This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I see that FF-UK claims here that "This article is in British English!", and this claim is also supported by the
{{British English}} template on the talk page.
Sadly, it's not actually supported by the article itself, which contains equal usage of "color/colour" and actually has an American bias of 43 Vs 30 in the use of "ise/ize".
I'd say to get the house in order before spouting WP:ENGVAR. What evidence or logic are you using to support the use of Br-Eng rather than US-Eng, when there is a slim, but definite, current bias towards US-Eng? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify - when I say "I'd say to get the house in order" I mean justify why the article should be in BR-eng, rather than in US-Eng. At the moment it sits in a halfway house, albeit with an American bias. There may have been a BR-eng template on the page since 2013 - but it has not been enforced, and it is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether it shoudl be removed. While we do so, correcting "typos" is not the way to go, especially when discussion has already been started. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That's easy, there is not a bias in the article to US English! You are quite right that there were two misspelled versions of "colour", which is why I corrected them.
When you are counting the numbers of occurrences of "ize" you need to actually read what you find! 8 of the occurrences of "ize" endings are in the word "size" (there is no word "sise"), and another is part of "citizen". (You have made similar errors in your counting of "ise" forms, by including the words "clockwise", "revise", "advise" and "noise".) The other "ize" occurrences are in standardize, energize, recognize, polarize and formalize. All of these are perfectly valid and normal British English spellings, although they do also exist in the "ise" form. As both forms are equally valid, I see no point in eliminating one of them. Interestingly, the "ize" form in English dates back to the early 15th century (pre-Columbian, let alone American English!) The "ise" form dates only from the 18th century. Your assumptions about "ise" and "ize" are completely without foundation, and simply demonstrate a lack of understanding of English. FF-UK (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just an additional thought, if you need examples of the use of the "ize" forms in a relevant document, take a look at British Standard BS 1363 "13 A plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection units" where you will find plenty, eg "energize". FF-UK (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't around in the 18th Century. We are argumentative aren't we? I asked for discussion, and you insult. If you believed me to be wrong, you could have just pointed that out (as you did) without the insult as well (as you did).
My main point was that discussion over the topic had been started, and it would have been polite to have discussed it rather than to wade in with belligerence and steamroller your opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens It would have been polite of you to have made sure you that 1) your statistics were valid, and 2) that you actually had a basis for making the claims that you did! Acting without thinking serves no one. I most certainly was not "steamrollering" an opinion, I was simply correcting the errors that you pointed out in the variety of English which the article clearly states should be used, and has done since 2005! Of course you were not around in the 18th century, but that should not prevent you from knowing that there is nothing unusual in the "ize" form in British English. Next time, if you are uncertain, refer to WP:SPELLING first, I quote "If you are not familiar with a spelling, please do some research before changing it – it may be your misunderstanding rather than a mistake, especially in the case of American and British English spelling differences." However, you just made an ill judged assumption and tried to pick a fight! Shame on you. FF-UK (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Fowler's Modern English Usage notes that Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, The Times and American usage all support -ize (where pronunciation is "ize"), with notable exceptions "advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, disfranchise, enfranchise, enterprise, excise, exercise, franchise, improvise, incise, premise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise" [quoted from Fowler 2nd ed. 1968 — a bit old but I can't throw it out]. Authors' and Printers' Dictionary (F. Howard Collins) advises similarly. The Deskbook of Correct English (West and Kimber) gives the following "rule of thumb" which does not rely on arcane rules about Greek roots: "If the verb means to make it (something) write /-ize: e.g. Americanize (= to make it American). If this meaning is not present, write /-ise, e.g. Advertise (does not mean to make it Advert). This rule is not exact (e.g., Eulogize), but it is rational, and where it misleads (always towards /-ise) no great harm is done, since Chambers's Dictionary will support the "error"." (quoted from West and Kimber) Doug butler (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't try to pick a fight, I made a comment suggesting that the insistence on BR-Eng may be up for change, and that as there are not strong WP:TIES to the use of BR-Eng a discussion around it might be appropriate. While that discussion had been started, instead of joining in, you made changes to the article to support what is your own point of view. Whether I was right or wrong in my understanding of "ize", is not the point - the topic had been started, and you should really have joined in before making the changes.
I know the BR-Eng template has been there for a long time (2012[1][2], not 2005 incidentally - now who's not doing their research?) but as the template says - "this should not be changed without broad consensus" - consensus cannot be reached without discussion. I note that in your rant above you haven't actually made any reasonable claims as to why the BR-Eng tag should be there in the first place. This isn't an article on Harry Potter or Donald Trump where there are evident ties to a specific country. It seems to be pretty much global in coverage (as you'd expect), and apart from preserving the status quo, there seems no reason for it to be specifically BR-Eng. Although I grant that that's no reason to change to US-Eng either. Hence it gets discussed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, you ask "now who's not doing their research?" The answer is, once again, you. The article was started on 2nd July 2004 by a British editor, and it is patently obvious that it was written in British English (eg, use of "earth" rather than ground). Over the next 4 months there was intense activity by a number of editors to develop the article, and on the 8th October 2004 another British editor added the following notes at the top of the article:
!-- PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE BEFORE EDITING THE ARTICLE AND IN PARTICULAR --
!-- DO NOT AMERICANISE IT --
!-- DO NOT ADD INDUSTRIAL OR MULTIPHASE PLUGS HERE USE THE CORRECT LINKED ARTICLE --
Perhaps there were no templates for that then? I do not know as I have only been an editor since 2012.
These words were removed on 15th May 2008 during an edit war between Wtshymanski and DMahalko. However, that does not change the fact that the article was always written in British English and per MOS:RETAIN there was no reason to even consider a change. You were just plain wrong to suggest it. FF-UK (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It is not wrong to suggest change. That's crazy talk. It is wrong to implement (controversial) change without discussion. Change occurs every minute of the day on Wikipedia, some are considered controversial and need discussion, some don't. I brought this up as a consideration, for discussion before implementing. You seem vehement in keeping it as BR-Eng, and as per WP:RETAIN I agree, but that is the only reason it should as BR-Eng. I see no strong WP:TIES to the use of BR-Eng, and so based on that discussion could be raised to change it to US-Eng.
Apart from WP:Retain can you put forward any other arguments as to why the article should be BR-Eng? I'm just curious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: The template seems to have been created in 2005Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly there are no ties to any particular country in this article. However, a lot of the source material is contained in IEC standards, and they normally use the British English form (with the "ize" form of ending) so that in itself is a good reason to maintain the status quo. A couple of examples would be:
Apart from "colour" I wonder what words you think might be changed?
Of course, there are significant differences between some terminology relating to plugs and sockets, with North America on one side, and just about everyone else on the other! However, words such as receptacle and blade which do not conform to IEC usage are adequately explained in the article already, and the sections relating to NEMA standards already use NEMA terminology.
Let me turn your question around, can you put forward any arguments as to why the article should be in American English? And why would they be enough to take precedence over MOS:RETAIN? FF-UK (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I've already said I can't think of any reasons to change the status quo - at this point I was just wondering if you could think of any reasons other than WP:RETAIN to defend your point of view. Discussion seems to have fairly conclusively decided that it should stay at BR-Eng, but there was certainly no harm in broaching the topic, despite your earlier claims to the opposite. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Compatibility table: clarify Europlug-Europlug compatibility being N/A
Currently the comparative table displays "Socket accepts Europlug" as "N/A" for Europlug, which is counter-intuitive.
According to an edit description, this is because there is no such thing as a "Europlug socket" (then again, [3] does show both plug and socket for Type C; the latter being similar to the one identified here as CEE 7/1).
If this is the case, a footnote next to those N/A clarifying that this standard only defines the plug and not the socket would help.
—Cousteau (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Specifically the part where it states: "It fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres." That means that, essentially, there is no such singularly defined socket but many. By the way, you will be hard pressed to find the socket depicted in the referred image you linked anywhere in the world anymore. Countries that use Type C plugs have essentially moved away from non-earthed sockets. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I have eventually added the footnote myself. —Cousteau (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Very well, this footnote does make the situation more intuitive for the reader to understand.- Wiz9999 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Comnment The source section is opinionated and has low encyclopediac value. There's not much point in telling the reader that plugs can be unsafe unless we can say something ...scholarly...about the point. The section clearly doesn't belong at the "Mains electricity by country" or whatever Sacred Consensus will rename it to, and I don't think it's useful here either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I moved the section here because there was majority agreement it's more on-topic here. As to whether it belongs in the encyclopedia at all...well, I think it does drone on a bit and could be made more concise. But if you think about it in terms of a middle school student doing a homework assignment on electricity, basic safety that should be common sense for adults seems appropriate for inclusion. And I think it can be surprising even to adults that it's possible to connect a 15A device to a 7A extension cord and start a fire, or that a 120V max cord might be attached to a 120V/240V dual voltage laptop power brick so a new one must be obtained before travelling. -- Beland (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I updated the text in "Voltage rating of plugs and power cords" to be more concise. Does that seem better? It might benefit from merging with other content, which is generally true for this very long page. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Type O
This was a topic that I was meaning to bring up for a while now, it may/may not be time for us to add a 'Type O' (the Thai 3 pin TIS 166-2549 standard) to the list, as it seems to be becoming common practice to call this new standard 'Type O' across many manufacturers of international travel adapters. A few weeks ago I had found a couple of references to this standard as 'Type O'. Please see the following: [5][6][7] and [8].
However, subsequently I see that an edit war has broken out over the applicability of this addition. Therefore I will leave these references here for others to use/add to the article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, I have just added the citations myself... - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Contradiction in BS 4573 (UK shaver)
@FF-UK: The section appears to be saying both that BS EN 61558-2-5 includes BS 4573, Europlug, Australian, and US sockets, and that it doesn't define any particular socket. If BS EN 61558-2-5 doesn't specify a socket, what does it require? A rephrasing like "meeting the voltage, current, and safety requirements of BS EN 61558-2-5" would be less confusing. -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk) This is a case of you rephrasing what is said, and then disputing your version of it!
What the article says: "It is more usual to find shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5; these include an isolation transformer and sockets accepting various two-pin plug types including BS 4573, Europlug and Australian and sometimes a 115 V output for two-pin US plugs."
The article does NOT say: "BS EN 61558-2-5 includes BS 4573, Europlug, Australian, and US sockets"
The relevant clause in the standard is: 3.1.102
shaver supply unit
accessory embodying a shaver transformer or a power supply unit incorporating a shaver transformer, and one or more socket outlets allowing the use of only one plug at a time
Incidentally, EN 61558-2-5 is a European standard Which is identical to IEC 61558-2-5. BS EN 61558-2-5 is the British national standard, the body of these standards (in this case) is identical. There will be other national standards based on the European or IEC standards.
No contradiction. FF-UK (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
My rephrasing represents my understanding of what the text is saying; if that understanding is not correct, then the text needs to be rephrased. I still am in the dark about what BS EN 61558-2-5 does require, and why it's worth mentioning. -- Beland (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like your problem of comprehension, especially as I have given you the relevant clause. It is worth mentioning because, as is clearly stated in the text, "The BS 4573 socket is suitable for use in dry areas only, so is rarely used in a stand-alone form. It is more usual to find shaver supply units meeting BS EN 61558-2-5". FF-UK (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@FF-UK: Simply repeating the same ambiguous wording doesn't really clarify anything. The standard itself is behind a paywall, but based on the table of contents, I'm rephrasing the article to clarify what it does cover. There was a second, more direct contradiction, saying both that BS 4573 can't be used in wet areas and that they are used for shaver sockets in bathrooms, which I resolved by deleting the claim that the socket is only suitable for use in dry areas. (I'm sure it's true they are not suitable without the other protections, but that's not what the text was saying, and the same is true for lots of sockets.) -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
One last question I have about these sockets - what type of 115V round-pin plugs are these supposed to accept? US Type A has rectangular blades, which are clearly not the only kind accepted by the 115V side pictured. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk), There appears to have been a confusion in which article we are referring to, AC power plugs and sockets or AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types, but in neither case have I been able to find any reference to BS 4573 sockets being used in bathrooms except as part of a shaver supply unit. Where do you believe that it says that they are used for shaver sockets in bathrooms? As to your very good question, I believe that it is a socket designed to accept a Europlug on the 115 side, the aperture sizing and spacing look right for that, and we know that there are plenty of countries using that combination of type C at the lower voltage, notably Brazil. I cannot guarantee that I am correct, and have been unable to find anything in manufacturers literature to confirm. I have tidied up both articles and removed some errors (eg, reference to two pin Australian plug as Type I, which is the 3-pin plug). FF-UK (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@FF-UK: Being used in bathrooms as part of a shaver unit is being used in a bathroom. The IEC says of Type I "A version of the plug, which only has the two flat pins, exists as well." [9] and other sources [10] also call both the two-pin and three-pin versions Type I. And that's also what AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Australasian_standard_AS/NZS_3112_(Type_I) says. -- Beland (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: It would not be a contradiction to say that the BS 4573 without an isolation transformer and whatever other safety features shaver units have, is only suitable for dry areas, but with those things is used in shaver units. Without that qualification, the text is saying that with or without the isolation transformer and other safety features, BS 4573 is only suitable for dry areas, which is a contradiction because it's used with isolation transformer in bathrooms safely. But we could say that non-GFCI, non-current-limited Type A, Type B, Type C, Type I, and many others are also only suitable for dry areas; it's got a lot less to do with the socket form factor than the other safety features. -- Beland (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk), I know that you are very inventive, but am not particularly interested in your personal interpretations of this or other subject, what counts is WP:RS, and the source for what I have written is the BS 4573 standard which has in it's scope the words "The shaver socket-outlets have a restricted rating of 200 mA for use on voltages of 200 V to 250 V a.c_ only and are shuttered, and are for use in rooms other than bathrooms." Similarly, the Type I plug is an earthed three-pin plug which will clearly NOT fit into the socket of a shaver supply unit, after all we do not claim that the Type B will fit into a two-pin socket, and we are not about to claim that any other three-pin plug will either! The IEC does say that there is a 2-pin version of type I, but not that it is included in he designation, it is just another of the many plugs which does not have its own designated letter. FF-UK (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For Type I, I think you are misreading the IEC site, and also disregarding other sources I pointed out which clearly show both 2-pin and 3-pin Type I plugs. What you have pulled from BS 4573 has to be reconciled with our sources that clearly show BS 4573 sockets are used in bathrooms; isn't that where you're finding yours? Isn't that quote speaking in the context without the protections that shaver supply units have? -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk), I have an update on your 115V question, it is OR so only FYI. I remembered that in the bottom of my equipment bag I had a Europlug cord, so I have been able to try that in the shaver supply unit in my bathroom here in hospital, it fitted fine in both outputs, so seems to confirm what I said. Hope this helps. FF-UK (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool, I'll add that in. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or not, but I currently live in London, UK (moved from Johannesburg, South Africa). In the apartment I rent is the following bathroom shaver socket: Now this conversation has been a little over my head, but I can confirm that the following amalgamated socket design is present in the UK, and present in a bathroom environment. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I like the little icon of the electric toothbrush; that's very cute! 8) -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk), I was trying to help you there, but please look again at what I said! "I have an update on your 115V question, it is OR so only FYI." So, what do you? You go right ahead and insert it into the article with no supporting reference! One rule for Beland, another for everyone else?
Also, there is no evidence that anyone but you is misreading the IEC site, it simply does not say what you claim. Think about it, the US 2-pin plug has been given a separate letter, the Australian 2-pin plug has not been given a letter at all. Why are you so keen on misleading people? There is simply no merit in forcing the Type I reference in there when it is adequately described as the 2-pin Australian plug (except to give you the satisfaction of winning another argument!)
Finally, you have said that "What you have pulled from BS 4573 has to be reconciled with our sources that clearly show BS 4573 sockets are used in bathrooms", well, they do not show that! BS EN 61558-2-5 says that a shaver supply unit includes "one or more socket outlets", a typical data sheet for a shaver supply unit will show what plugs it accepts, no mention of socket standards! The sockets are clearly of a form which do not directly conform to any standard as such, but do meet all of the safety requirements for sockets used in shaver supply units. (For instance, there is adequate pin contact for the low currents which these sockets are limited to, unlike the situation with other, unapproved, multi standard sockets, and there is no possibility of any of the plugs used leaving part of the aperture exposed.)
So, please, enough of your inventive additions, just stick to the facts! FF-UK (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Wiz9999 (talk), That is a nice picture you have added, but it is NOT a "shaver socket" (which is not allowed in a bathroom), it is a "shaver supply unit", and presumably (as you found it installed in London) it will be compliant with BS EN 61558-2-5, as is the one already illustrated in this article. I have edited the description to be correct, but it would help if you could change the file name to one which is more accurate. Many thanks. FF-UK (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't care what it is called. I uploaded it to help with this discussion, not to necessarily put it on the article. Rename the file to whatever you feel it should be. If you say that it is compliant with BS EN 61558-2-5, I'm not going to say that it isn't, because I do not know. All I know is that it exists and that I can confirm it is in a UK bathroom. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
What you can "confirm" is still original research. Your observations do not make you a reliable source. Nor do mine make me one. Jeh (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh the statements I made are ABSOLUTELY original research. I never made any claim that they weren't. That is why they are not to be included in the article. I was simply trying to provide information to @FF-UK and @Beland to try and help them resolve the dispute that they seemed to be having by demonstrating something that I have observed in the real world, outside of the scope of this article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it not a shaver supply unit that has as one of its components a BS 4573 socket, as the article is reporting is very common? -- Beland (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The article does NOT say that is a BS 4573 socket. As I keep telling you, it is NOT a BS 4573 socket, it is a socket which accepts BS 4573 plugs in a way which is compliant with BS EN 61558-2-5, not the same thing! (More twisting of words on your part, or a plain refusal to read them?) FF-UK (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, uncivil attacks like "Why are you so keen on misleading people?", that I only want "the satisfaction of winning another argument", that I "twist words", and your implication I'm fabricating content "enough of your inventive additions, just stick to the facts!" make it hard to concentrate on the substantive points you are making. "One rule for Beland, another for everyone else?" as you wrote, does not assume good faith, and I find it insulting. As it happens, WP:OR allows for no citation if a claim is not challenged, arguably the socket is self-documenting since it's available to the public just like a printed text, and this seems to fall under the acceptable range of examples in Wikipedia:Common knowledge. I find it surprising that you would challenge a claim that you yourself had just verified. If you want to have a productive conversation, I kindly suggest you focus on the ideas under discussion rather than venting your dislike for the other editors who are participating, and especially avoid casting aspersions about bad motives when there are perfectly reasonable ones you just might not be aware of. Jeh found a perfectly civil way to make the same objection that this is original research. -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when someone demonstrates as much bad faith as you have with your persistent twisting of what I have written, then it becomes quite impossible for me to assume good faith. I am very insulted by your rephrasing of what I have said, but you seem to think that does not matter and it is wrong of me to challenge it? It is not as if you were a newcomer, you really should know better than to behave in that manner. As for Wikipedia:COMMONKNOWLEDGE, well clearly that does not apply when neither of us had that knowledge before I did the Original Research, I think we can be pretty certain that if neither of us knew this to be a fact, it is absolutely NOT common knowledge to the general reader! FF-UK (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Carefully re-reading earlier comments, I think I realize now why we're talking past each other, FF-UK. I read "BS 4573 socket" in the everyday sense as "any socket designed to accept a BS 4573 plug" and I think you are using a stricter definition "any socket which meets exactly the requirements of standard BS 4573". So if I'm understanding correctly, as soon as there are additional holes that accept any other plug type, by your definition it's no longer a "BS 4573 socket". By the narrow definition I can see why you wouldn't perceive a contradiction in the existing text, but with the wider definition there certainly is. But the old version of the text still seems to violate common sense. If this set of two holes is inherently unsafe for wet areas, it seems they should be even less safe for wet areas if they have more holes punched in around them. Consider the case of a BS EN 61558-2-5-compliant shaver supply unit that accepts only BS 4573 plugs; I assume one exists somewhere in the world, but that's not important to the argument. Presumably it would have a socket that complies with the BS 4573 standard, and so fits the narrow definition, and yet it would be safe for wet areas? -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
But that is NOT the everyday sense, so we must discount it before we start. Bear in mind that there are many standards which cover either a plug or a socket, not both. A German DIN 49440-1:2006-01 socket is not designed to accept a (non-existent) DIN 49440-1:2006-01 plug, but a DIN 49441:1972-06 plug. Also, a socket is not just defined by the size and shape of its aperture holes, that is just one aspect of the standard. As your wider definition is not what counts, then it is pointless to recite it. If you start with a false assumption, then nothing which follows can be assumed to be true. FF-UK (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beland "As it happens, WP:OR allows for no citation if a claim is not challenged". Yeah... that is a very dangerous concept to be operating under. For it virtually gives you carte blanche to state anything you want to state in an edit, under the claim that the addition is already well known and unchallenged. If you are adding something that someone will question at some point, you really should be adding a citation to it. It will spare the conflict over it in the future. That being said, I do agree that some of the replies made by @FF-UK do appear to have some malicious intent behind them. He/she raises very good points, and often, and has been an editor on this article continuously probably longer than anyone else. It would just make for a more pleasant discussion if the point raised didn't come with what feels like an attack. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@FF-UK: "It is not as if you were a newcomer, you really should know better than to behave in that manner." "As your wider definition is not what counts, then it is pointless to recite it.". See FF-UK, this is exactly what I am talking about. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Beginning a sentence with a conjuction
@Jeh: Before berating other editors for doing this, you may with to read: Conjunction (grammar)#Starting a sentence. But I agree sometimes it's an improvement to rephrase to avoid this. -- Beland (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you go back and look at the edit I made that accompanied that edit summary. I didn't berate anybody for starting a sentence with a conjunction. I berated them for changing such a sentence to remove the conjunction. I even linked to an article at grammarly.com that stated that beginning a sentence with a conjunction is not a mistake, so that really should not have been unclear. And by the way, "however" is just as much a conjunction as "but" is. It simply sounds less confrontational. Jeh (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I will point out that the second sentence in Conjunction (grammar)#Starting a sentence begins with a "However," ... I'm not trying to make a point, I just find it amusing... @Jeh, while I don't disagree with the things that you have said, both here and in the above sections. I was taught very specifically about this in school, and it will always irk me to see sentences start this way. I just don't consider it good practice. I would sooner start a sentence with an "It" than with a "But". However, I will yield to the fact that you have pointed out that these practices are clearly established a certain way on Wikipedia. Forgive me for being an old fart. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As it says at the grammarly.com page I linked, it's a device, and sometimes it is grammatically incorrect; such devices can be misused. In the typical high school English class (probably not H-level) they'll tell you not to do it, because it's felt that at that grade level you are unlikely to be able to reliably distinguish when it should be done and when not. In a more advanced course, particularly one that focuses on English composition (and all the wildly wonderful ways to construct sentences) they'll admit that things are a bit more nuanced than that. There are occasions where it can be a very effective device. Learn more, and you are trusted with the more dangerous tools. Jeh (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Brazillian standard NBR 14136
@Wiz9999: Please note, neither version of NBR 14136 is compliant with IEC 60906, the 10 A version has pins which are too small (4mm) and the 20A version has pins which are too large (4.8mm). In addition there are no shutters required by NBR 14136, and it is allowed to be used at 127V, both being disallowed by IEC 60906. (Non-neutral PoV, why did they do this crazy thing?) FF-UK (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I see the differences. I had thought that the 20A entry was the same size, but I see now that it is actually lager at 4.8mm. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Type I
Apparently the assistance of additional editors is needed to read and interpret the definition and usage of "Type I". Sources I'll cite:
IEC World Plugs which says "The Type I plug has two flat pins in a V-shape as well as a grounding pin. A version of the plug, which only has the two flat pins, exists as well."
This travel advice site which has an illustration and description of both 2-pin and 3-pin plugs under the Type I heading.
My interpretation is that Type I includes a three-pin plug, a two-pin plug, and a three-hole socket, and that it is proper and helpful to readers to refer to the "Australian 2-pin Type I" plug. FF-UK's interpretation is apparently: "The IEC does say that there is a 2-pin version of type I, but not that it is included in he designation, it is just another of the many plugs which does not have its own designated letter." Thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The wording from IEC is exactly: "The Type I plug has two flat pins in a V-shape as well as a grounding pin. A version of the plug, which only has the two flat pins, exists as well." This clearly means that Type I includes the three pinned grounded type. There is no dispute there. The real key part of the statement is "A version of the plug, which only has the two flat pins, exists as well." However, I think it is not necessarily saying that "Type I" also includes the two pin variant, but I don't think that it is necessarily excludes it either. The statement, I feel, is vague on the inclusion or exclusion of this (perhaps intentionally so by the IEC). This is because of the "exists as well." ending of the sentence. This means that two pin variant exists, that is for certain. However, is this ending trying to tell us it is part of this "Type I" definition described in the first sentence? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Who is to say? I believe that it is too vague to tell, thus leading to all the disagreement we have seen... The second source that you have listed there I feel has a similar level of ambiguity in the description next to the "Type I" image. It sates: "This plug has a grounding pin and 2 flat prongs forming a V-shape. There is an ungrounded version of this plug as well, with only 2 flat V-shaped prongs." This statement is doing the same thing as the IEC one when it simply uses the phrase: "as well". The amazon product that you listed in the third source is a horrible example, as this is something that can clearly take an earthed "Type B", "Type E", "Type G", etc. and plug this into a "Type I" socket without any earth connection whatsoever. It is just some unspecific adaptor that can approximate the 2-pin version of "Type I", but it is clearly not something sanctioned by any nation's standard. As we have seen before adaptors can have incorrect letter designations on them sometimes as well, I would hesitate to call an amazon listing a RS. Check out this beauty: (Link to an amazon product) I don't even understand how they came up with "BF" ("Type G" in reality). - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, this adapter may not meet any particular national standard, but AS/NZS 3112 seems to be saying that the 2-pin Australian plug is included both in that standard and in Type I. -- Beland (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I only have one thing to say to the last statement; WP:WINARS. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A side note is that the third sentence in the IEC Type I paragraph is: "The Australian plug also works with sockets in China." following directly on from "A version of the plug, which only has the two flat pins, exists as well." I think this is why everyone seems to be calling the 2-pin variant of Type I the "Australian 2-pin Type I" instead of just "2-pin Type I", while I'm pretty sure this 2-pin type exists in China as well. No offense to China, but their installations seem to allow for some wild configurations as well File:China's 3-pin sockets.jpg, and I know how lapse standard applicability can be across other fields in China. I have no doubt "2-pin Type I" is accepted there as well. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Here are more sources:
[11] Says 3-pin in text but illustrates 2-pin Australian under Type I; I assume both are type I, though the dodgy copy editing does not make me trust this source very much.
[12] This just affirms both the 2-pin and various 3-pin are part of AS/NZS 3112.
[13] This looks like a reputable manufacturer's catalog; it explicitly lists the 2-pin variant as "IEC TYPE I" in both pictures and text, and same for the 7.5A 3-pin. -- Beland (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes! All of these are an acceptable form of citation that clearly include the 2-pin variant as "IEC Type I". It may not be clear in the IEC statement if this is the case or not, but these sources are clearly considering it to be so. I have no issue with adding these to the article under the Argentina and Australia section to refer to each of the 2-pin variants as also "Type I". - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let's just get back to basics and look at some FACTS. First of all, Beland (talk) claims above that "AS/NZS 3112 seems to be saying that the 2-pin Australian plug is included both in that standard and in Type I." Where did you get that from? I have never seen a plug standard which references the letter code. I admit that my copy of AS/NZS 3112 is the 2000 version, rather than the current 2017 version, so I do not have proof, but I will be astounded if I am wrong.
Secondly, the plugs and sockets described in AS/NZS 3112:2000 are as follows:
3-pin, rated 250V: The familiar 10A plug and socket we know as "Type I", the 15A version of that (wider earth pin), and the 20A version (wider earth pin and live pins). (There is no description of, or dimensions for, the 25A or 32A versions.)
3-pin, rated 250V, 10A, a version having flat live pins and a round earth pin. Another 10A version having round live pins, and a flat earth pin.
2-pin, rated 250V: 10A plug and socket with live pins same as the 10A 3-pin, but no earth pin.
2-pin, rated 125V: 10A plug and socket with 2 identical parallel pins which are same size as the slanted pins of 250V 2-pin. (Similar to NEMA 1-15 non-polarized, but lower current rating, thicker pins, of similar width and length).
Note, any reference to plugs with current ratings of less than 10A refer to non-rewirable (moulded) plugs having flexible cords rated at less than 10A, not a different plug.
I can find no evidence that the Australian type 2-pin plug with non-parallel pins forms part of the Chinese standard, China uses the parallel pin version (which we would call Type A) as their 2-pin plug, hence the second socket shown in the image which Wiz9999 (talk) provides above, which accepts both a Type A and round pin plugs, this socket is specified in the Chinese standard.
The standard includes quite a lot of plug and socket types, and I am certain that no one would claim that all of these are "Type I" just because they are shown in AS/NZS 3112! So, we need to approach this in a sensible way, and to me that means that the only thing which can be described as Type I is the 3-pin 10A all flat pin plug, rather than any of those other plugs listed in AS/NZS 3112.
The scope of AS/NZS 3112:2000 includes the words "This Standard specifies essential safety requirements for plugs and socket-outlets, as defined in Clause 1.4, intended for use at extra-low or low voltages and a rated current not exceeding 32 A for household or similar purposes." But, we have no description or dimensions for anything greater than 20A included in the standard. We have evidence of Australian 25A and 32A plugs in these pictures. We also have this description of a 25A socket from HPM (Australian subsidiary of Legrand), but it does not refer to a standard. (Similarly, I have been unable to find any reference to a standard for 25A or 32A flat pin plugs and sockets in the Clipsal literature.)
I wonder if @Fredquint: can help us? FF-UK (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Universal sockets
Beland (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC), I note that yet again you have changed the caption on the universal socket to insert what plugs you believe it accepts. the problem is, the only source you have for that claim is the description of the photo, and that would be WP:OR. I have replaced the original description "So-called "universal socket" which meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types." which you may think vague, but at least is accurate. Spurious unsupported detail is simply not acceptable. I have also reinstated the reference to a WP:RS which confirms that there are no standards for universal sockets. Please do not do this again. FF-UK (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Concur with FF-UK here. Personally, I have plugged Type A plugs into these very shaver sockets (in the BA lounge at Heathrow) but that's OR. Same for the comment about the Australian type (which is not officially described as an "Australian version of Type A", though that is a fair verbal description). Now if we found sales literature that enumerates the plugs these sockets are designed to accept, we could cite that as what one manufacturer claims for their product of this sort, but we couldn't generalize further. Jeh (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Given it's just as easy for someone to find one of these outlets and plug into it as it is to go to a library and find a print book that says what plugs go into it, it seems to me these devices are essentially published and self-documenting. I don't think describing them is original research. As these devices are in places accessible to the public, they seem to fall into the acceptable-not-to-cite realm of Wikipedia:Common knowledge, which I support. I don't see how suppressing readily verifiable information like this is going to help readers. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beland "they seem to fall into the acceptable-not-to-cite realm of Wikipedia:Common knowledge, which I support." See this is exactly the danger area I was talking about above. This is clearly a controversial subject, therefore citation is ESSENTIAL to resolving the conflict. On a side note, I do also concur with FF-UK here. I have yet to see any documentation that officializes "universal sockets." The closest thing that I have found is that of the two SANS 164 standards: SANS 164-5 and SANS 164-6 which duplicate the two most common European two-pole plugs and sockets to allow for their import and use in South Africa, which (generally) uses completely different form factor plugs. Even so, neither of these is a "universal socket," but are merely an adoption of a European system and making it into a permitted South African system as well. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, if we don't trust the author of the photo to have captioned it accurately, then what reliable source establishes that this is an electrical socket? What reliable source establishes that this is intended to fit multiple plug types, and not merely one plug that has a weird shape? I have added a "citation needed" tag until we find one. -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
However, we don't need to, it is still permitted it turns out; WP:OI. The caption of the original uploader cannot be considered original research, and thus it is accepted as "true" (This is bonkers if you ask me). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The caption states So-called "universal socket" which meets no standard but is intended to accept a number of different plug types, since the picture clearly shows apertures which accept a number of different plug types (without saying what those might be), do we really need a citation? If the answer is yes, then we clearly need to change the picture to one for which a manufacturer's description is available, I cannot find a description for the socket shown. FF-UK (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I don't think we really need a citation for this, based on the description of the original uploader, and that crazy rule that means it cannot be considered OR. I will remove the tag from both positions. If there are any objections please revert my edit. (On a side not the fact that this image and section content is duplicated in these two places on this article troubles me, I would merge them were we not considering an article split at this point in time anyway.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Splitting off history and obsolete types?
This article is very long, but it seems for mostly for good reasons; there's a lot to say on the subject. How would folks feel about splitting off the History section into History of AC power plugs and sockets? If we send the "Obsolete types" section along with it, I think that would make a relatively clean break. -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems fair to me. It is nice to have the history, but a separate article should be fine. Gah4 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is another subject which has been discussed quite a lot in the past. Here are some of the archived discussions (most recent first) which may help to inform this discussion:
A further comment on the last archived discussion above. The suggested new articles were as follows:
AC power plugs and sockets - Overview
AC power plugs and sockets - American and related types
AC power plugs and sockets - Australian, Chinese and related types
AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types
AC power plugs and sockets - European and related types
Only the British one was created as proposed. The basis of the others was already in place, NEMA Connector for American, Schuko for European, and AS/NZS 3112 for Australian, Chinese and related types, but they have not yet been developed. FF-UK (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I was about to rename NEMA connector to "AC power plugs and sockets - American and related types", and move more of the stuff on NEMA connectors from here to there, when someone piped up and said that article titles implying a hierarchical or subtopic arrangement of articles was forbidden by the guidelines on article titles. Not being in the mood for yet another argument with a passgauge-type wikilawyer, I just forgot about it. Personally I think such effort should proceed. Oh, maybe change "Overview" to "Overview and history" as it applies to both the American and the British subtopics, at least. Jeh (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a very good point, splitting the history (or at least the early history) would lead to a very disjointed article. FF-UK (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Given there seems to be at least a majority in support of a simple split, I went ahead and did that. Having three levels (general overview, regional overview, and then articles on specific types) seems to be creating a lot of repetition and makes the articles a bit hard to maintain. I would suggest pushing details out of this article directly into articles on specific standards or types, to the degree possible while still explaining here the relationships between them. The British regional overview seems to be keeping things to two levels by not having separate articles for individual standards. That's not a wrong way to do it, though AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types is a bit on the long side. -- Beland (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the conversation here, but I am in favor of the "history" split that has just occurred. The article is very large and unwieldy, and splitting off excessive content that is not core to the article's purpose is welcomed by me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland (talk), Yet more misrepresentation of what is said by others? This is coming to the point where I will have to raise this repeated behaviour to formal mediation. You started this section with a proposal How would folks feel about splitting off the History section into History of AC power plugs and sockets? If we send the "Obsolete types" section along with it, I think that would make a relatively clean break. I gave you some references to previous discussions on this subject, and referred to a previous proposal to split the article an entirely different way. Jeh (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC) endorsed his original approval of that proposal, and confirmed his willingness to assist with that change. He also expressed an opinion that the history section be kept together with the overview. I completely agree with that point.
So, your reaction to the only two editors who had commented on your proposal, who both take a contrary view was 'Given there seems to be at least a majority in support of a simple split, I went ahead and did that.' In other words, you are claiming the exact opposite of what was said. How do you get off on this repeated misrepresentation? Do you actually read what others say? I suggest that you revert yourself while you have the opportunity. FF-UK (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
There is significant support for a split, but I was in favor of one article with "Concepts and terminology", "History", and "Application issues" together. Is that what you had in mind, FF-UK? We can still do that; we just have to rename (move) the new article and move more stuff from here to there. I was surprised when Beland did that split - I thought we were still discussing. More edits have been made to this article since the split, and this article cannot simply be reverted to its pre-split state without losing those. Whatever is finally settled on, this is a major change and requires more than one editor's impression of the results of discussion. i.e. it requires clearly expressed consensus. Jeh (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Basically, yes. Then strip back the existing type descriptions as all the detail will be in the region specific articles.
I wonder what the best way to handle IEC 60906-1 with its derived Brazilian and South African standards is? It does not fit under Europe (despite compatibility with the Europlug) as it is not used there, and that is unlikely to change given the recent announcement from the EU making it clear that there is no consideration being given to a common European standard. One possible snag is that it would split the overarching South African standard SANS 164 across two articles. Of course, we now have (since last year)the dedicated article on SANS 164 which covers all of the plugs used in South Africa, so perhaps that is another regional article which needs to be brought into this concept.
That leaves us with how to deal with the (ex-Soviet) GOST 7396 series (probably under Europe), and the infamous Thai plug. FF-UK (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
General Wikipedia convention would be to make AC power plugs and sockets the overview article, which it sounds like is where you were thinking of putting "Concepts and terminology" and "Application issues"? I think that makes sense. History of AC power plugs and sockets has about 30k of raw content, which is enough for an article all on its own. Wikipedia:Summary style says that the overview article should summarize all of its direct subarticles. This article even after the History split is still 127k raw, so even with moving a lot of content in "Types in present use" into subarticles, I think it's going to have trouble getting down to a reasonable size if it has to contain the entire history and all the obsolete types. The historical sections also came out quite cleanly; I think they are probably the sections with the fewest implicit cross-references to other text. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, while many readers no doubt find the full history interesting, many other readers are only going to want to read at most the one-paragraph historical summary. The task of implementing movement of material out of "Types in present use" is so large, I think it's going to have to happen incrementally. I would support editors being bold and squeezing the content here down to a one-liner per each type, and linking to some article where the details have ended up. I think the process of doing that will bring to light the most natural way of organizing subarticles to contain that content. Whatever happens, my preference would be to have two levels of subarticles if possible and not three, whether that's the regional overview articles proposed above or a larger number of more specific articles linked directly from the overview. -- Beland (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Beland: Nice of you to ask now, and express your preference as a preference, after you hared off and did a split in a form for which no one else had expressed support. Did you even read the previous discussions? Per the talk page history it doesn't appear that you participated in any of them. (tone: quite annoyed) Jeh (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Jeh (talk), Now what? Beland has been active over the past 48 hours +, but not on this or related subjects. Loss of interest? FF-UK (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we just continue with the suggestion I suggested at 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)? At least I think it is clear that the current situation, with so many details appearing both here and in either the NEMA or the "British and related types" article, makes for difficult maintenance. Jeh (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, let's do it. FF-UK (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Does this consensus of two include moving it to "AC power plugs and sockets - Overview" ? (I'd be happier if more people were expressing agreement.) Jeh (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I am happy with that title. I suggest that all editors cease to modify any sections dealing with specific plug types in this article, as these will either be moved, or are already in existence elsewhere (eg, British and related types and NEMA etc). FF-UK (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
What is being moved to "AC power plugs and sockets - Overview"? The new article with the history section (with the proposed additions of "Concepts and terminology" and "Application issues"), or this article?
Also, what will happen to the current section in History of AC power plugs and sockets on "Obsolete types". Will that be permitted to remain with the history article? (I think this section needs renaming to "Obsolete plug and socket types" as a side note, since it is no longer next to the other "types" in this article). I do not think this section should be deleted, as it contains valuable historic information on old plugs/sockets seen in different parts of the world (e.g. Greece).
Overall I am in favor of these splits. I'm not really sure if "Concepts and terminology" and "Application issues" really belong with "History" and "Obsolete types", but I am prepared to accept this if that is what others want. As I can see in the past, one of the main reasons why such splits did not occur was due to the naming hierarchy issue. However, I see that "AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types" already exists without issue, and "NEMA connector" already fulfills the role of "AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types". Seeing as "NEMA connector" is not likely to be renamed soon, I have gone ahead and created AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types as a redirect page to "NEMA connector". This results in "AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types" now appearing on the search entry list when typing into the search bar (one of the reasons for the hierarchical structure). Since much of the NEMA content from this article was moved over to the "NEMA connector" article in the past anyway it should now adequately fulfill this role, and thus the redirect will enable this. I think these articles really need to be generated at this stage, and even if we use a hierarchical naming structure, it should not prevent us from performing this action. After all, if an article's name is found to subsequently not be compliant/acceptable, it can always be renamed afterwards. The content move should proceed even if the naming of the article is not yet "perfect". It can be figured out in time if it is an issue. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it is perfect FF-UK. I like how this section has turned out after the content split. It has short descriptions of the three principal types, and that is all that is needed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wiz9999 (talk), thank you, but just to clarify the situation, the section on British types has not been changed recently, but it serves as a possible example of how all sections having an abbreviated description and the main content elsewhere might look. It sounds as though you are in agreement. FF-UK (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I am indeed in agreement. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for my recent near-silence - I'm in a work crunch.
I do not see a separate "history" article as viable. And I strongly object to Beland's creating an article of that title without consultation on the talk page. However, right now it is easier to rename it and repurpose it, than to get it deleted. The "history" section should be moved back here and this article will become the "overview" article.
My understanding of the consensus (I will say again) is that the "overview" article will include "Concepts and terminology", "Application issues", "History", and "Obsolete types". It can also include the types mentioned by FF-UK that seem to defy classification into larger groups: South African, Brazilian, Thai, old Soviet, etc.
Wiz9999 writes: "I have gone ahead and created AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types". I wish you had asked more-experienced editors first. You are apparently unfamiliar with WP:TSC. It can be moved easily enough, but, you continue to present a "ready, fire, aim" approach here.
Also, re "(I think this section needs renaming to "Obsolete plug and socket types" as a side note, since it is no longer next to the other "types" in this article)." Interesting that you bring such a minor issue as a section title up for discussion after your "ready, fire, aim" approach for more significant changes. (Though it is nice to see you adopting a collaborative approach for SOMEthing.) Such a rename is not necessary - the article title provides the "plugs and sockets" overarching context. Jeh (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jeh Yes, I agree that he/she should have waited for some more time to pass so editors could comment before proceeding with such a drastic change. I was in support of the split, as I really feel that this article is very bloated and is trying to do too much at once. I'm not sure I agree that the history article will not be able to be viable on its own in the long term, but whatever. If you wish to move it back into this "Overview" article I will not be opposed.
So if this article will be turned into the "Overview" article I assume you intend for the rest of the content to be moved out into separate articles? If that is the case, then I am also very much in agreement with that decision. What concerns me most is that content is going to be deleted without adequate replacements, I have seen this happen in article splits in the past. I only created AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types with a colon to be in line with AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types, which already exists using that format. Besides, AC power plugs and sockets: American and related types is just a redirect, it can easily be deleted or overwritten by the NEMA connector article if need be. I will remind you of WP:BOLD with regards to what you consider to be my "ready, fire, aim" approach. I have always come to the talk page to discuss anything that is a significant change, but for minor stuff, like a redirect, yes I am just going to act. I mentioned about the section title renaming, because FF-UK had requested that we not alter the "types" sections within this article for the moment while we sort out this split stuff. To be safe, I assumed this applied to the obsolete types section in the history article as well while awaiting for the article splits to move forward. What I was most concerned about at the time was that this section was going to be deleted, as it was not mentioned in the proposed movements.
PS, I have been editing wikipedia for much longer than you might think. ;) - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:BRD and WP:BOLD certainly have their place but when discussion is already ongoing I feel it is highly disruptive and non-collaborative to not participate before being WP:BOLD and doing something for which explicit consensus has not yet been established. Particularly where changes that are difficult to revert are involved. Simple edits to articles are one thing. Dozens of interlocking edits that make reversions difficult are another. Moving an article is sometimes easy to undo, but sometimes it requires admin action and then you have to convince admins that it really should be done. etc. Jeh (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
A couple of quibbles on the Concepts and terminology section
The paragraph regarding the function of the earthing pin is skirting OT for this article; this article is not about appliance wiring or internal arrangement. I could see someone objecting to it for this reason. However I think this graf provides good explanation for the presence and utility of the earth pin and connection. Jeh (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The final graf of the section, in describing a socket with two "line" contacts that measure 208 V apart while either to neutral measures 120, is describing a socket that's connected to two phases of a three-phase system (even if only two of the phases are present in the building or unit). I don't know how this can be called a "single-phase socket". A 'scope will show you that those two line contacts are 120 degrees apart. How is that a "single-phase socket"? Jeh (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
For an outlet that has 208V (two phases of 120/208) and ground, I think we have to call it one phase, assuming you don't treat ground as neutral. (See NEMA-10 for the latter.) With neutral, it is technically three phase, but not normally used that way. Not, for example, to run a three phase motor. Gah4 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Never mind what anybody "thinks we have to" call it. What do the standards and similarly-empowered documents call it? Jeh (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this completely off topic for a discussion that was occurring about grammar? Please make a new section in future if starting a new discussion on an unrelated topic @Gah4. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Which is the grammar question? I was following up on one, but maybe not all the way back. Gah4 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Wiz's comment appears to be out of place. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, to me this section was essentially closed. I thought it was was last edited a long time ago now, and I had forgotten that it had been started originally asking about the three phase/single phase issue. However, I see now that it was only discussed 8/9 days ago. It feels ancient, as so much discussion/editing has occurred in a very short amount time since this discussion. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I apologise for all the kerfuffle about the quotation marks and the italics in this section. The grammar it had originally was very poor and I was just trying to improve it. I added all the extra quotation marks and subsequent italics to the section to help identify, for the reader, all the arbitrary terms being used throughout this very jargon-heavy paragraph. It is indeed better now that it is broken up somewhat, and more logically structured now. However, I still feel that, due to all the heavy jargon, the paragraph would be better suited to have either an apostrophe ('live') or quotation marks ("live") around all these jargon terms, as this is a more natural/legible way that I have written technical documents in the past. Now, before you point out that this doesn't conform to WP:MOS I will point out that the MOS:WAW permits the use of quotation marks instead of italics in some circumstances of words as words. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but those circumstances are not present here. Jeh (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I figured you might say that... It is a fair assessment... I just worry for the reader, now that all the italics AND quote marks have been removed from the majority of the section making it harder to distinguish technical jargon from common English words like; line, live, earth, and neutral. For instance, it is perfectly acceptable under this jargon to describe the line line. While an average reader will just assume I wrote that in duplicate by accident, someone who understands the jargon will know I am talking about the line (eg. cable) that has the line type of connection attached to it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In some "jurisdictions", use of double-quotes can be appropriate to signal that the term being mentioned is an unofficial or slang term, as opposed to the more official terms that are denoted by italics. It is a useful distinction to be able to make, but few readers will be aware of what it means, and MOS doesn't support it unless it's a quotation - and to be a quotation it would have to be attributed to some specific person or source.
Conventions that ordinary introductions of terms should be marked as quotations likely date to the era when so many tech documents were prepared on computers that couldn't do italics.
I cannot imagine a MOS that supports the use of both italics and quotation marks around a single term. Nor the use of apostrophes in place of quotation marks. There are locales where apostrophes, or more correctly single-quote marks, are used in all contexts where we would use double-quotation marks. Wikipedia is not among them.
The "line line" problem is a non-problem. Although such usage would be defensible by a pedant, there are many words that can substitute for one of them, depending on context: "connection", "wire", "terminal", etc., etc. (Just like there are many ways to break up a longish sentence besides inserting commas and more commas.)
The problem with italicizing every mention of these terms is that the section uses them so often that it had become overrun with italics, and then they lose their impact. If too many things are "special", then nothing is. Probably a few more of these usages could be italicized. Jeh (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Brevity in "Concepts and terminology"
In this edit I made this section significantly shorter, with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a thesaurus; skip some obvious derivations for brevity. Wikipedia is written for a general audience; skip some notes which only apply to people who read standards documents, for brevity." User:FF-UK reverted, with the edit summary "Discuss first please!" My edit summary explained my rationale; what is it that you would like to discuss? -- Beland (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel the section is necessary in its pre-shortened form. One of the reasons this stuff is difficult is that there are indeed so many different terms for the same, or for similar things. Establishing a terminology to be used in the article, and showing the relationship to other, commonly-used terms, is important, particularly for the "general audience" that may not have been exposed to the correct terms. As it is people regularly come in here and "correct" "line" to "live", because they didn't read the article before deciding that it must be wrong because it didn't match what they'd heard all their lives. Jeh (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those talk sections I had not yet caught up on. As far as I can tell by looking at the history, the terminology section grew in response to errors such as the line/live issue mentioned by Jeh. Along comes Beland and makes swingeing cuts in the section with no thought as to why the definitions were there, that simply makes no sense. It should be restored. FF-UK (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not appreciate the massive reduction in information that occurred when these edits were made. I did my best to alleviate the situation at the time, but was unable to restore everything I felt was needed. However, now I just don't know if there is really any going back to the old text, as many improvements have been made subsequently to certain sections of this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look that difficult to unravel. But I don't have time atm. Jeh (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
"May"
With this edit I reverted an edit of Wiz9999's, with edit comment "rv as unencyclopedic. WP does not write of what "may" be true in its own voice, regardless of any previous text)"
Wiz9999's next edit summary was in response: ""WP does not write of what may be true in its own voice". That is amusing, have a look at the "Concepts and terminology" and "Application issues" sections. Much of these two sections talk about what "may" be true.)"
There are several different uses of the word "may" in play here. When I say "WP does not write of what "may" be true in its own voice", I am reflecting WP:SPECULATION. We don't write of what "may" be true, but what "may" happen, etc. - with the exceptions noted in that section. (It's fine if we cite authorities in the relevant field who are expressing that opinion, for example.)
In other words, we don't write (in our own voice) that something "may" occur (i.e. it has a probability greater than 0, less than 100%), but we don't really know if it ever has.
But if, for example, we write that a standard says that a given socket type "may" include a particular feature, we mean the standard allows it, but it isn't mandatory.
There are variations of both of these in which we either do know that whatever it is, has happened; or that we do know that even though possible or allowed, it hasn't happened.
WP:SPECULATION does not preclude these latter usages. It is perfectly acceptable to write, for example, that "safety features [...] may include plugs with insulated sleeves, recessed sockets ... " (etc.), because all of the described features do exist in various example plug and socket types, which are documented (with refs) in the article. This use of "may" is therefore not a rebuttal of "Wikipedia does not write of what may be true in its own voice".
However: What we are writing in these articles are, in many instances, summaries of documents that are written to legal standards of grammar and word choice. We should be similarly, if not equally, careful. The above-mentioned use of "may", for example, should be changed as follows: "safety features present on various types include plugs with insulated sleeves..." Jeh (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If your concern was WP:SPECULATION, would it be possible for me to restore the majority of my edit for these image descriptions? I will leave out the part that states "from around the world", as I assume that is the part that you believe I was speculating on. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as there was no response to my question for over a month, I will restore the majority of my edit here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Compatibility Table
I see that the definition of this compatibility table's "Does not fit" and "No" designations has changed again. It now means that essentially there are no occurrences of "Does not fit", as the "No" definition covers the vast majority of these cases as well, due to the current definition of "No" being: "No means that, along with the plug not fitting into the socket, the socket/plug-combination is not compatible regarding the definitions of the involved standards. Thus meaning the original intention to physically prevent the combination of incompatible systems is effective."
Would it not be better to distinguish between the two if there is a physical incompatibility vs. a physical and electrical incompatibility? The way I see it, this is a more useful means of distinguishing the types of incompatibility. It would be simple to make this change to the definition as it would only require the addition of one word: "No means that, along with the plug not fitting into the socket, the socket/plug-combination is not electrically compatible regarding the definitions of the involved standards. Thus meaning the original intention to physically prevent the combination of incompatible systems is effective."
Otherwise, if there is no support for this, I would suggest that we just get rid of "Does not fit" parameter and definition and make the table simply state "No" if the plug/socket combination is incompatible for ANY reason. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as there was no response to my suggestions in over a month I will be implementing the first one now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The new "compatibility" table by Beland
To some extend I can see the idea of this table, but there are some conceptual inconsistencies:
First of all, what is its purpose:
a. To show the incompatibility of nevertheless combinable, i.e. fitable types, or,
b. to show physical compatibility with acceptable constraints for fitable plugs?
If a. is the case, why are there red nos necessary for anyhow physically incompatible systems? Well, the very purpose of physical incompatibility between sockets and plugs is exactely to prevent the combination of incompatible systems or socket/plug combinations, isn't it!?
If this is the case, I do not have to add a no to anyhow incompatible combinations, do I!? E.g., no CEE 7/x plug (except for the Europlug) will fit with a SEV 1011 socket of any type. That's its main purpose. The Europlug was indeed designed the way it is in order to fit with several standards (aka standardized systems), of course.
If b. is the case, why should I mention that it fits "but unearthed", since it – e.g. the Europlug – is attached to an appliance which does not need any earthing anyhow; in fact it is only allowed to be attached to Class II appliances. So why does it need to be mentioned?
Could you help me to understand, please. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
As only the CEE 7/6, CEE 7/4, and CEE 7/7 standards of plug type follow in this "2-pin European style plugs and sockets" form and are also earthed, they are the only ones that would ever get the tag "fits, but unearthed". The Europlug will of course never get it, neither will the NBR 14136 2-pin (unearthed) standard, the SANS 164-2 2-pin (unearthed) standard, nor the BS 4573 shaver (unearthed) standard, etc.
Additionally, at this point there is only 1 "no" left on the table, and I honestly do not understand why we are listing both "no" and "does not fit". I assume this is because if it is a "no" then it implies that it is physically incompatible (does not fit) as well as being electrically completely incompatible. However, if this is the case then I would say that that the latter is irrelevant if it does not fit into the socket in the first place, and a simple "does not fit" should suffice for all cases of this. In light of this I will implement the adjustment of the last remaining "no" to a "does not fit" and will instead colour all the "does not fits" to a more visually less jarring red instead. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is about "plugs and sockets". It says so right on the label. Should it really care about voltage compatibility? (btw, did you know that in the Philippines they use US-style sockets for 230 V?) Jeh (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you know that most often, it is split-phase with grounded center tap? They often don't run a neutral to the house, though. Gah4 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Yes, but too loosely coupled", "fits with difficulty", etc., are subjective judgments. They need references or they need to be changed to just "no". Jeh (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't have excessive warnings on voltage compatibility, but one somewhere, maybe near the top, to remind people. Note that in addition to the variety of outlets that allow other plugs, adapters are very common. And adapter packages will warn, maybe in small print, that they don't convert voltage. Also, there is a popular voltage conversion device, usually labeled something like 50-1600 watts, that is a big diode. It will work for heating devices, maybe even ones with motors, but not so well for devices with transformers, even if they use more than 50W. Should we warn about those? As far as tables, I don't see a voltage warning in a table as useful. It is generally needed, but not once for each country/plug/outlet/etc. where it might apply. At some point, users will have to figure it out for themselves, and we can't think up all the ways they could do it wrong. (Nor should we try.) Gah4 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that a more relevant question would be: Do we really need this table? To me it is cumbersome, takes too much horizontal space and serves little purpose. Add to this the concerns about subjectivity and maybe the best thing to do with it is bin it. FF-UK (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@FF-UK No, I believe there is definitely value in the existence of this table. It just may not belong in this article specifically. I think it would be a mistake to bin it entirely. It may just need to be split off of this article into another one (when/if the large split occurs that potentially removes many sections from the article).
I do agree that it takes up a lot of horizontal space, something that I was trying to avoid. However, after a particular group of edits by ZH8000, which massively expanded it horizontally, I gave up on trying to prevent this.
I agree with Jeh that the entries "Yes, but too loosely coupled", "fits with difficulty", etc. are just cumbersome and unnecessary subjective statements. A simple "Yes" and "No" can suffice for most of these elaborate statements. After all, with enough effort and force I'm sure I can get most any plug into any socket. This does not need to be described.
@Gah4 Yeah, we should try to avoid having too many warnings on voltage, etc. The article is here to provide information to readers, but Wikipedia is not a PSA. It is up to the reader to figure out what they need to be cautious of when working with this electrical stuff. We can warn them once, but to repeatedly do it is just excessive. (I am very guilty of adding extra warnings in my edits by the way, I keep forgetting if the warning has already been stated or not.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think compatibility information is good in general but I'm not sure about its usefulness when presented in this way.
First, the emphasis on standard numbers is not that helpful to the general reader who wants to know if their shaver's plug will fit into the outlet in their hotel room bath. The general reader probably doesn't know a "CEE 7/16 Alt. II" plug from a dinner fork. "Europlug" is better, but pictures would be better still.
Second, very few readers will need all of the information on this table at any given time. I wonder if the info might not be more effective if it was split up into the (eventual) per-type-group articles. After all one is usually only dealing with one type of plug (the ones you brought with you) and one type of sockets (the ones in the room you're in) at a time.
The claim "Plugs of type D, G, and M are physically incompatible with any other type other than their own" would seem to apply to type B as well, except that A fits into B (but not vice-versa).
The above claim needs a disclaimer that such restrictions don't apply to multi-standard sockets. Even type G will fit in the widely-used multistandard socket of the type illustrated at the Extron reference ([14]) (even though Extron says it won't! Does some jurisdiction preclude sale of such sockets if they claim to accept type G?) Maybe make it "... incompatible with any other standard type..." Jeh (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Universal sockets cannot comply with regulations throughout Europe, whether they accept Type G or not (the reasons are already given in the article). My understanding is that they are also not allowed in Australia. FF-UK (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
However, I don't have a problem with the suggestion that you made either, splitting the table up and including it with each type article. That would potentially be useful in those locations too. It wouldn't be very difficult to separate each column and include each column in the respective articles. Though I would avoid spitting it by row instead, as having a "this plug fits into X" table makes more sense to me. In theory we could do both row and column and put both in the respective articles, but this could be a bit cumbersome. It would be best to stick to one if this is how we handle the table.
With regards to the universal socket stuff, yes, plugs that we are stating here that ONLY fit into their own socket could fit into such sockets. But due to the contradictory nature of the sourced material, and the non official nature of these sockets in the first place, it is better to just ignore them in this section. The reader should understand that we are talking about "official" compatibility anyway (especially if they have read the universal socket section). If you feel there is a better way of wording these statements then feel free to alter them.
"the emphasis on standard numbers is not that helpful to the general reader", well this is why we also have the type numbers and the respective countries listed as well. One way of de-emphasising the standard code would be to remove the bold aspect to the font, it would make the type number and the country more prominent, while still retaining the code for accuracy.
"The claim ... would seem to apply to type B as well, except that A fits into B (but not vice-versa)" I think this is why essentially avoided mentioning the compatibility of these. It's just easier to not talk about A, B, or even I for that matter, due to the relation between them, and the fact that they don't really fit into this table in the first place. If we split the table into the type/standard articles, then we could put a mini version of the table for these "Flat pin style plugs with selected sockets"
(By the way I'm seeing now that "Soviet adaptor plugs" really just belongs in the obsoleted types section on the other article.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
FF-UK writes: "Universal sockets cannot comply with regulations throughout Europe, whether they accept Type G or not (the reasons are already given in the article). My understanding is that they are also not allowed in Australia. FF-UK (talk) 12:17 pm, Today (UTC−7)"
Of course they can't. But the things do exist and it's no good sticking our heads in the sand and pretending they don't. This article is titled "AC power plugs and sockets", not "AC power plugs and sockets that meet some recognized standard". There is a difference between "compatible by regulation" and "compatible by design" (and there's even "compatible by accident"). The verbiage in the lede, among other places, already admits their existence.
Wiz9999 writes: "The reader should understand that we are talking about "official" compatibility anyway (especially if they have read the universal socket section)." In my experience it is foolish... well, make that "wildly optimistic"... to think readers have read and will retain the relevant points from every section, or even every paragraph within a section. Jeh (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As per the discussion above, I have converted all entries of "Yes, but too loosely coupled" into a simple "Yes", all entries of "Yes, but fits with difficulty" into a "Does not fit", all entries of "Fits with difficulty and unearthed!" into a simple "No" (it is possible to force many plugs into many sockets, which is clearly not by design), and finally the single entry that states "Fits, but attached appliance must be of Class II" into a "Yes" (this should be a given for this 6A two-pin plug type anyway). This now leaves us with only 6 possible/optional entries; "Yes", "No", "Does not fit", "Fits, but unearthed!", "Fits, but with too high rating!", and "Fits, but with too high rating and unearthed!". Please note; I have additionally restored the "Does not fit" entry as per the statements in #Compatibility Table below. I have moved forward with these edits as a month has gone by with no further discussion on these matters, and I have to assume that these proposals have not been rejected. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
AdptEr or adaptOr?
We should probably pick one? I know what I like. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Should have guessed the Wikiconsensus was the weird one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally I prefer ER; I think adaptOR flies in the face of typical pronunciation. But there are many arguments on WP that aren't worth pursuing. Jeh (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally I have always used "-or" but I guess it has more to do with how each of us were taught to spell during their school years. I can see how either ends up being used, as it doesn't really surprise me anymore how English has its weird spelling conventions. :) - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Some time ago, this came up for other articles. IBM used to use adaptor in their computer documentation, but over the years changed. The Channel-to-channel adapter now had a redirect from Channel-to-channel adaptor for this reason. As well as I know, the change by IBM follows changes in English usage. Gah4 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
two?
Single-phase sockets have two current-carrying connections to the power supply circuit. Note that split phase sockets, such as for electric dryers and ranges, have three current carrying conductors in addition to ground, but still count as one phase. Gah4 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
