these sources, they are usually either selling things or just vanity projects, but they are not useful. The thing to do is to contribute to improving the article, not taking out valid information. FF-UK (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: OK, that's all good to know. I don't know if there are any situations where the declared standard is not what is actually used in practice, or if some small countries simply haven't bothered declaring any particular standard. If those things happen, I think it would be useful to document it in this article if reliable sources can be found, and obviously those couldn't be limited to standards documents. If we want to give an explanation about how different plug types got their designations, that probably belongs in a section titled something like "Naming system" on AC power plugs and sockets. That information seems relevant to readers interested in the variety of plugs that exist in the world, especially since the naming system is used extensively in that article. This is a "by country" article, so I would expect it to focus on which plugs are used where, not details about the history of the plugs (including how they got their names) other than to use the naming system as an aid to identification. If there are incompatible variations of the same plug type in different countries, that's fine, we can indicate that in tables and maps. Does moving this material make sense to you? -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I have made the move. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Since you reverted the move, any response to the argument above that this content is of interest to readers of both articles? -- Beland (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) I'm sorry, but you are just wasting my time. I have already explained why that section is relevant to this article. But we do not need to duplicate it at the main plug article just because we make reference to the letter codes. This is another area where you need to back off. FF-UK (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to duplicate the text; at most a cross-reference from one article to the other would suffice. But since we seem to fundamentally disagree about how to handle this text, I'll ask for more opinions on Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

IEC map

My small comment on the IEC site: [www.iec.ch/worldplugs/map.htm# map], which seems to be a very nice interactive map, was reverted as Reverted attempt to mislead, the IEC world map does NOT show the information on the map.but in tabular form for the country selected! It has a very neat feature where you can click on a plug, and it will show on the map where the plug is used. I don't know why FF-UK says that it doesn't show information on the map, but I presume that he hasn't looked at it before commenting on it. Gah4 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Gah4 (talk) Look again. What that feature actually does is to show beneath the map a list of all countries which use that particular plug in the standard tabular form (including other plugs used in that country) beneath the map. It shows nothing on the map itself except for a colour block with no means of easily identifying what countries are concerned. But, the main point is that this feature is not what was under discussion, and has no relevance to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FF-UK (talk • contribs) 6 mei 2018 15:56 (UTC)

The IEC World Plugs map, depending on your zoom level, shows, the name of the country right on the map, along with the color indicating whether or not e.g. the selected plug is used there. At other zoom levels it shows dots which you can click on to see the name of the country, along with what is used there. That seems pretty easy to me; there's no need to refer to the table if you don't want to, though some users may find the table easier depending on the use case. This was clearly not an attempt to mislead, as the edit summary claimed; it was actually accurate. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: You reverted this again with the edit summary "Reverting inaccurate additions". What is inaccurate about the wording I put in, which was saying the web site has "interactive tables and maps showing countries use which plugs, voltages, and frequencies"? -- Beland (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Turns out there was a grammatical error (should be "which countries") which I fixed. -- Beland (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands

The Caribbean Netherlands were listed without a reference, and as using both voltages and both frequencies. I found a web site that breaks out the different plugs (which were different than, though compatible with, the originally claimed plugs), frequencies, and voltages by island, so I added that information with a citation. User:FF-UK reverted it with the edit summary "Reverting inaccurate additions" and the explanation in another talk section: "these have to be good sources, and your additions to the table from an anonymous source (probably self published) are definitely not that, and have been reverted". If information from a low-quality cited source isn't good enough for inclusion, then completely unreferenced information should definitely not be included. So, I removed the Caribbean Netherlands from the table entirely. For the record, below are the two different versions of that row. -- Beland (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands ^{[citation needed]}	A, B, C		127 V 220 V	60 Hz 50 Hz	No reliable source found
Caribbean Netherlands Bonaire^[1] Sint Eustatius^[2] Saba^[3]	A, B, F A, B, F A, B		127 V and 220 V 110 V and 220 V 110 V	50 Hz 60 Hz 60 Hz

I was curious to see how well unofficial sources agree on this sort of information, so here are the results of a web search for Bonaire:

[2] - 112-127V @ 50Hz, type A plugs in a specific hotel
[3] - default 127V @ 50Hz, both "while both European standard and U.S. standard outlet connections are visible in just about all Bonairean structures, it's not always clear what voltage the outlet is running at" - island-wide info site from an on-island web developer and marketer
[4] - 127V @ 50Hz, U.S. standard plugs, but some European 240V@50Hz plugs - travel forum
[5] - default 127V @ 50Hz, dropped to 100V at this hotel; US standard plugs
[6] 120-127 volts AC @ 50 Hz with type A or B outlets, but "Travelers also report that most hotels also offer at least one 220 volt European Type C outlet in most rooms for the convenience of European visitors." - equipment vendor
[7] - 110V@60Hz (looks like an error in their table) with type A and B (though they call type B "GUA") - equipment vendor
[8] - Type A/B plugs with some European plugs that work with their C and E/F adapters
[9] mostly 127V@50/60Hz with some 220V@50Hz at this hotel
[10] 127V@50Hz with type A and C plugs - equipment vendor

After reading through all these pages, with heaviest weight given to on-island publishers, I'm pretty confident that 127V@50Hz serving type A plugs is the general standard, and some hotels have 220V@50Hz sockets serving type C plugs for visitors, and as usual if you have grounded type B or E/F plugs you may need an adapter to fit ungrounded outlets. It is unclear to me what the local building code requires, or if there is one; Bonaire seems to be a municipality that is part of the Netherlands but outside the European Union. I expect the relevant documents are in Dutch. -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

After taking a look at these territories it is clear that their status is not stable, and the likelihood of there being any actual code is small. I think we are in noise level here, given their size. With no good starting point I agree that it is doubtful that they can justify a mention at all, it just devalues WP. I do understand that to a tiny number of people the information is important, but it seems to vary according to hotel. I believe that here are many such places in the world. I will make no objection to their complete removal if you wish. WP does not support speculation. FF-UK (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence it's unstable, just slightly complicated due to locals accommodating both Americans, to whom they are geographically closer, and Europeans, who visit frequently due to the island being part of the Netherlands. I'd support listing. Any third or fourth opinions? -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. It is not the electrical system I am suggesting is unstable (although it is clearly not a single system, but a collection of systems which provide a pragmatic but unregulated solution), but the political status of these tiny territories, see WP entries on them for that. (By comparison, Sint Maarten, the other previous constituent of the Netherlands Antilles, seems to be settled.. Even when that is finally resolved, then it will unlikely that this subject will be high on their agenda to regulate. FF-UK (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes on latest revert

OK, I have reverted the latest set of inappropriate changes. But I have added a couple of references to multi standard sockets which should help you understand the problems associated with those.

As I keep explaining to you, we do not need a reference for something which is simply not to any standard.

I have also added a picture of a Thai plug to the main gallery.

Please stop reentering the reference to maps at IEC world plugs, it is not relevant for reasons explained before.

Also, understand that we do not need a citation for which other Asian countries use non-standard sockets, as I have told you, they are widespread, but not backed by any National standards, they are simply illegal but common, and I cannot believe that their use is one which we need to find citations for, which are unlikely ever to be reliable sources.

The Thai socket shown is NOT to the Thai standard, (although the modifications are not so dangerous as the other examples) so please stop describing it as such. FF-UK (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the latest bickering is about but "As I keep explaining to you, we do not need a reference for something which is simply not to any standard" does not sound right. Anything on Wikipedia can be challenged and then requires a reference. Also are you guys declining the offer above of a moderated discussion? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Its simple, if there is no standard which applies, that's it. We cannot create a reference for something which does not exist! Now, if anyone thinks I am wrong, then it is up to them to find an official standard which applies, but it is not up to me to waste time looking for "no known standard". I do not have any questions, the problem here is that Beland is trying to edit things of which he clearly has no understanding (sorry, but that is clearly the way it is). I will be perfectly happy to respond to further questions (but not the same ones for which I have already provided answers). FF-UK (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a standards document, or something based on that. It just takes a reliable secondary source discussing the socket in question. Everything on Wikipedia requires a source if challenged. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but everything to do with mains plugs and sockets is subject to standards. The sockets in question are dangerous for many reasons, see sources which I have added, it is not WPs role to promote such junk. FF-UK (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In wikipedia, it is WP:COMMONAME, not what the standards say. I lost many arguments on ethernet pages, where the standard name is obvious, but not commonly used. Yes it isn't WPs role to promote, but just to state the facts, as given in reliable sources. And yes some sockets are poorly designed and dangerous, but it is up to readers and users to figure that out. Gah4 (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

But what point are you making here? My point is, where the statement says there is no known standard for one of these items, how can a reference be cited? If anyone were to find a standard which covered one of these proprietary pieces of junk, then they should issue a challenge, but to ask for a citation that something does not exist is completely illogical! FF-UK (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The point was, that not being a standard isn't enough reason to keep it out. In fact, standards are usually primary sources, and WP likes secondary sources. In the case of ethernet, there are many secondary sources, and most are more readable than the standards. And yes, we don't need to cover any piece of junk that one might find. As I noted, and someone removed, Alaska airlines has outlets on their airplanes that allow for many different plugs. I suspect that they didn't buy them cheaply from a back alley in some foreign country. I have no idea what the FAA says about them. Gah4 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK seems to be doing a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT regarding sources. Sources are required and there should be sources even on things that aren't standards - sources other from than standards organizations. FF-UK, please thoroughly read WP:RS and related documents. How many times do we need to explain this? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You both seem intent on ignoring the point that what I am asking is "how can you call for a citation on something which does not exist?" Why would anybody challenge a simple statement that there is "no known standard" unless you believe that there is? If that is the case, put up your evidence, if not, then why challenge it? FF-UK (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

All that would be required is a citation to a reliable source that says that multi-standard outlets meet no standard. Presumably the author would have done a comprehensive literature search. The burden of proof is on the claim to be supported by a reference, not for someone to prove that it is false with a reference showing that. Otherwise anyone could add any wild claim to the encyclopedia and say "well show me something that says it isn't true". -- Beland (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I found a US multinational, Extron Electronics, who supply a universal socket, but with a whole string of warnings about using it, including a clear statement that "certification standards for universal outlets do not exist." FF-UK (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the reference only applies to that the specific Extron device, not to all universal outlets, but otherwise it is a nice reference. It is especially interesting to see from a US company. Gah4 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that? It seems pretty clear to me that that they are saying (as do I) that that there are NO standards for universal outlets. What is also interesting is all the other warnings, I think that it is generally accepted when you encounter a socket it will provide the full current for that type of socket, will be correctly polarized (for polarized sockets), provides grounding if the plug is grounded, and provides the correct voltage. Extron make it perfectly clear that their outlet fails on all these counts! This is exactly the reason why these devices should never, ever, be used, as described in this article: https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/universal-sockets-are-unsafe and this one: https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/beama-warns-universal-socket-outlets, and again here: http://www.interpower.com/ic/designers/white-papers/universal-sockets-are-unsafe.html and here: http://www.connectingindustry.com/ElectricalEngineering/universal-socket-outlets--convenience-over-safety-.aspx While it is true that not all jurisdictions protect their citizens adequately, there can be no doubt that these are real threats right around the world. For a quick reminder, checkout this site: http://universalsocket.org.uk/index.html FF-UK (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Meets no standard"

I changed some wording from:

meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types.

accepts plugs that meet a number of different standards.

User:FF-UK reverted, and explained elsewhere: "But, that has a very very different meaning. As far as I know, there are NO standards for multi-standard sockets, even those Chinese ones do not show up in any Chinese standard I know, hence the original wording is correct, remember it is the socket pictured being described, not what plugs it accepts!"

I agree that the original wording is technically correct; these multi-standard sockets might "conform to no standard" in the sense that if standard X says there should be three holes, either implicitly or explicitly it does not allow there to be four holes, one of which is from standard Y. But it strikes me as confusing, as I noted in my edit summary. The reason is that it is somewhat ambiguous. There are these sockets which are designed to accept plugs which do conform to various standards, but there could also be sockets which are just randomly designed and have nothing to do with any published standard. We're calling the former "multi-standard sockets" and we might call the latter "non-standard sockets" but "meets no standard" sounds to a layperson like it's referring to non-standard sockets, which in this case it's actually not. The wording "accepts plugs that meet a number of different standards" is also technically correct (since it refers to the standards compliance of the plugs, not the sockets), but it removes the language which could be confusing to some readers (I'm sure not to those that actually read technical standards, but that's not most people). I think this confusion is summed up in the mind of readers as "how can the same socket be simultaneously multi-standard and no-standard?" I'd like to restore this change or find some other clear phrasing. -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), now you are going into a phantasy world! Any socket standard allows apertures of specific size, no less, no more. What was changed was the caption to a picture of a typical "multi-standard socket" which has apertures which DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY KNOWN STANDARD. This is not a matter of dispute, your edit was a perversion of the facts. FF-UK (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I agree that in a technical sense, the sockets don't conform to any standard. What "facts" are the proposed text contradicting? -- Beland (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It supresses the essential message that this socket (there are no plugs shown here) meets no known standard. That is the truth, and there is no reason to hide it. FF-UK (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that clarifies the disagreement. I think the reason not to highlight that true fact is that the distinction is not important, and may be confusing to some readers. Since I don't think it's possible to break down that disagreement any further, I'll just ask for more opinions on Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- Beland (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Standard-compliant multis?

I added the text "socket standards generally allow holes for only one type of plug" to the image caption, because I thought that was what User:FF-UK was implying, but User:ZH8000 reverted with the edit summary "that's simply wrong; there are many contradicting examples." If there are examples of a standard that applies to sockets which accept plugs of multiple national standards, it would be interesting to note that, and to have references. At the moment it's unclear to me what the situation is. -- Beland (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to explain my revert:

First of all, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion, sorry for that.

Secondly, besides the bad style ("allow holes for ..."), the statement is simply wrong. There are many standard sockets of many different standards which accept many different (though) standardized (and therefore precisely defined) plugs; see for example the Swiss situation and the given overview table. I think this is the rather normal situation (e.g. CEE 7/3 socket accepts the CEE 7/4 plug, CEE 7/7 plug, the CEE 7/17 plug, and the Europlug (EN 50075)), but I also get the impression that the author (Beland) does not understand the general pattern beyond a standardization concept. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000: Yes, I'm aware of the sort of interchanges you're talking about; here in the U.S. both type A plugs also fit in type B sockets. What I was referring to and what this section is apparently talking about might be more accurately described as multiple standard families rather than multiple standards, though if one standard incorporates another by reference, it might be considered a single standard. But the outlets we're talking about here might include, for example, both NEMA A/B and CEE C/E/F plugs fitting into the same multi-standard outlet. Are there meta-standards that describe outlets that fit plugs from different standards families, like the ones pictured? Or would something like "socket standards generally allow holes for plugs from the same family of standards" be accurate? -- Beland (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Plug labels

I was just noticing this thread between User:Gah4 and User:FF-UK: Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country/Archive_2#Required. I was about to add this to a footnote explaining "might not be legally binding in a particular country", adapted from that talk page conversation:

It is incorporated into national standards in many jurisdictions:

UK - BS 1363 section 7
France - NF C 61-314 section 8.1
Australia - AS/NZS 3112 section 2.12
India - IS 1293 section 8.1
China -GB.2099.1 section 8.1

In the United states, the requirement is in UL standard 498, table 163.1 (plugs) and table 163.4 (receptacles).

...but then I realized, some UL standards are voluntary. Which of these standards are legally binding in these countries? In the U.S. it could be state-by-state depending on whether the federal government has asserted interstate commerce jurisdiction. -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Formal Mediation ?

User:Beland, User:FF-UK, and anyone else: It appears to me that this may be a multi-part content dispute where Formal Mediation would be in order. The number of specific issues seems to just keep on increasing. At the same time, this isn't a conduct dispute; no one is behaving badly, just disagreeing on everything. Third Opinion has been tried, but the list just got longer. You can request moderated discussion at DRN, but I am not sure that I am the right moderator when the number of issues keeps increasing, and we don't have a lot of other moderators available. I am willing to request formal mediation, or to post a request at DRN and see if we can find a moderator. What does anyone think about RFM? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of whatever it takes to unblock editing on this article. -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Beland - What do you mean by "unblock editing on this article"? It does not appear that anyone has been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I considered that maybe you mean that editing is at an impasse, but I see that you have been making edits. So what do you mean? If you are making extensive edits, and it appears that you are, I am no longer sure that mediation is needed. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Well, at one point, FF-UK was reverting every single edit I made, so I wasn't able to make any forward progress. I think we've managed to come to consensus on a number of issues, though the "some other Asian countries" passage is unsettled (currently marked as unreferenced), and the "meets no standard" wording is improved but still disputed. We have made no progress (because we only have two conflicting opinions) on Bonaire, the merge of "Main reference source—IEC World Plugs", the move of "History of similar guides" and the use of "interactive tables and maps showing which countries use which plugs, voltages, and frequencies". A third opinion might help unblock those. The inclusion of Antarctica and airplanes is still disputed, but I'll start a move poll to make progress on that. -- Beland (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Multi-standard plug standardization

I added the word "standardized" in the image caption, describing the plugs that fit into the pictured Chinese universal socket. User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary. "Too big an assumption to make." The image description says the socket is designed to accept "British, NEMA USA, Europlug and Australian power plugs". All of those are standardized, and the holes on the socket appear in the positions specified by the plug standards, as can be plainly seen in the image. What room is there for doubt? What am I missing? -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As there is now a US company selling such connectors, that would seem to be a better argument than some unknown Chinese company. The connectors allow for standardized plugs, but it might be that so far, no-one is standardizing the outlets. I wonder if NEMA will do it? Gah4 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gah4: A better argument for what, do you mean? Do you have a pointer to the U.S. product specs or somesuch? -- Beland (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This^[1]was added to the article not so long ago. There are some others on the extron web site, too. Gah4 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), why do you keep moving the discussion? This fragmented approach of yours serves no useful purpose. Please refer to the points I made on this subject above in the semi-centralized discussion several hours before you raised it here. I do apologise that I seem to have not added a signature to that edit, but then the WP system that automatically adds signatures also failed to do so! What I wrote above is:

"That is a completely separate point. The importance of saying "meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types" is that they do not meet standards. Whether or not standard plugs will fit is another matter. Will they fit correctly with adequate contact between pin and socket contact? Often not because the socket contacts are deigned to fit different shaped pins and therefore usually do it badly. Will they fit in the sense that they allow a standard plug to be fully inserted in the socket? Again, often they will not. Will they fit and provide the correct current? Again, usually not. Most Universal Sockets are rated at 10 A, whereas they are designed to accept common plugs rated at 13A, 15A or 16A." FF-UK (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing the discussion; the above section is starting to get too long to navigate, and this seemed to me like a new question on a specific point inside the same sentence we had a dispute on a different point. Anyway, the fact that the plugs are standardized is what I'm adding to the caption, to clarify for readers it's not some funky weird plug that goes in these, it's the same ones the rest of the article is talking about. The caption already says the socket is not standards-compliant, and I'm not removing that. It sounds like you're agreeing that the plugs are in fact standardized, so what's the problem with adding that clarification? I know you don't like these sockets, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to make the text describing them confusing. -- Beland (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Extron data sheet, and I suspect Alaska Airlines, expects usage of lower power devices, such as laptop power supplies. In general, people are expected to know not to put many full-power devices on a circuit. In the US, it is usual to put five or so duplex 15A outlets on a 20A circuit (there are rules to calculate this), expecting lower power devices. And yes, plugs are commonly rated higher. Gah4 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Gah4 (talk), please do not invent things! NEMA sockets DO NOT accept plugs which are rated higher than the socket. FF-UK (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK Maybe you should read before commenting. I noted that many 15A receptacles can be used on a 20A circuit. It is, then, easy to exceed the circuit rating with multiple 15A devices. It isn't that they are rated higher than the socket, but higher than the circuit the socket is connected to. Also, one can use plugs rated at 15A on devices that use less. (I believe that is the comment of mine you are referencing.) Gah4 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But you wrote "And yes, plugs are commonly rated higher." Maybe you should be more careful with your phrasing. FF-UK (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Universal AC Outlet • Setup Guide" (PDF). Anaheim, CA, USA: Extron Electronics. November 2017. 68-1638-01 Rev. F. Retrieved 2018-05-21.

Removal of cross-ref paragraph

I removed the following with the edit summary "remove paragraph which is redundant to the section it links to"

The United States Department of Commerce published an earlier guide,<ref name=ECA/> which is now obsolescent and which has known inaccuracies. (See History of similar guides section below.)

User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary "Reinstating paragraph which was removed with a misleading edit summary". 1.) How is this edit summary misleading? I said exactly what I was doing and my exact rationale for doing it. 2.) Other editors seem to agree there is too much explanatory prose in this article compared to the core useful information in the table. Given that situation, why is information on an obsolete guide we aren't even using as a reference so important we need to mention it twice? -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to me that one is enough. Gah4 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is an essential part of the story about how these letter codes, which are at the heart of this article, came to exist. Because the section which is being linked to is so far from the section where the link is, then it is appropriate to link to it here. The alternative would be to move the linked section and merge it with "Main reference source—IEC World Plugs" which would not be my preference, but which does not give me a problem. Meanwhile, as the structure stands, it is misleading to call it redundant. FF-UK (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: "Misleading" means that I knew certain facts and chose to distort or misrepresent them. Something needs to both appear more than once and be unnecessary to be "redundant". This passage does appear more than once, that's the only fact here. Whether or not it is unnecessary is an opinion. Expressing an opinion is not being "misleading", and to have my opinion labeled as such feel like I'm being attacked and accused of something I didn't do.

As to the question at hand. I think the "Main reference source" section should be merged with the table section intro (which repeats certain things), not the section that covers obsolete guides. We have two editors that think this link is redundant and one who thinks it is not. Unless other editors want to weigh in on this minor matter, I think we should go with the majority preliminarily and remove this. If we find a better compromise, we can revise in the future, but the parent section is also in flux. -- Beland (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Multi-standard sockets are sometimes used in China and some other Asian countries

Multi-standard sockets are sometimes used in China and some other Asian countries Why is this restricted to Asian countries? Yes they are used in Asian countries, but also in many other countries. Gah4 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This section details use of Asian countries where multi-standard has become normal. Multi-standard use is not normal in non-Asia countries, and certainly not in the USA! FF-UK (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It says sometimes, not normal. They are sometimes used in the US, especially where travelers are common, but yes not normally used. Gah4 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording to say that, and also to note they may be against the local building code. -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My change was reverted by User:FF-UK with the edit summary "Not about aircraft (multi standard)". Why should aircraft be excluded from coverage, since this is a very common place to see them in lots of different countries? I thought this section was supposed to be explaining where they might be encountered. The revert also did not address User:Gah4's point that the countries mentioned were not the only ones where they appear, so I put the improved wording back in. The revert also destroyed the tag which requested clarification about which countries specifically were being referred to, so that's back now. -- Beland (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk, if you do not understand the difference between the fixed infrastructure of a country or territory (which does not move) and sockets to be found in various vehicles, aircraft and ships which are tethered to no particular country, then I cannot help you. But as the first line of the article says, this article is about countries and territories, not vehicles. FF-UK (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: OK, we can discuss inclusion of airplanes. In the meantime, could you restore the undisputed changes? Your mass revert removed some fixes to quotation style, unrelated wording changes, and the {{which}} tag. -- Beland (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

FTR, the formatting changes have been restored, and examples of Asian countries that don't allow have been given, but I was unable to verify these are used in "China and some other Asian countries", so these claims are now tagged and awaiting better sources. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of prose describing TR 60083

I removed the following paragraph from the "Plugs" section:

The types of plugs used in each country are set by national standards, some of which are listed in the IEC technical report TR 60083, Plugs and socket-outlets for domestic and similar general use standardized in member countries of IEC.<ref name="IEC. 2009"></ref>

User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary "Reinstating important material removed without discussion." The header of the relevant column in the table says "National plug standard" and cites TR 60083 as the source for this column. It's unclear to me that all countries actually have national standards, especially in the countries that have more than one electrical system in use. But the table does a good job of showing which countries we know do have national standards, and I think we should leave it at that. Having this paragraph at the beginning of the "Plugs" section does not provide any information which is needed to understand the rest of this section, so that's why I think it should be removed. -- Beland (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Safety section

This section is out of place here and mostly vague generalities and point of view. It could be deleted with no loss. Perhaps if something notable can be said about "safety" it coudl be added to one of the plugs articles, but you really don't need an on-line enecyclopedia ot learn that abusing something is often unsafe and that there are rules in very coutntry regulating plugs and sockets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly one or more editors think Wikipedia is a place to make web pages about a topic rather than being an encyclopedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Vague generalities and point of view"? hardly, it is very specific about the dangers of so called "universal sockets", and well supported by a wide range of references. So, why do you object to accurate information in this encyclopedia? FF-UK (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the POV that Wtshymanski is referring to is exactly that pro-safety slant. That's not the worst thing in the world, though if for example the manufacturers are disputing the claims that these are unsafe, then more care would need to be taken to balance things for WP:NPOV. Just pointing out that various regulatory bodies have recalled them as non-compliant is fairly neutral. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, so the information being accurate is not a complete defense of why it should be in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure it should be removed from Wikipedia entirely, but I am fairly certain almost all of it does not belong in this article, which is why I added the merge tag. The multi-standard section contains info on a particular class of socket, which is out of scope for this article which should focus on where various sockets are actually used. We do not, and do not have room in this article, to go into details about other sockets and plugs which do not concern their geography and compatibility. "Don't use a thing at a higher voltage or amperage than it's rated for" could definitely be expressed more concisely, but the labelling issue is an interesting one for public policy. Just not for this article. -- Beland (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable for this section to be in the AC power plugs and sockets as long as it omits any advice (which it seems to at this point), but is off topic for here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing 3/4ths support for moving and no argument for why it should be in this article in particular, I have moved to AC power plugs and sockets. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC), I imagine that you might be wondering why I am so slow to respond to you, so I thought I better explain. One month ago I was diagnosed with a serious (life threatening) medical condition. As a result, I have spent most of the last three weeks in hospital, where I shall be returning tomorrow. The treatment I am receiving leaves me very fatigued, so I am unable to spend much time working at the computer, but I remain eager to contribute. I do hope that you understand.

I think it is generally agreed that many of the users of this article are seeking information on countries they are planning to visit. For instance, Beland has written "If I'm planning a trip to Europe and I want to know which countries use the same voltage so I can either pack correctly or adjust my travels accordingly if I don't want to buy a voltage converter, I can just look at the map." and Gah4 (talk) writes: "But even for travellers, the map can be useful. If one is visiting a group of nearby countries," & "Say one is doing the ten country tour of northern Europe. Looking at the map, one can quickly see that all of northern Europe is in the 220-240 50Hz range, and not need to look up individually 10 countries". So, if we accept that people are looking for information on countries they might travel to, the question is, why should part of that information be withheld from them? After all, you are far more likely to find one of these "universal sockets" in a hotel than someone's home, and you might be grateful to know about their dangerous shortcomings. Also, how many Americans know that their power cords are not rated for voltages above 125V, even when connected (say) to a laptop power supply that has a 100V -250V rating? How many Argentinians know that if they use their Argentinian power cords in China or Australia, then the polarity of the supply is reversed? And, a familiar puzzlement to Americans is the "shaver socket" they will find in bathrooms in many parts of the world. These sockets are mentioned in the table, but why remove that part of the information that explains to those unfamiliar with them that they only supply very limited current, and should only be used for their intended purpose. Surely, to hide this information in another article is both very unhelpful to the reader, and downright unethical! FF-UK (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Very sorry to hear about your diagnosis; I hope you're feeling better and back on your feet soon. -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This information is not "hidden" just because it's in a different article, though I agree it should be easy to find it from this article if related to what one is reading about. Most editors agree the other article is the most appropriate one for the topic of plug and cord safety; readers of that article need to know about the same safety issues just as much. We can make that info easy to find by readers of this article by making sure it's linked appropriately, which is a technique that prevents this article from getting flooded with a lot of prose that doesn't have to do with geography. The section of the other article which describes shaver sockets is linked from the table, and as far as I can tell the socket types covered by that are already included in the plug identification guide in this article. I added a link to the appropriate safety considerations section in the only place in this page that universal sockets are mentioned. A universal socket or two should probably be added to the plug identification guide, with a similar link. For voltage ratings on plugs and cords, there's already a disclaimer to that effect in the intro of this article, but I added a clause about plugs and cords, and linked that to the appropriate section in the other article. I added some notes, and now all the places in the plug identification guide and table that mention type I also mention the polarity issues.

I think that should take care of pointing to all the relevant safety issues; thanks for your vigilance. -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, providing how-to advice or travel guides it outside the scope of Wikipedia so arguments from that position don't really hold up. The information was retained in the AC power plugs and sockets article. I can see your point of view though and could probably be convinced to change my position on this with a bit more discussion. I'm sorry to hear about your illness and if you are not going to be around I will think about this some and consider whether the information is better here for reasons other than how-to or travel info. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Plugs vs. plugs

I removed this section with the edit summary whether it's a plug with a cord or a plug on a wall wart, the form factor is the same, so this distinction is irrelevant to readers (removing paragraph to make article more list-like, per talk page:

A plug is defined in IEC 60050 as an "accessory having pins designed to engage with the contacts of a socket-outlet, also incorporating means for the electrical connection and mechanical retention of flexible cables or cords"; a plug does not contain components which modify the electrical output from the electrical input (except where a switch or fuse is provided as a means of disconnecting the output from input). Informally, power conversion devices with incorporated plug pins may be also called "plugs", but IEC 60050 refers to these as "direct plug-in equipment" defined as "equipment in which the mains plug forms an integral part of the equipment enclosure so that the equipment is supported by the mains socket-outlet". In this article, the term "plug" is used in the sense defined by IEC 60050.

User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary I'm really getting fed up with having to clean up after an editor who clearly does not understand this subject, and seems determined to destroy this article. What he calls "wall warts" are NOT plugs and are not covered by plug standards (although the physical interface of the standard will normally pertain).).

The two prongs and connective plastic that stick out of end of the cord I use to plug my laptop into the wall are, in common English, a plug. The fact that there is a transformer built into the cord means that in the context of this particular IEC standard, this is not a "plug". The use of "plug" in this more restrictive manner is useful in the context of this document. It is, however, a technical definition and to some degree jargon. As such I'd argue that Wikipedia should not use that definition for the word "plug" because it is not what readers will understand.

More importantly, this is a distinction that makes no difference. Whether you're talking about plugs in the IEC sense or plugs in the general sense, typical U.S. sockets accept type A and B, and that's that. Explaining that the IEC document uses "plug" in this special way does not help anyone interpret the table, at best is a waste of reader's time, at worst will confuse them into not trusting the table, and is part of the reason why other editors are complaining the article needs a trim. -- Beland (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) You write above "The two prongs and connective plastic that stick out of end of the cord I use to plug my laptop into the wall are, in common English, a plug. The fact that there is a transformer built into the cord means that in the context of this particular IEC standard, this is not a "plug"." Well, if it is a laptop, that sounds like a standard AC adapter of the "power brick" type. This usually has a detachable power cord with a regular plug on one end, and a standard appliance coupler to IEC 60320 on the other end, so it IS a plug, but that is not what we were discussing. AC adapters of the wall wart type have a number of common names, but plug is not one of them (check out the article). The official terminology "direct plug-in equipment" actually applies to a lot more than just AC adapters, it includes things like nightlights, some air fresheners, HomePlug powerline networking and WiFi Range Extenders. I understand the need to use common names, but not erroneous ones which simply devalue the authority of the encyclopedia, who wants that? FF-UK (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the common definition correctly is not an error. In common terminology, a wall wart is not a plug, but it does have a plug coming out of it. If you wish to make a distinction between cords with plugs and plug-in equipment, how does that help readers given that the table does not have different listings for the two types? -- Beland (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), but plug is not the common name for an AC adapter, it does not appear in that list of common names in the article which covers them, that only says "often enclosed in a case similar to an AC plug", therefore it is an error! Perhaps the most common name for what you are referring to is "wall wart". Maybe the passage needs to say that as well. And, as regards your phrase "table does not have different listings for the two types", no, it says "In this article, the term "plug" is used in the sense defined by IEC 60050" and that makes it clear what the article is talking about, clarity seems to me to be good thing, not a bad one. FF-UK (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying a plug is the same thing as an AC adapter, I'm saying that a plug (in the common sense) is part of an AC adapter, specifically the part that mates with the socket. If I changed the text to say "in this article, the term plug is used in the common English sense, including both IEC 60050 plugs and plug-in equipment", would anything else in the article or table have to change? --Beland (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC),

Beland (talk) You write "I'm saying that a plug (in the common sense) is part of an AC adapter, specifically the part that mates with the socket." Sorry, but wrong again, a wall wart type AC adapter does not incorporate a plug, only the plug pins. You seem to delight in not using correct terminology, when it is so easy to get right. Please bear in mind also that some plugs have a maximum outline dimension which may not be exceeded, but this does not apply to wall warts unless they are of the type which fits into a recessed socket. Please let's not be inaccurate for the sake of being inaccurate, but rather let us strive to make WP better. We do not need to dumb down. FF-UK (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there are some outlets that are designed for many different plug types that are poorly made, not just due to the problems of allowing for different plug types, likely built cheaply in some Asian country. The references specifically indicated that the problems were the specific items, and not the general idea. Now that a US company is making them, the ones they sell presumably won't have those problems. As for "wall wart", they are getting smaller with better switching power supplies, often down to the size of an ordinary plug. I suspect that most users won't consider the distinction important. Gah4 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Gah4 (talk) That US company is not making them, it is buying them in and fitting them in their equipment. Let me remind you again of the warnings they give:

• Even if a plug fits the Universal AC Outlet does not necessarily mean the product is suitable for use in that region. • Products with the Universal AC Outlet have not been certified nor approved by any safety testing agency, as certification standards for universal outlets do not exist. • Electrical professionals should be consulted prior to installation to ensure this product can be installed in a manner suitable for use in the project. Before use, ensure the device meets regulatory requirements for your region and complies with local safety and electrical codes. • Extron is not liable nor responsible for damage or injury as a result of using this product. It is the responsibility of the qualified installer to ensure applicable safety, compatibility, technical requirements, and system limitations have been addressed and have been conveyed to the end users of the product. • The Universal AC Outlet is intended for use with low amperage devices, like a laptop power supply. • The Universal AC Outlet only passes power. It does not convert voltage from 240 V to 120 V. • The Universal AC Outlet does not provide grounding for all plug types. See notes below plug types and use caution with devices that require grounding. Extron recommends using a GFCI (ground fault circuit interrupter, not included

It is impossible to make a universal socket of the type illustrated which does not have at least some of the problems described at http://www.universalsocket.org.uk/ (note how Extrons own chart warns of polarity reversal with some plugs, including A and B). FF-UK (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This information is ok to include but belongs in AC power plugs and sockets. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Next time I fly on Alaska, I will bring a voltmeter so I can do some WP:OR. Gah4 (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

AC sockets on airlines are not a new thing or something unique to Alaska. What OR is in FF-UK's safety section? Just remove it if there is any. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So to check my intuition, I just did a vocabulary field test. I grabbed a wall wart with attached cord, pointed to the plastic box, and asked what it was called. My friend said "that's an adapter". I pointed to the metal things sticking out of the box and asked what this part was called. He said "that's a plug". I explained the debate and he asked what the alternative term for them was and I said "plug pins". He disagreed that they were pins, and said the European ones might be called pins, but that these should be called "prongs", because they are not round. (Personally, I accept either term.) What's happening is that there are two different sets of terminology, the technical terminology, and the everyday terminology. Most people do not need to make a distinction between a plug on a cord and a plug on a piece of equipment, nor between a plug and the pins in everyday life, so it's all just called a "plug". Who knows, there may be UK vs. US vocabulary differences here too.

My question is still unanswered, and now a bit longer: if I changed the text to say "in this article, the term plug is used in the common English sense, including IEC 60050 plugs, plug-in equipment, and the part of AC adapters that connects to a socket", would anything else in the article or table have to change to continue to be accurate? I'm asking to check my understanding. -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

An AC adapter or wall wart incorporates a plug but it is definitely not called a plug as a whole. I mean, sometimes people called outlets, sockets or receptacles "plugs" don't they? That's not fit for an encyclopedia article. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with that. -- Beland (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I didn't reply directly to your concerns. I think we should use the technical and industry definition of a plug here unless there is significant reliably sourced information that specifically says people call that part of an AC adapter a plug. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Merriam-Webster says: "any of various devices resembling or functioning like a plug [stopper]: such as

a : a male fitting for making an electrical connection to a live circuit by insertion in a receptacle (such as an outlet)

b : a device for connecting electric wires to a jack"

I don't see how that would exclude AC adapters but include the things on the ends of lamp cords. What I'm having trouble seeing is what difference is made by saying "the table only refers to IEC 60050 plugs and does not refer to the things on AC adapters and other equipment that you might think are plugs but technically don't qualify". The U.S. entry says that country takes type A and B plugs. Any AC adapter with a thing on it that looks like a type A or B plug will fit in a typical U.S. socket. What is there to say about AC adapter compatibility (or anything else) that would need to be added to the table if we decide to use the wider scope? I don't think there is anything, which is why I don't think we need to spend any words making this distinction. -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I just removed this text. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Concepts_and_terminology says "An adaptor (in the context of plugs and sockets) is defined in IEC 60050 as a portable accessory constructed as an integral unit incorporating both a plug portion and one or more socket-outlet portions" so I have no idea where the idea of IEC 60050 asserting that these parts are not called plugs came from. -- Beland (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) This discussion has been about AC adapters (wall warts). This a completely different thing to an "adaptor" which is described in the above reference. Apples and oranges. One converts AC power to a DC supply suitable for the device or appliance which needs to be powered. The other is a means to provide several outlets from a single plug (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#US_adaptors), or to adapt from an outlet meeting one standard to an outlet meeting a different standard, often a "travel adaptor", but electrically what comes out is what goes in, no change to voltage or frequency. FF-UK (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of prose describing IEC 60884-1

I removed this paragraph:

The international standard IEC 60884-1 defines the general requirements for plugs and sockets intended for household and similar purposes, IEC 60884-1 does not define specific plug and socket types, which are the subject of national standards in each country. IEC 60884-1 para 9.2 does stipulate that "it shall not be possible, within a given system, to engage a plug with a socket-outlet having a higher voltage rating or a lower current rating". IEC 60884-1, paragraph 6.1, defines

User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary "Reinstating important material removed without discussion." I don't understand what makes this material "important"; it does not seem to have anything to do with the main table in this article, or any of the other material. For that matter, is IEC 60884-1 actually respected anywhere? In the U.S., extension cords are typically rated anywhere from 7A to 13A, and single-phase circuits are 15A or 20A, and all of these use the same plugs. Heavy 120V equipment expecting to use between 15A and 20A will have a NEMA 5-20P plug which will not fit into a NEMA 5-15R, forcing the circuit breaker to be 20A, which respects the principle. But it's certainly possible to get a piece of equipment that uses 8A-14A that has a 5-15P plug and stick it in a 5-15R socket on a extension cord that's only rated for 7A, which seems to violate the principle (and is dangerous and that's why there is a lot of effort at getting people not to use extension cords, including building codes that mandate ample outlet availability). -- Beland (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) As it says in the other part which you removed: "in order to promote international uniformity, IEC National Committees undertake to apply IEC Publications transparently to the maximum extent possible in their national and regional publications. Any divergence between any IEC Publication and the corresponding national or regional publication shall be clearly indicated in the latter." The only member country of which I am aware that completely ignores this is the U.S. despite it being one of the founder members of the IEC. By comparison, the British Standard was updated to take IEC 60884-1 into account in 1984, when IEC 60884 was still in draft form. I quote from the foreword of BS 1363:1984 "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." FF-UK (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, so whether or not a national standard meets or violates IEC 60884-1 sounds like a detail that should be explained on the article about that standard. The above generalization does not really describe the on-the-ground practice, and would have to go on even longer to do so accurately. I don't think background about meta-standards belongs in an article that focuses on telling readers which standards are used where. General background like this would belong in a more general article...and actually I see this paragraph has already been duplicated exactly in AC power plugs and sockets#Consolidation. -- Beland (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] Power Plugs and Sockets of the World: Bonaire

[2] Power Plugs and Sockets of the World: Sint Eustatius

[3] Power Plugs and Sockets of the World: Saba

[4] "Universal AC Outlet • Setup Guide" (PDF). Anaheim, CA, USA: Extron Electronics. November 2017. 68-1638-01 Rev. F. Retrieved 2018-05-21.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]