Talk:AC power plugs and sockets/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Edison and Swan Electric Light Company

Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company

A passage in the article reads "... the Edison Swan Company was also manufacturing two-pin plug and sockets in the 1890s ...". The company was not called that in the 1890s; it was called Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, as the catalogue of 1893 clearly shows. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, but as the source of the information, Mellanby, refers to the Edison Swan Company then that is what we should use here. I have maintained the link which you added to the article on the history of Edison Swan, and note that when you edited the article you used a version of the name which was neither in the source cited, nor what is shown in the catalogue you cite (which, incidentally, does not include plugs and sockets). Deucharman (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Could it be that Mellanby got the information wrong as well as the name? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a fair question, his source may be "The Pageant of The Lamp", published by the Edison Swan company in 1947, listed in Mellanby's bibliography, but I have not seen that. He does refer to an 1897 patent (23033) for a form of shuttering in which the shutters were pushed down the socket tubes by the plug pins. Deucharman (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting in a current standards description article and a historical description article

After reading why the featured status ha been lost, I agree, the article is bloated. And those who are interested only in information about current standards may be annoyed or confused by all the historical facts. The current standards article could be tailed with the suggestion: "If you didn't find here the plug you was searching, we suggest to jump to the historical section ..." or something like that. What if I strip off and put in a new article:

• History section
• Obsolete types

? --Robertiki (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Most encyclopedia articles aren't divided into "history of" and "present day." I think section and subsection headings should be enough to guide people around the historical information if they don't want to see it. Perhaps the division of "really old stuff you're not likely to ever see," "older stuff still commonly found," and "present day standards" into subsections could be made more consistent, and the subsection heads could use a consistent wording to reflect that consistent pattern. At the very least, I think this should be tried before splitting things off into another article. Jeh (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of the suggested split. The evolution of plugs and sockets is an integral part of understanding the types in use today, and why we have such diversity. The history of individual types is a slightly more complex issue because some are dealt with in greater detail by specific articles, and others are represented only in this article. Deucharman (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Split historical and obsolete devices to a new article?

I support the idea of a new article that covers the history of, and historical ("obsolete"), AC connectors in more detail than is appropriate here. There would remain a question of scope: Should such an article include coverage of devices like the 5-gang ungrounded NEMA-like receptacle? Or should those be relegated to (e.g.) the NEMA connectors article? Conversely, it is arguable that the text and picture for the "Original Hubbell plug and receptacle" don't belong in the NEMA connector article; that device is not at all compatible with NEMA. Or is "an earlier connector that was used in North America" sufficient grounds to relate it to NEMA? Should someone looking for information on historical types be forced to chase down info in the NEMA article, in the BS1363 article, etc.? I don't think so. I lean strongly toward putting all historical info in one article, organized according to "current standard types to which they are related." If something is clearly related to a current type then its entry in the "historical" article can be referred to from that type's article.

This approach seems to me to be optimum for "finding things" as well as scalable to future growth of the material.

Comments? Alternate proposals? Jeh (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a current arrangement where this article gives a good overview of all the major types, together with a historical context which is supported by listing obsolete plugs and sockets which are notably different from current types (as opposed to mere variants). Most major types, or families, currently have separate articles which provide more detailed information, including obsolete variants. I do not believe that there is any need to develop a new article for history and historical types, but I acknowledge that this could change if a significant amount of new material were added. Mautby (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First, need is an overly strict criterion for article creation. Second... using the existing articles would be fine, except that we do not seem to have agreement over where certain things in this category should and shouldn't go. The present flurry of activity was prompted by you deciding that two entries didn't belong here. So you (Mautby) moved them to another article, without so much as a word proposing such a change at that article's talk page... which action was (unsurprisingly to no one) not met with unequivocal cries of gratitude and appreciation. A new article could have an explicitly defined scope of including such historical information, regardless of relationship to existing types. Jeh (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is well thought out, and a more in depth proposal than I ha dbeen thinking about, which is a good thing. I can't see why it would be contentious. Having an article that focuses on the history and development of these connectors doesn't mean that historical context needs to be ripped out of this article (or the NEMA article). It just means keeping each article a little more focused. That's actually the entire idea of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which might suit the arrangement of these articles. (Or might not, but the idea of keeping articles focused still applies.) As a side benefit, with an historical/development narrative in an article focused on just that, we can avoid arguments over just how relevant a particular piece of history is to this article, because it won't be here. Dovid (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing here that seems to me to be completely noncontroversial is that we need to decide on an overall design for this and the related pages. If we have some editors thinking that (for example) the "AC power plugs" article should cover every current connector, and others who think the lesser-used ones should be in e.g. the NEMA article, we're going to continue to see what appear to me to be kneejerk reverts. Such reverts are often signs of feelings of article WP:OWNership. This situation helps no one, least of all the readers. Jeh (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeh, your suggestion that "If we have some editors thinking that (for example) the "AC power plugs" article should cover every current connector, and others who think the lesser-used ones should be in e.g. the NEMA article" does not seem to actually represent the issue at the root of this, nor do I see any evidence for such a situation. This started because a new editor added a paragraph and image under Obsolete types (lightswitch style) which does not represent a type, merely a variation in packaging. That edit was, I venture to suggest, very badly written, the editor had also made inaccurate edits to the 5 socket receptacle (which is also not, strictly speaking, a 'type'), thus drawing attention to it. Mautby chose to remove both paragraphs. CarolinaWren suggested the compromise of moving them to the NEMA article, which I subsequently attempted to do but was beaten to it by Mautby (who also improved the text of both paragraphs), your response to this was "Thank you, that is a reasonable compromise." which does seem to indicate that there was a reasonable. The suggestion for a separate history article is a reasonable one, but probably unnecessary at present. Deucharman (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is no need for a separate article. SSHamilton (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

American 115 V style 5-receptacle socket

Unusual American 5-receptacle 115 V style socket, ca. 1928

Since I and Mautby have a difference of opinion on this, I'm bringing it here. He's of the opinion that this socket, should not be considered obsolete because it is electrically compatible with the NEMA 1-15 plugs. I'm arguing that it is obsolete since the NEMA standard only allows for at most a triplex receptacle in a standard sized unit and that this quintuplex unit places the receptacles too close to be NEMA compliant. (As an aside, NEMA 1-15 receptacles are just barely not obsolete as it is, having been allowed only as replacements for existing installations for almost four decades now and not for new construction.)

Now possibly, one might argue that this antique receptacle unit is not significant enough to warrant mention in the article, altho I think it would be shame to not have this mentioned someplace in Wikipedia, as it demonstrates a practice that is no longer considered acceptable. Certainly if we had a separate article on obsolete electrical gear, it would go there. However, lack of significance was not the rationale offered for deletion of this material, but that it is not obsolete. Besides, even if be considered obsolete, I think it should be retained under the unusual types. Carolina wren (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carolina wren (talk · contribs), but more so: I disagree with both of Mautby's removals. The article is not titled "Current AC power plugs and sockets". Nor is it titled "Standards-compliant AC power plugs and sockets". It does contain a section called "History" and another called "Types in present use"; the latter admits the possibility that another section for types not in present use might appear. Indeed, the article also has a long-standing "Obsolete types" section. Mautby's argument for removal is that to be considered "obsolete" here an item has to be not physically compatible with any current standards-compliant parts. But "obsolete" merely means "no longer produced or used; out of date"; it does not have to mean "incompatible with non-obsolete stuff." The US two-prong five-gang outlet and the "lightswitch" outlet most certainly fit that definition and should not be excluded. Nor is this merely a "packaging difference" from one of the "types in current use", as the "packaging" (number of outlets per device, etc.) is very much part of the NEMA standard, the NEC, etc. So: These devices are both a) not allowed by current standards and codes, and b) haven't been in production for decades. That makes them obsolete. And they most certainly fit under the "AC power plugs and sockets" article title. SO: They belong in the "Obsolete types" section of that article. If no better rationale is offered than "NEMA 1 plugs are still in use" then both paragraphs should be restored. Jeh (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have clearly failed (in my edit comments) to convey the reasons for my removal of these two socket forms. Within the context of this article I would claim that a "type" refers to a plug/socket with a particular pin disposition, orientation, size and rating, not to a variation of packaging format, eg the number of sockets contained in a package. An examination of the types currently included under the "Obsolete types" heading shows that each type shown has a unique "pin disposition, orientation, size and rating", a qualification which does not apply to the two American variations removed. If it is desired that "Obsolete types" should include all obsolete variations of each International type, even those types which are still current in a contemporary form, then there will need to be hundreds (thousands?) of new entries to approach a complete representation of such items. I would be able to add several dozen obsolete versions of BS 546 plugs of various ratings, and a similar number of sockets, just from my own collection. All of those obsolete sockets would accept plugs to the current BS 546 standard, but would be unacceptable for installation under present regulations. Visually they would show a great variety of interesting designs, but this article is not the place for that. If it is felt that the two American forms which I have removed are of sufficient interest to remain on Wikipedia, then a section on obsolete NEMA types, and precursors of NEMA types in the NEMA Connectors article would be the appropriate place. Mautby (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"I would claim that a "type" refers to a plug/socket with a particular pin disposition, orientation, size and rating, not to a variation of packaging format, eg the number of sockets contained in a package. An examination of the types currently included under the "Obsolete types" heading shows that each type shown has a unique "pin disposition, orientation, size and rating", a qualification which does not apply to the two American variations removed." Sure, but you're not the sole arbiter of what "type" means. The current state of the section is not either: The types "currently included under the "Obsolete types" heading", all of which support your definition of "type", are the only ones there because you deleted the others! But if you're hung up on the word "type", there is an easy fix: We can change the name of this section to "Obsolete devices". Or even "Obsolete types and devices". It seems to me that either of these would completely satisfy your objection.

Or we can put these two entries in an "Obsolete NEMA-compatible devices" subsection under "North American and IEC 60906-2". But I feel very strongly that it makes more sense to collect all of the obsolete devices together—just as the existing "History" material is not broken up into Type-specific notes and scattered among the subheadings in the "Types in present use" section, neither should the "Obsolete devices" section.

"If it is desired that "Obsolete types" should include all obsolete variations of each International type, even those types which are still current in a contemporary form, then there will need to be hundreds (thousands?) of new entries to approach a complete representation of such items." This is a Slippery slope argument—a logical fallacy. Nobody said this section should cover all of anything "completely." Carolina wren (talk · contribs) and I are both simply saying that these two entries should be restored, as they are historically interesting and help to show the development of, among other things, safety-influenced requirements. (I would agree that devices that are not historically significant in some way shouldn't be here; a device that simply shows an interesting physical design, but is no longer used because it's out of fashion, doesn't belong here.) As for "hundreds or thousands of entries," let's fix that if it happens. If the section eventually becomes unwieldy, it can be broken up or reorganized at that time, in a manner that seems appropriate given the entries that are there at that time. Jeh (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that this article has been developed with an implicit convention that each "type" (I will accept Mautby's definition in this context) is briefly described without expansion into the many distinct variations which often exist. However, it could be that further expansion might be justified to demonstrate the "development of, among other things, safety-influenced requirements". Certainly there is a story to be told about the use of safety shutters from their first appearance in a pre-standards British 2 pin socket in 1892, through many patented variations used in BS 564 3 pin sockets during the 1930s (before their use was required, and including the earth pin method which was then embodied in the first BS 1363 sockets) culminating with the various patented methods now in use in BS 1363 sockets requiring the simultaneous insertion of all three pins. (Stories could also be told about the development of the types of automatic shutters now used in Schuko and NEMA sockets.) Another theme would be the use of sockets incorporating switches, both to ensure that DC circuits were broken by a fast acting switch rather than a slow withdrawal causing significant arcing, and for the convenience reasons which result in most British (and Australian) sockets being equipped with individual switches today. Then there is the development of different methods of implementing the socket tube to pin connection, from the early days of solid brass tubes which accept split pins with sufficient resilience to ensure good contact, through the MK (MultiKontact) method of ensuring that round pins made multiple contacts along their length to a modified socket tube, and on to the fully sprung contacts used for both solid round and flat pins in modern sockets. All of these developments have led to many variations within individual socket types, both those which are now completely obsolete, and those (such as BS 546 and BS 1363) which are still in current use. I would suggest that such variations are of much greater historical significance than the fact that a previously used accessory having 5 American 2 pin sockets mounted together is now obsolete!

Perhaps the real question is to ask if such a major expansion of this particular article is desirable, or whether such details should be covered in separate articles, including, possibly, a complete history of the development of the American flat bladed plug and socket which, despite being a latecomer to the scene in 1904, has shown a remarkable degree of consistency since. Meanwhile, in the context of the article as it is at present, I believe that Mautby is entirely correct in removing the two examples of obsolete forms of a current type. FF-UK (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mautby is right. These variations are interesting curiosities, but they are not distinct obsolete types. Deucharman (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to removing this particular item to a subsidiary article, perhaps NEMA connector since it is compatible with them, tho strictly speaking I doubt this was ever part of a NEMA standard. However, this particular receptacle unit is interesting enough visually that simple deletion without placing it elsewhere should not be an option. Its existence is the sort of interesting factoid we should keep on Wikipedia, so deletion without placing it elsewhere first should not be an option. Carolina wren (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now created that section under NEMA connector Deucharman (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a reasonable compromise. Jeh (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought that I had created that section, but there must have been an edit conflict as what is actually showing is a more comprehensive change from Mautby! My apologies for adding my comment without checking if my edit was in effect. Deucharman (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has entered the fray and reverted Mautby's change without further discussion, I have undone this, but at the same time added in the original Hubbell plug and socket as I believe that this merits coverage here. Deucharman (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually removed the obsolete section from NEMA, and moved its content here. Much of the obsolete section in NEMA was for connectors that were non-NEMA (e.g., predated NEMA) so they did not make sense as an obsolete section of NEMA. In other words, they are obsolete connectors used before NEMA was standardized, not NEMA connectors that had become obsolete. (Compare NEMA 2, which is a real NEMA connector that is now obsolete, but is not referenced in that section!) I would like to see any non-NEMA connectors, including the Aussie and Hubbel, removed.

At the same time, it seems silly to have obsolete power connectors scattered across multiple articles. Since the one here is more extensive, it seems the logic plavce for all of them, with a mere callout in the NEMA article. Otherwise, we invite forking, which is a bad thing. An alternative woul dbe a separate article, Obsolete electrical connectors, included summary style into both articles (NEMA/this one).

Separately, all three of us seem a bit quick-triggered on these reverts. Mautby has already violated WP:3RR. We need to stop this Dovid (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, a consensus has already been reached above that the NEMA article, and not here, is the appropriate place for the obsolete versions of NEMA 1 sockets, the Obsolete Types, neither the 5 socket package, nor the "lightswitch" package are really different types. The NEMA article is, I believe, the only Wiki article devoted to American plugs and sockets, and just as lesser details of other types are distributed among the articles relating to those types or National groups, then NEMA is the best place to describe details of NEMA precursors, not here. Deucharman (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Then it ought to be caled "North American eletrical connectors," not "NEMA connectors." Or, better, I like the idea of breaking our a separate article for obsolete connectors. It was an afterthought before, but 1) it ties all of them together, and 2) it avoids arguments over what belongs where. Dovid (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind on what goes on with the NEMA article, but we certainly should NOT be giving over space in this article to details of obsolete variations in a particular plug or socket type. The two American types which are represented here are important, those removed are not. Discussions about what takes place on the NEMA page should be held there. SSHamilton (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it was only part of the organic discussion here. Dovid (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Dovid is arguing that the connector text and image which Mautby moved from the section on NEMA 10 (which it is not) should be replaced there, and also that it should be removed completely (I would like to see any non-NEMA connectors, including the Aussie and Hubbel, removed.) This is very inconsistent, as is the insistence that a broken link should be used rather than a working one. He even effectively accuses Mautby of edit warring! What gives? FF-UK (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He's not the only editor who came to that conclusion. Jeh (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the above cross-allegations of edit warring, there would seem little doubt that Dovid's changes were inconsistent with the facts and that Mautby was quite right to revert them. (Also see discussion in 'Summary style for NEMA' below). In reviewing these connected disputes prior to commenting further on the suggested changes to all AC plugs and sockets articles, I note that the suggested definition of "type" (as offered by Mautby) is entirely consistent with the use of the word in the lede of the article, and the fact that the lede mentions 22 types clearly implies that, in the context of this article, that the hundreds or thousands of variations of plugs and sockets clearly do not count as individual 'types'. That number of 22 (which used to be shown as 18 until it was changed without explanation by an IP editor on 6 September 13)), while it is probably about right, can only be approximate, and is any case unsourced. I will amend it to something a little less precise. SSHamilton (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary style for NEMA

I started what I thought would be an uncontentious cleanup of the NEMA section. Since there is a main article covering NEMA, the normative practice of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is to minimize detail about the "child article" (NEMA) in the "parent article" (AC plugs). What I found in this article was that while not quite as many NEMA connectors were listed, there was a level of detail very similar to that of the NEMA article, and some conflicting information.

Well, I guess I was wrong. Some people find it contentious. Yes, it was unexplained, I guess I should have tagged it as "improve summary style section to meet normal summary style level of detail."

I also got taken to task about sourcing. In summary style, if the summary truly represents facts found in the detailed "child" article, then the references are not needed. (See the guideline for article lead summary sections.)

Removing material covered in the NEMA connectors article merely eliminates duplication/forking, and extra maintenance, and keeps this article tighter. Nothing is lost, as all that information can be found in the NEMA article. I even had a thought to remove all the NEMA connectors from this article, and only leave the top summary paragraph or so. Any information I removed, I cross-checked against the NEMA connectors article, and if it was non-conflicting and missing from NEMA, I added it there. (I think someone reverted that, too. Perhaps it is just beat up on Dovid day, hmm?) If there was a conflict, such as 1948 versus 1950s, I double-checked for accuracy, and chose the more reliably verifiable version.

Anyone care to chime in?

-Dovid (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at WP:SUMMARYSTYLE#References, it does not appear to me that statements in the summary section can stand without references on the basis of the references appearing in the detail article:

Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). The verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle. —the entirety of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE#References

That's the entire #References section. I couldn't find any exceptions in the rest of that article; perhaps I missed them. If not, there really isn't any doubt or ambiguity about it, particularly with the requirement for inline citations. An inline citation, by definition, is not one that's in another article.

However I'm equally miffed at Mautby's revert. His edit summary says "removed doubtful unsupported claim "The blades of the plug typically support the NEMA 1 polarization update")", but the diff does not show that he made any such change. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeh, Please look at that diff again, the statement (which Dovid added) quoted by Mautby is simply untrue. Figure 5-15 of NEMA WD 6-2002 clearly shows that the blades of the plug are the same dimensions, the passage as currently shown states, correctly, "Both current-carrying blades on grounding plugs are narrow, since the ground pin enforces polarity." Deucharman (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. I withdraw my previous objection. Jeh (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not referring to spec but to usage. You are all correct that spec does not require them to be differently sized. However, in manufacturing, they are most often done that way. However, my statement does violate OR, because I got that information personally from Legrand, and not in published docs. So the statement is true, though there is a Wikipedia inclusion issue. I should note that the entire NEMA section has WP citation issues. The practice arose because during the transition away from NEMA 1 receptacles, many consumers would remove the grounding pin to allow a NEMA 5-15P to fit a NEMA 1 socket, which defeated the safety of not just ground, but also polarization as a byproduct. By using polarized blades, "unnecessarily," this kept the hot/neutral consistency even when the end user did something stupid. This fascinating little factoid (to me anyway) could go in history I suppose (!) if I could actually find a reference for it. Perhaps I can get one of the Legrand guys to publish it somewhere, and then cite that, but I haven't been there for a while. Dovid (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Being a UK resident I have a limited experience of use of NEMA, but all the plugs I can find on the Legrand website conform to the spec. Deucharman (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dovid is correct that blades can be differently sized, but it is not "most often", the regular molded 5-15 plug has two narrow blades. However, some rewirable 5-15 plugs (such as some Woodhead products) do have differently sized blades, so it is right to acknowledge this in the article, I have modified it to read "Both current-carrying blades on grounding plugs are normally narrow" Mautby (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Grounded extension cords, too. Perhaps a better text would be, "The specification allows both blades of a grounded plug to be the same size, since the grounding pin enforces polarized orientation, though some plugs are nevertheless manufactured with a larger neutrals anyway, which does not violate the specification." I think that fully clarifies the situation. Tweak that any way you like it.

And now for something completely different, nothing to do with Wikipedia. I've heard informally that it has recently become somewhat more common for data centers in Europe and Asia to provide NEMA-spec twistlock power distribution units (PDU). Anyone here know anything about that? I'm working on a racked equipment spec for a client, and it would be good to hear about trends outside North America that might help toward worldwide standardization for this client. Dovid (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

British English usage in NEMA section? Did consensus change?

With this edit, Mautby (talk · contribs) changed the terminology in the NEMA section to British English ("earth" instead of "ground").

We established consensus here that that was not to be the case. Mautby agreed, with this edit to the talk page:

Agree with Jeh and SSHamilton on use of American terminology in NEMA section. 
Mautby (talk) 8:12 pm, 2 March 2013, Saturday (9 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−8)

Did we have another discussion agreeing that consensus on this point had changed? If so, I must have missed it. Jeh (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point, although we were actually discussing 'socket' versus 'receptacle'. The headings in the NEMA section used the 'earth' term until altered by Wtshymanski today. The list of headings in the Contents section looked strange and clumsy when using both terms. I was aiming for consistency. Mautby (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The previous consensus, to which you agreed, supports Wtshymanski's edit. I don't think consistency in the ToC is an overriding concern. Jeh (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, reverted to 'ground' in NEMA section. Mautby (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Any previous consensus is trumped in this instance by wp:engvar, and specifically - WP:ARTCON. Different types of English usage should not be mixed on a page - so the edit, and the entire section, should be changed (as Mautby did) to read "Earth", not "Ground".

I see that the use of MOS has been commented upon in the above linked discussion, perhaps consensus has changed? Discuss? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I do think it looks wrong using both terms in primary positions in the same article, and is liable to confuse the uninitiated. However, it is not something I want to do battle on. Yes, we should follow the rules, but whilst I am pedantic on the facts, I am not a wiki-lawyer so will go with whatever consensus is reached. Mautby (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Chaheel, WP:ENGVAR and WP:ARTCON are both part of WP:MOS. As it says at the top of WP:MOS, MOS is a guideline. It also says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Therefore it does not necessarily trump consensus. Jeh (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that - you made a point of saying so in the previous conversation as well, which I alluded to. I think that consistency should be maintained, and that an article and circumstance such as this does not fall into the exceptions bracket. I invite further discussion - I'm with Mautby on this one, and would prefer to see the same terms used throughout the article, which I think is common sense. I have been involved in other articles where both types of Engvar are used, and always a single type has been used in the end. MOS may only be a guideline - but it's one of the most improtant guidelines of the entire encyclopedia, and reasons to accept it should be pursued, not reasons to except it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are insisting on is that North American readers encounter speedbumps when they read about the connectors of most interest to them.

Alternately, this is another reason to pursue the reorganization I suggested, and which Deucharman elaborated on, above. Then the "North American and related" article can happily use North American terminology. The paragraph or two that is left here can then use e.g. "earthed (grounded)", and neither "earthed" nor "grounded" need appear in the ToC at all, because we won't have sections here that go down to that level. Jeh (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"What you are insisting on is that North American readers encounter speedbumps when they read about the connectors of most interest to them." - Yes. Tough luck on them. It's swings and roundabouts on a website that covers the globe. Sometimes I can read about TV programs that are in color and run by season, and sometimes my fellows across the pond can read about cars that have bumpers and run flat tyres. The principle is the same regardless of the article. Consistency should be maintained, which in this case is BrEng. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep writing in absolutes, as if your pronouncements are the final word. My understanding of WP policy is that guidelines exist not to bind us, but to serve us: to steer us to writing articles that are more effective at communicating information to the reader than they might otherwise be. Consistency should be a goal only if it is the best way to serve that purpose. I do not believe that insisting on British word choices in material describing North American wiring devices makes that material more effective, and I do not agree that the goal of consistency for its own sake can possibly override that concern. Also, most of the sources for such material will be using "ground", so what happened to the principle of using the terminology that appears in your sources? For "glue" between this and the other article sections, usage of e.g. "ground (earth)" should be sufficient. Jeh (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion - mine is different. My opinion is that the MOS guide should be followed - yours is that it shouldn't. My opinion is that this article does not meet the criteria for exception - yours is that it should. WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, when 99% of the encyclopedia manages perfectly well to have quotes & sources using certain terms, but the article itself to use different terms - I see no reason why this one should be any different.

I do not see how using different terms to describe the same thing can be described as effectively communicating information to a reader. And within the encycolpedia I've never heard of "the principle of using the terminology that appears in your sources" - where do you get this from? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for using more discussion-oriented wording.

Following your sources' terminology was a key point in, for example, the huge fight discussion that led to the current state of WP:COMPUNITS.

What do you think of the idea of moving almost all of the group-specific detail into group-specific articles? This would seem to be a solution that would satisfy everyone here, and it has other advantages, as outlined previously. Jeh (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that breaking out some major sections into separate articles (appropriately Wikilinked) would be beneficial. The main article here is already too large and unwieldy to edit and to read conveniently. Also, breaking out the detailed coverage of major subtypes (such as NEMA connectors) would reduce the amount of unproductive WP:ENGVAR disputes such as this one. Reify-tech (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

10A load pulling more than 10A

With regard to this edit it should be pointed out that while generally correct, and that "A 10A load won't pull more than 10A regardless of what the circuit can provide" it should be qualified that a "correctly functioning 10A appliance won't pull more than 10A". Should an appliance be faulty it could conceivably (try to) pull more than it is supposed to, leading to all sorts of problems. Not sure if that's too esoteric to mention in the article, but other comments are welcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean "with regard to this edit comment", since my edit to the article was solely to restore what I considered a statement about the regulations, without including the rationale which the previous editor challenged. In the edit comment I was simply asking a question. Your answer is of course correct (and the reason for BS1363 using load-specific fuses in the plugs, yes?). I think though that before incorporating any rationale for the regulation we need a strong reference, lest it appear to be OR. Same (but maybe stronger) if we want to suggest that there also should be a reg against adapters going the other way (as per the previous editor's comment). I think, though, that the previous editor made the same mistake I made, that of assuming properly functioning everything. If you try to run a greater-than-10A load on a 10A circuit, the breaker or fuse should open. But what if it doesn't? Jeh (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, "edit summary" - my mistake. I'll not correct it because it's obvious, you understood it, and if I do change it, it will make your own edit look odd. I'm essentially doing the same as you - asking a question, and yes again - fused plugs were my thoughts when I saw the comment. It doesn't necessarily need to go anywhere (especially if sources can't be found - could be tricky that one,) but I just wondered about a modifier, and whether other editors had thoughts: Should we assume that in this (and the similar) articles that unless otherwise stated all devices, sockets, plugs and cabling etc are working as specified and to tolerances? Normally yes, but in an instance where we've already conceded to breaching those tolerances - 16A into 10A - might not other assumptions be valid? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Answers to jeh: First: there is no such law (year and number, please ? "law's" are expression only from Parliament). Second: if you put a 16A load on a 10A socket, connected to power as the relevant standard (not "law", please), i.e. with current limitation circuit, there is no way you could overload che power lines or the power cord. But if you put a 10A load on a 16A socket and the load goes faulty you would fry the 10A load cable and possibily burn your home. If adapters were illegal, it would be the 10A load plug to 16A socket adapter. For that reason, the hybrid 10A-16A socket is ok only with 10A current limitation. But some installer's don't understand that (they say: it's a pity that you could get only 10A from a 16A plug ... the don't understand that you have to plan for exceptional events, not for regular operating conditions). You write: what if the breaker or the fuse does not open ? That is simply unacceptable: if the breaker or fuse are not in working condition, the circuit should be put immediately offline. No excuses. Where have you read about the law you referred ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't originate the text in the article that referred to the law. Or regulation. (You'll notice I used the latter term above.) You'd have to go through the edit history to see who did. Jeh (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I claim no particular knowledge of the regulatory situation in Italy, but it is certainly possible that the sale of such devices as an adaptor which facilitates the insertion of a 16 A plug into a 10 A socket could be illegal. The relevant standard to which Italian adaptors must comply is CEI 23-57 (I do not have a copy of that). If we take the example of the UK, it is illegal to sell a domestic appliance in the UK fitted with a plug other than one which conforms to BS 1363, that is achieved by a regulation which is promulgated as a statutory instrument (the particular one being S.I. 1994/1768) this has the full force of UK law and prescribes penalties, including prison sentences, for offenders. Unless Robertiki knows why such legislation does not exist in Italy then his comment is unfounded. To suggest that it is not a problem to connect a 16 A load to a 10 A socket is incorrect. A 10 A socket is rated at 10 A, and should never be subjected to anything greater, even though there are other safety measures in place. Take a look at the website of the Italian electrical manufacturer SCAME you will find details of adaptors which include many allowing 10 A Type L plugs to be connected to 16 A sockets, but none which allow 16 A Type L plugs to be connected to 10 A sockets. Perhaps someone with knowledge of CEI 23-57 and Italian regulatory practice could supply suitable wording for the article? Deucharman (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You write: "but it is certainly possible that the sale of such devices as an adaptor which facilitates the insertion of a 16 A plug into a 10 A socket could be illegal" combined with "the law is widely ignored and such adapters are widespread" you and the original editor are painting the picture of a joke of a country. Let us underline your point: you assume a law prohibits the selling of 16A plug to 10A socket adapter and SCAME has it in his catalog. The implications could be offensive for an italian. You write about the UK standards. I reply: I am pushing for the same standard in Italy. For the same exact reason why the 10A plug to 16A socket adapter should be prohibited or ... use load-specific fuses. So, you see: I fully agree with the UK standards and laws. What you don't understand (or know ?) is that a UK circuit has, for example, a 32A current limitation, too high for the BS 1363 plug or the appliance, which came lower. But an italian circuit for 10A sockets has, per standard (CEI 64-8) a 10A current limitation, that is: the circuit is limited, so you could put what load you want: if you get it wrong, you would trip the breaker. Look at this scenario: italian users are rarely technologically proficient, and what they can plug, they will plug it in. The standards and electrical manufacturers put the correct plug to extension cords. For example, a 10A extension cord would have a legally a 10A plug. Or not ? Now, put in a 10A plug to 16A socket adapter. Follow it with the 10A extension cord. And follow it with a multi-way adapter. Now you have the recipe for trouble. At this point, what prevents a user to plug in two 1800W heaters ? The 16A breaker would be happy. The 16A socket would be happy. The 10A extension cord not so ... And please, look at page 3 of the SCAME pdf. The very first adapter listed is a 10A socket to 16A plug (schuko compatible). Following your reasoning, it should also be illegal. --Robertiki (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I almost regret asking this in the first place now.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is - you state that Jeh "...and the original editor are painting the picture of a joke of a country" and yet freely state later on that "italian users are rarely technologically proficient, and what they can plug, they will plug it in". That seems to paint a worse picture than anythign Jeh may have implied - and I don't even see Jeh's implication. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Why regret ? It is interesting. I do not see anything objectionable in italian users being rarely technologically proficient, and you qualify it at the same moral level as being unlawful. What is wrong if a non-technical person plugs in a socket a plug that fits in ? Is it the same as producing and selling what is prohibited ? I am really surprised. --Robertiki (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Robertiki:

1. Nobody has intended to insult Italy or Italians (please see WP:AGF). Please remember that there are many, many places with nonsensical laws and regulations, and places with laws and regulations that are routinely ignored. But where such exist, WP will document them, regardless of who takes offense.

2. Regarding the supposed law or regulation, though, the rule on WP is that any unreferenced statement in an article may be challenged and removed. You have challenged and removed this one, so until someone comes up with a reference that such a law or regulation exists, its description should indeed remain absent from the article. No amount of reasoning here as to what regs "should" exist, or not, should trump that.

3. There is no text in Deucharman's post that supports your accusation that "you assume a law prohibits the selling of 16A plug to 10A socket adapter". Saying that such a law would be "possible" is not the same thing as assuming that such a law exists. And Deucharman's "I claim no particular knowledge of the regulatory situation in Italy" is an explicit disclaimer of any such assumption. Please desist in such claims.

4. Your point about the extension cord is well taken. However, Deucharman's point about the inadvisability of connecting a device with a 16 amp plug to a 10 amp socket is also well taken. Wiring and socket devices intended for circuits of a given maximum current should simply never be connected to a significantly greater load, and adapters permitting such connection should not be routinely used. It is irresponsible to depend on devices like circuit breakers or fuses as adequate protection in such cases. The socket or wiring might be damaged by the overcurrent before the protection device opens. The protection devices themselves are often problematic: A user might replace a blown fuse with a coin; an oft-tripped breaker may not trip the next time, or may not be able to be reset. The protection devices are there to handle exceptional—i.e. rare—conditions, like line-to-ground faults in the user's equipment. For these and similar reasons, an adapter permitting connection of a higher-amperage plug to a lower-amperage socket does not seem to me to be a good idea.

Jeh (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Deucharman (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Please don't exagerate the significance [1], "insult" is different from "offending" and I don't see how my words could implicate "intentionality" in Deucharman word choice.

3. I have cited the exact words of Deucharman (with a copy and paste), following *after* with my undestanding. Any reader could look if I have misinterpeted or not. So I have not made any claims about Deucharman. And I have chosen the words "*could* be offensive". Language barrier ?

4. You write: "It is irresponsible to depend on devices like circuit breakers or *fuses* as adequate protection in such cases." Should I refer to the British BS 1363 standards ? Are you involving that the British standards are nonsensical ? (no claim, only a question). Should I explain you why the fuse in the British plug is "functionally" the same as a breaker in the Italian circuit ? Your reasoning shows that you do not know how a safety chain works. Nobody could protect a user against his stupidity (a coin ?). But we could do a lot to protect users against their technical ignorance. The standards are there for law abiding users, not for the criminally irresponsible (putting a coin in place of a fuse could follow in manslaughter). Hmmmm ... we need an article to explain what are the standards rational.--Robertiki (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1, 3: So, I gather that you weren't offended and you are not saying or meaning to imply that anyone intended to be offensive? That's good.

4a: The British standards do not allow the sale of a device that adapts a BS 1363 plug to a lower-amperage socket, and all breakers and fuses in that system are sized according to expected load and the capacity of the wiring they protect... so it is not at all a parallel case.

4b: Again re. BS 1363: While the fuse in the plug and the circuit breaker on the circuit are both overcurrent protection devices, they do not have the same purpose in application! The fuse in the plug protects the appliance's flex cord from overcurrent caused by a fault in the device, at current levels that might overheat or damage the flex cord but at levels too low to trip the circuit's breaker... while the circuit's breaker protects the wiring and wiring devices. (That is why they have different current ratings.) Note that your example of the 10A extension cord in the 16A socket (via adapter) could be addressed similarly, by mandating that the former include a 10A fuse in its plug.

4c: "Nobody could protect a user against his stupidity ... But we could do a lot to protect users against their technical ignorance." Yes! This is exactly why Deucharman and I hold to this opinion: An adapter that permits the routine connection of a high-amperage appliance to a lower-amperage circuit, even though there is every expectation that the circuit breaker will trip during normal operation of the appliance, is a bad idea. Tripping a breaker or blowing a fuse is an exceptional circumstance and should not be permitted by routinely-available accessories. You've made a good case for the opposite-direction adapter also being a bad idea, but these are independent points. Jeh (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

3: A gaffe (= social blunder) ? And anyway, why personally offended ? :-)

4a-1: Could I read the exact wording of this specification ? And could you give me an example of a lower than 13A BS 1361 socket ? Or do you intend a BS 546 socket, 2A or 5A type ?

4a-2: The breakers are sized according to the wiring capacity, NOT that of the expected load. The fuse make the correction/adaptation to the expected load capacity. Don't mix the two different purposes, otherwise you would not understand my point. Look:

british (safe): 32A breaker --> BS 1363 socket ----------------------------> BS 1363 plug --> 13A or lower fuse --> load

italian (danger): 16A breaker --> CEI 23-16 16A socket --> CEI 23-57 adatper to 10A socket --> CEI 23-16 10A plug --> load

italian (safe): 10A breaker --> CEI 23-16 10A socket --> CEI 23-57 adatper to 16A socket --> CEI 23-16 16A plug --> load

4b: correct purpose description, but from the safety point of view, breakers and fuse are same; instead of breakers, fuses are also accepted. And I agree, the reason I am proposing the 10A fuse standard for italian adapters with 16A plugs (italian or schuko, also widespread in Italy).

4c: Let me establish a point: I am not supporting the adapter built of a 10A plug and 16A socket. But I'm condemning the adapter built of a 16A plug and 10A socket. The later is dangerous. The former is primarily inconvenient, because, for each user error, it triggers the breaker (or blows the fuses). If the risk of failure of breakers and fuses would be so high to deem dangerous the reliance on their operation, then all circuits so protected should be considered dangerous.--Robertiki (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion, which is undoubtedly of interest, should not be taking place here as it has nothing to do with improvement of this WP article. I would say that Robertiki's concerns about the use of a 10A plug in an Italian 16A socket seem rather strange when one considers that throughout Europe (except UK and Ireland) it is approved practice to use a 2.5A unfused plug (Europlug) in 16A sockets (and the Europlug may be legitimately fitted with a 0.5mm flex). Deucharman (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why rather strange ? First, if the plug is unfused (sure ? why is it not rewirable ?), the same considerations apply. Second, it is correct that the Europlug is fitted (not "may be") with a 0,5mm wire, but aren't they reserved for the shaver sockets or other sockets with a 200 mA current limit ? Third, only class II-equipment for household, that is "double insulated", should be connected (not that the last point reduces effectively the danger). --Robertiki (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Main article titling for variants of AC power plugs and sockets

I propose consistency. British section is titled "AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types". The American section should be "AC power plugs and sockets - NEMA and related types" and not simply "NEMA connector" or like in Deucharman's proposal:

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

Argument in favor is: when I search "AC power plugs and sockets" I would see also the other articles without entering in the Overview page: faster and less load on Wikipedia servers :-) Beside, also the Overview page name should be changed from actual "AC power plugs and sockets" to "AC power plugs and sockets - Overview" or better "AC power plugs and sockets - World" --Robertiki (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Round unearthed sockets V.S. GOST 7396 C 1

Is there really a need for two separate sections about round unearthed connectors (that can connect with male europlugs, male schucko (CEE 7/4) connectors and male CEE 7/5)? GOST 7396 C 1 seems to be a specific implementation of round unearthed connectors. Compare with schuko (CEE 7/4) is both defined by IEC 60884 and DIN 49440/DIN 49441 without any need for separate sections for each (compatible) standard/implementation.

As far as I know the important point is whether the socket can accept 4.8 mm pins (e.g. unearthed dutch sockets that accept CEE 7/4, 7/5 and 7/7 plugs) or only 4.0 mm pins. SomnusDe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the distinction, which is why of all the plugs and sockets described in GOST 7396, only the C1 plug and socket are mentioned in this article. The 6 ampere version of the C1 socket cannot accept the Schuko or French plugs. Possibly the GOST section should be moved to be a subsection of the CEE 7 section, although as far as I know, the 6 amp plug and socket are not defined in CEE 7. (Though they might be since we appear to be missing some numbers.) Carolina wren (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Use in popular culture

In the British Trip hop trio Massive Attack first album Blue Lines there is many different paintings and symbols that make no sense. One of which is a plug socket and AC Plug, others include washing machines, ect. Plug Sockets are also an innuendo. Also do not confuse the word plug with Pug. 92.39.198.184 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm not familiar with Massive Attack, so googled the album image, and this is all I could come up with. It looks like a toaster to me, and there's no plug that I can see. Claiming that plug sockets are innuendo is a common issue, given that penetrative plugs are referred to as male, and receptive sockets are female. Finally, I think it's highly unlikely that anybody would confuse electrical plugs with a breed of dog? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Massive Attack have many things in their albums. Designs by Robert Del Naja also a street artist. The plug socket isn't on the cover but is inside the artwork. I think plug sockets are innuendo (probably in the article). Also dogs are funny. 178.16.7.211 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel that an "in popular culture" section is justified in this article. Jeh (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Jeh. Deucharman (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think my opinion to be evident, but in case not - I also see little justification for such a section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• If we are doing in popular culture, the cover of the Hawkwind album PXR5 deserves a mention. Although not mentioned in that article, the original cover had an illustration of hazardously wired UK plug tops (live to earth faults). This is the sort of joke that appealed to the band. On sale, they had to be covered with "do not remove" stickers, lest Hawklord fanboys used them as reference material for re-wiring. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not. From another discussion about an "In popular culture" item:

The standard criteria apply: was there a notable real-world impact? Did the subject take notice of the reference? Did secondary sources pick up on the reference? In its present form, none of those criteria were met by this section, and it shouldn't go back in until such point as that's been remedied. --thumperward (talk · contribs)

Very interesting. The Wikipedia article on the PXR5 album does mention this under "Release history", and the album cover picture in question is also shown. Googling "pxr5 hawkwind electric* plug" turns up a number of reviews and at least one book mentioning the bad wiring diagram. Are you suggesting that none of these are WP:RS? If they are all considered non-usable sources, I suspect that much of the Wikipedia coverage of popular culture and music will have to be mass deleted.

Also, here is a picture of an HSBC advert showing an electrical plug adaptor of dubious safety. Reify-tech (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Considered mass deletion of much of IPC content would indeed be a great improvement (try Theremin). It seems to vary though between piecemeal adding "My favourite <whatever>" and unthinking bulk blanking of the section on a claimed principle, which isn't much better.

This isn't a sourcing question: that much is clear. The question is (as Chris notes) about the commutative nature of such pieces: plugs having an effect on PXR5 shouldn't be here, PXR5 having an effect on electrical practice should. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your basic policy here (although AFAIK this isn't policy, to the regular detriment of articles). However in the PXR5 case, it did have enough real-world impact to cause The Great & The Good of UK electrical safety to act as a direct result and so require the added sticker. I don't know on what legal basis they do this – is there a department of LP Safety? Did they threaten Charisma Records with a global PAT testing audit? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of an interesting question. If one were to look hard enough one could find examples for any "mundane" object to appear in a "popular culture" or similar section. ISTR that in Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix Arthur Weasley has a diagram of how to wire a plug pinned to his office wall. But the question is - does any of it actually justify a section? I suppose grounds for inclusion (or creation) would be for the object to be in a situation out of context, and to have been commented upon by reliable third party sources. I don't think that's happening here. Although I still don't think it's worth a section, I think it is worth discussing, ass this sort of thing could have further reaching results.Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reify-Tech wrote: The Wikipedia article on the PXR5 album does mention this under "Release history", and the album cover picture in question is also shown. Googling "pxr5 hawkwind electric* plug" turns up a number of reviews and at least one book mentioning the bad wiring diagram. Are you suggesting that none of these are WP:RS? If they are all considered non-usable sources, I suspect that much of the Wikipedia coverage of popular culture and music will have to be mass deleted.

How could I have been suggesting that they were not RS when they weren't brought up before? Anyway, the WP article can't be used as a source. Reviews, etc., that mention the picture don't count unless they show that the subject took notice of the reference.

The stickers mentioned by Andy: was that really at the direction of some UK official agency, and is there a RS for that claim? Or did Charisma Records do it on their own? Sometimes these things are done to generate publicity - "the album cover with the forbidden picture!" The latter wouldn't qualify as real-world impact IMO.

Also, if this is going to be anywhere, shouldn't it be in the article on British wiring standards? ... unless the "real-world impact" extended outside of the UK. Jeh (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Supposedly Charisma lost a sizable amount of money on the re-stickering (once a record goes out to the shops, this sort of change is very expensive). Even in 1979, Hawkwind weren't a big enough band (even on Charisma, the home of prog rock) to justify this as a stunt. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Supposedly." According to whom? See bolded text above. Jeh (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Move all detail info to group-specific articles?

(continuing discussion from previous section)

Deucharman: That "suggestion" (more of a "caution", really) was not meant to be a summary of recent events, but an example of a situation we would like to avoid. The more different articles there are in a topic area, the more doubt and disagreement can arise as to where exactly things should go. Even if a "history of" article is not created I think there needs to be some clearer understanding of just what goes here and what goes in the "detail" articles.

One way to do that would be to shift practically all of it to the "detail" articles. The bulk here could really be reduced to a paragraph or two for each "country or region group" (NEMA, UK and others using UK-like standards, Europlug-compatible, etc.), giving the defining characteristics (two flat parallel blades for the most common North American connector, two round pins of specified length and diameter for the Europlug group, etc.), saying where each is used, showing how each fits into the overall grand scheme of AC power plugs and sockets... and pointers to the detail articles for everything else. Jeh (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeh, that may be a constructive approach worth looking at. I am going to mull over it. I`ll be interested to see what others think. Is there a precedent/method for developing new articles in parallel with existing articles without changing the existing until the new is in shape? I guess it will be tomorrow before there is any response from Deucharman and other European based editors. Mautby (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. You can create a "sandbox" that starts out by being copied from the existing article, usually in something like talk:articlename/sandbox1. The first edit comment on that page should point back to the specific version of the existing article it's copied from. You work on that, and then when done, you just copy the text of the sandbox on top of the old article. You link back to the sandbox page in the edit comment when you make the changeover, so people can find the edit history (for copyright, etc., purposes), and you leave the sandbox with a "do not edit or delete" notice at the top, and rename it to _archived as a notice that it should not be deleted.

See for example this one, the development of which was discussed here and in the first two sections here; and finally here is where the sandbox was copied into the real article. Note that "sandbox" in the edit comment is a link thereto.

The same could be done for each detail article, but I think that most of those changes could be made in situ as it will just be a matter of adding info to them, not a re-org. We should of course make this proposal on the talk page of each existing detail article, so that editors who are watching there, but not here, won't be caught unaware and can have some input. I would think they would be happy about not having to worry about coordinating those articles with this one.

I suppose this article could remain the place for historical devices with no obvious ancestry to current types. Clearly, historical (even if not "obsolete", e.g. the 5-gang receptacle) devices that are obviously related to current ones would go in the type-specific articles. Jeh (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My initial reaction when I read this earlier today was not good, but I held off commenting and the more I think about it the more I like it. The BS related types (pre-standards, BS 73 (obsolete 2 pin ), its derivative BS 4573, BS 546, BS 1363 and the clock connector are currently spread across this article and 2 others (BS 546 and BS 1363). Gathering all this, along with the derived South African and Indian standards, is quite attractive. I can see how a Continental Europe related article could draw the individual histories into the present situation of multiple socket types which all accept the Europlug as well as their own plug types, and include the IEC 60906-1 with its derived Brazilian and South African standards. The Euro related articles to be combined would be Europlug, Schuko, IEC 60906-1 (One possible snag, probably unavoidable, is that it would split the overarching South African standard SANS 164 across two articles, but I suppose that relating them would be one of the functions of the stripped down version of this article. Another would be how to deal with GOST 7396.)

The American article would presumably include the Japanese JIS C 8303, but would it also include the Australian, Argentine and Chinese types derived from the pre-NEMA 1915 Hubbell design, US Patent 1,179,728? Deucharman (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Re your first paragraph: I would think Yes to including JIS C 8303, no to the others (but the common history could be explored here).

Since the summary article (this one) would be pretty darn short, we could probably sandbox it—or perhaps even just one or two sections—pretty quickly, just to give an idea of what it would look like. The material-to-be-moved-elsewhere would not have to actually be moved out of the sandbox yet, it could just be hatted. Jeh (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a tentative way forward. Sounds like we would end up with the following set of articles:

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

Comments? Deucharman (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted in my comments in the section above, there seems little doubt that Mautby's edits were justified. I find it strange that a situation like this can lead to a suggestion for a major overhaul of article structures when no substantive problems have been identified with the existing structures. I am not in favour of the proposed changes. SSHamilton (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is not whether Mautby's edits were justified. The problem is larger editor workload to maintain consistency between this article and the detail articles. Which in turn is caused by having no consistent guideline as to what goes where. Editors come here and add, or change, details that are not in the existing detail articles. Or they put summary information that really belongs here in the detail articles. So we have some of the same points covered at both levels, worded differently. As edits are made to one and not the other, the two can drift farther apart. These issues will be avoided if there is a clearer idea as to what goes where. This reorg suggestion would "lead by obvious example" by putting almost no type-family-specific information here.

It affects readers too. Suppose someone comes here first and reads up on NEMA connectors. Then, if they're not sure they have all the info they need, they might check the linked NEMA article too. Hmm, there are a lot of the same pictures, but some different ones... and the text is different... in some cases quite different. The careful reader has to read both carefully to see if they're actually saying the same thing or if there are any new facts to be gleaned. If on the other hand they read either article alone they may be missing details that they need. The reorg would make it clear that details of connector outlines and of the various sub-types within a "type family" are in the detail articles.

Lastly, I don't think it's that much of an "overhaul." We already have much of the article structure Deucharman outlined; it is just that there is not a clear division of roles between this article and the detail articles. It is clear that the current structure "just growed" by agglomeration, without a design. It's time to fix that. Jeh (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In an attempt to move this forward I have prepared a draft of one of the articles suggested above: "AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types". This can be found in my sandbox. Please do not edit my sandbox, but make comments and suggestions here. I have also placed requests for comments on the BS 546 and BS 1363 pages. Deucharman (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good consolidation and provides a coherent picture of British plugs and sockets - I like it, and based on this I support Jeh's proposal. One possible query would be the position of the chronology, not a big deal but there might be a better position? If the other groups already mentioned could be organized as well as the British then we have the makings of a big improvement. FF-UK (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Deucharman's effort validates Jeh's suggested restructuring, I support this. Mautby (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to those who supported this. As there has been no dissent I have now created the article at AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types and will edit this article accordingly. Deucharman (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the splitting (remember my past suggestion: "Splitting in a current standards description article and a historical description article ?"). It's another way to lighten a bloated article and give a simple overview in the main article, like in the British case, --Robertiki (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the creation of the new AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types article seems to have been well accepted, I am wondering if anyone has plans to create the other three new articles which were agreed above? I could pick up the new AC power plugs and sockets - European and related types which leaves AC power plugs and sockets - American and related types and AC power plugs and sockets - Australian, Chinese and related types. Any takers? Deucharman (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am planning to work on the "American and related types" piece. Since the "NEMA" article already exists it will be more a matter of moving things from here to there and looking carefully at the organization. But it won't be for another few weeks (unless I need it as a break from current for-pay projects!). Jeh (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent move and reverted move of the British standards article. Hyphens and dashes and colons, oh my!

Aleksa Lukic (talk · contribs) recently moved AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types to AC power plugs and sockets — British and related types, citing "correct form". Don't see a difference? Most don't. In any case, Deucharman (talk · contribs) reverted the move. I support the revert, if only because we have quite a few people working on these articles, and changes of this sort should not be made without at least asking those of us who have a considerable investment in time here.

It looks like all AL did was change the hyphen to an em dash (the "longer" dash - the width of a letter m), claiming "correct form".

But actually, if you'll look at MOS:DASH, an em dash with spaces around it is NOT the correct form. But then, neither is a hyphen. Hyphens are just for hyphenated words, where the first word modifies the second and the whole is followed by a noun, like "line-operated appliance". (I feel hyphens are overused in such constructs, but that's just me.) When you want to indicate a "pause", then per MOS:DASH, you are supposed to use either an em dash with no spaces, or an en dash with spaces.

This does apply to article titles. But for article titles you are additionally supposed to create redirects wherein the dash (whichever type) is changed to a hyphen so that searches will work, since most people don't know to use, let alone how to type, anything but hyphens.

(It seems to me that the search issue should be addressed by making WP's search engine smarter: When the search target includes a hyphen it should also hit on both types of dashes, and "minus signs" too, as well as hyphens... and ignore surrounding spaces in the search prospects as well, since MOS aside, there is a great deal of variability in how people type these things. But I digress.)

Not to throw another monkey wrench ("spanner" to our British-English-using friends ;) ) into the works, but I'm wondering if colons would be better for the detail articles, e.g.

AC power plugs and sockets: British and related types

thereby eliminating all the hyphen/dash nonsense. Of course I suppose we should still create redirects from the names with hyphens and dashes. Jeh (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think this is a huge issue. In fact I'd be content to leave the spaced hyphen. But if we have to change it I'd prefer to change to a colon. Jeh (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a big issue either, but I don't think the colon would be appropriate. It might be if that article were considerably renamed to something like: British AC power plugs and sockets: BS 546, 1363, 4573 and related standards. A colon signals a subtitle, a nonessential elucidation of the main title, so it's not really appropriate to use it to separate out an essential subtopic title from the main topic title. I don't think we want to consider any sort of a large rename, so if we decide to rename that article (and similar ones) it should be to AC power plugs and sockets—British and related types or the analogous AC power plugs and sockets (British and related types). Carolina wren (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There was quite a lot of discussion on the creation of these new sub-articles before any change took place. Some of this was quite heated, but as far as I remember the proposed titles were never queried, they are clear and meaningful. Does that not tell us something? I can find nothing that says the existing form cannot stand, so think we should keep it, and use it for the remaining (yet to be created) articles. Mautby (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It just goes to show that we had no one at the time who was pedantic about punctuation. For most people the difference between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes is pure balderdash, but there are those who care about such things. Carolina wren (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My tuppence would be to leave the title as is, mainly on the grounds that nobody - not even the most pedantic amongst us - would type an emdash (or endash) into a search field when looking for a specific article title. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NEMA plugs and sockets

We probably have more application detail here than is needed, after all, there is an article for the NEMA connectors. A NEMA 14 has a neutral blade, so was not a good example - NEMA 6 types have two line conductors, both of which may carry significant voltage with respect to ground, and no neutral blade. The voltage to ground is not necessarily half; window air conditioner receptacles might be wired to two legs of a 208/120V panel, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You could even have an isolated sytem where the voltage to ground is not tightly defined and would be half only by good luck and symmetry of leakage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, please stop being fixated on NEMA (the Concepts and terminology section is about just that) and 3 phase (which this article is not concerned with). The passage you keep tinkering with clearly refers to situations where the line voltage is split in two, such as the systems used for power tools to minimize voltage, and technical power systems. We do not need to spell this out in detail, but it is correct to mention the concept and to acknowledge that this type of connection is used. Mautby (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I type this I'm looking at the apartment block next door, in which every unit has single phase air conditioners plugged into sockets with two pins, each 120 V to ground, but only 208 V pin to pin. Why is it so important that Wikipedia give a precise and wrong value when with a little generaliazation it could make an accurate statement? And not every Schuko plug is on a system with grounded neutrals, either - you could have 230 V pin to ground and 400 volts pin to pin. It's got nothing to do with NEMA. It's quite possible to have systems where the pin to pin voltage is not exactly twice the pin to ground voltage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with your aircon example, but not Schuko which are rated only at 250 V. Mautby (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Maps

In early January I removed the maps from this article, neither have any external sources, and include errors. This article is not about voltage or frequency, so that map is completely redundant in this context. The general quality of the maps, with no textual indication of country names, adds nothing useful to the article. There have been a number of attempts to reinsert these maps with no justification provided, most recently by an anonymous user who claims removal was vandalism! Would all editors please desist from inserting rubbish back into this article as this hinders the process of its transformation into a genuinely useful and properly sourced article. Mautby (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you removed the maps without prior discussion, you can't be surprised that people keep adding them back. You haven't stated what exact errors the maps contain. Furthermore, your claim that the maps add nothing useful to the article because there is no textual indication of country names is offensive - you'd hardly find any similar map here on Wikipedia where all the countries are labelled. I repeat, you haven't stated a single meaningful reason of the repeated removal, so one can only wonder what exactly you are following by this.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:60B6:3C80:EC2A:AAF6 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Mautby, which is why I have been undoing the anonymous editors additions. As Mautby said back in January at Talk:Mains electricity by country Here are some examples of significant errors in the maps: Brazil is shown as using plugs to IEC 60906-1 whereas the Brazilian National Standard is NBR 14136 which does NOT conform to the IEC standard. The main plug in China is Type I, but that is not indicated on the map. The maps have no stated sources and must not be allowed to remain. Deucharman (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As a casual visitor to the article, I would find such maps at least entertaining, even if somewhat vague/inaccurate and of uncertain informational value... Many WP articles fail to facilitate a global view of the subject, have very incomplete coverage of many countries, make it hard to see the "big picture", don't have good cross-cultural analysis content, etc. I hope the two sides of this dispute can find some relevant and appropriate maps for the article. (I don't see why such a world map would need to be cluttered with country names, but I do see why it would be better to have more relevant and accurate content.) Examing the disputed maps further, I find that they would be quite interesting to me (in whatever articles they might belong in) -- if only they were done better: the colors are not well chosen, and the key/legends are problematic... -96.233.19.191 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No outlet switches in US

Why are outlets with switches so uncommon in the US? Safety aside, they would often be convenient! -96.233.19.191 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably cost, lack of requirements, and perceived lack of need. Anyone desiring this functionality can specify a combination switch and receptacle in a duplex outlet format, wired appropriately. This setup works and I have seen it, but only rarely, in some laboratories. In short: It can be done and it works, but nobody is pushing hard to make it a standard. By contrast, there has been a big push for GFCIs and AFCIs as producing big safety benefits, and they are now widely required by standard electrical codes. YMMV. Reify-tech (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, but leaves me curious about the cultural/historical factors behind some countries having built-in switches for most standard outlets, and how this is all evolving over time. (And it puts me in mind of the possibility of using a GFCI test button as an OFF switch for that outlet pair. On the one hand, most GFCI outlets are not tested as often as they are supposed to be. On the other hand, how much usage can they sustain before wearing out?) (Never heard of AFCI -- very interesting read!) (This talk page is getting auto-archived too aggressively for my taste.) -96.233.19.191 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In the UK the original reason for switched outlets was that (with DC supplies) the arcing which occurred when withdrawing the plug was excessive. A number of methods were used to minimize this, they included hand shields (see the illustration of the "Tripin" plug in the historical section of the article), insulating shutters which snapped across the aperture to break the arc as the plug was withdrawn, and switches designed to minimize arcing which could be used before withdrawal. According to Mellanby, both shutters and switches were incorporated in sockets as early as the 1880s. When the BS 1363 socket was planned it was determined that, as it was for AC use only, there was no need for a switch to be incorporated, so there was no provision in the original BS 1363:1947. However, there was public pressure for switched sockets for BS 1363 plugs, so a separate standard, BS 2814:1957, was introduced for them. It was not until 1967 that switched sockets were incorporated into BS 1363 itself. FF-UK (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've regarded the differences between North American power plugs and British power plugs as extreme examples, in an interesting case study of alternative paths in the development of consumer-level technology. The American electrical system (with radial building wiring) was not as frugal in its use of copper as the British system (with loop building wiring), but the US did not experience the severe copper shortages and rebuilding tasks that the Brits faced after WW2. The elaborate British BS 1363 fused plug and switched receptacle made each connection to AC power a relatively big deal, taking up a fair amount of physical volume (some 4 to 6 American NEMA 1-15 non-grounded plugs and compact receptacles can fit into the space taken up by a single British plug and receptacle). Indeed, the British plug by itself is as big as the entire volume of many small American plug-in devices in common use. As a result, the North American market is full of little gadgets (such as free promotional night lights using neon, and now LED emitters) that are casually plugged into multi-receptacle adaptors, and the omnipresent extension cords and outlet strips. I doubt that the typical British home has anything near the multitude of little devices plugged into AC power as in a typical North American home. For a memorable at-a-glance picture, do a side-by-side comparison of the minimal AC plug-in USB power adaptor Apple sells in North America versus its British equivalent.

The safety tradeoffs have been argued endlessly, but I haven't found a relatively objective statistical comparison of the rates of fatal electrical shocks or electrical fires between the systems (any help finding such studies would be appreciated). The radial American wiring setup facilitated the adoption of GFCI and now AFCI safety technology, which are becoming widespread in new construction and major renovations; I'm curious how far these technologies have spread in British households. As another footnote, American codes now require the installation of shuttered receptacles in permanent building installations, whereas British BS 1363 always seems to have required this. Reify-tech (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for those very interesting notes! You lead me to wanting to know more about DC outlets/plugs and arcing, and about loop vs. radial building wiring. (Despite decades of experience with US tech I see how ignorant I am about cross-cultural basics.) I am thinking that most every country deserves a separate WP article discussing history of evolution of plugs/outlets/wiring etc... -96.233.19.191 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

By editorial consensus, the ample coverage of the British standard has already been spun off into a separate article, AC power plugs and sockets - British and related types. Coverage of North American NEMA standard AC power plugs and sockets likely will be spun off sometime in the future. Breaking up this overview article into subarticles for each country would be very premature; the whole purpose of this article is to give a worldwide overview of the topic, allowing comparisons and understanding of patterns and trends. But when detailed coverage of a particular country or group of countries reaches a certain size, it makes sense to spin it off separately, to keep this overview from becoming too large and unwieldy. If you are so inclined, I suggest reading through the constellation of articles on electrical power in different parts of the world. There isn't yet an infobar template other than the "Electronic components" one at the bottom of the article to guide you, so you'll have to rely on Wikilinks and "See also" sections for pointers. Reify-tech (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Where would I start to get the best global-history overview summary introduction to 50hz vs 60 hz and 120v vs 230v? (Has there been a century-long thrilling battle for world domination?) Looks like Utility frequency and War of Currents would be good places to start... -96.233.19.191 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are useful places to start reading about your topics of interest. If you intend to read a lot of Wikipedia articles about electric power, it would be helpful to compile a list of such related articles. Eventually, you or some other editor could turn the list into an infobar template, to give a better overview of these related topics. Reify-tech (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

About user:FF-UK's recent edits and undos in the Swiss section

FF-UK, I am sorry your edit are WP:UNSOURCED, simply because of the follwoing:

- The current Swiss Standard is called NS SEV 1011:2009/A1:2012 as the reference removed by you also proves it. By the way: The 'A' stands for Anhang (attachment) and the currently valid standard would be at least insufficient without it.

- The Swiss standard does not only define plugs, but of course also sockets - what else (besides: hardly any standard does something else).

- IEC's type J refers to plugs and sockets as well, as you can easily check by yourself, if you follow the given link and read it.

- IEC's type J refers to only SEV 1011' Typ 13 and Typ 12, of which 13 only defines a socket, while Typ 12 defines a plug as well as a socket.

- By the way, there is no WP policy about "excessive referencing" as far as I know. But perhaps you can enlighten me?

If you want to contradict, then I invite to discuss this here in a civilized manner, instead of starting an edit war. Do not forget that WP:UNSOURCED equalizes with WP:PROVEIT, which says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

PS: Your constant personal attacks and insults (e.g. [2]) do not improve the weakness of your largly missing arguments, quite the opposite!

-- ZH8000 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

ZH8000 The current Swiss Standard for plugs and sockets is called NS SEV 1011:2009, a document having 34 pages.

NS SEV 1011:2009/A1:2012 is a separate 20 page document, an appendix which defines the requirements applicable to multiway and intermediate adaptors, cord sets, cord extension sets, and travel and fixed adaptors. It does not define the plugs and sockets themselves, and it is therefore quite wrong to say that this is the standard for plugs and sockets! (You may wish to add a separate paragraph describing the purpose of the appendix.)

I have not suggested that the standard only defines plugs, but that the informal IEC letter designations are for plugs, the statement in my edit provides clarity on this.

It does not require a specific WP policy, just common sense, to justify removing a reference which leads to the same document as the reference immediately adjacent to it! Once is enough.

I have also, in my edits, attempted to improve the English.

I am not engaging in an edit war, simply correcting errors. FF-UK (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, while discussion is ongoing leave the prior version in place - as per WP:BRD. Reverting the editor - especially after they have engaged on the talk page - is not quite Edit warring, but it's not far away: See the nutshell on Wikipedia:Edit warring "This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion", also the last sentence in the lede "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also from the lede there: "it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". I've seen several AN/I discussions a declaration that once it is clear that there is disagreement, any further edits to the disputed text can be considered edit-warring. Or as some of us put it, there is no second "R" in "BRD". Discuss on the talk page, not in the edit summaries. Jeh (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are references to the sales descriptions of the two related but separate standards which ZH8000 seems to confuse.

SEV 1011:2009

Note title: Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes

Note number of pages: 34

Note year of publication: 2009

Note that it superseded standard number: SEV 1011: 1998 Amendments

SEV 1011:2009/A1:2012

Note title: Plugs and socket-outlets for houshold and similar purposes - A1: Multiway and intermediate Adaptors, cord sets, cord extension sets, travel Adaptors and fixed Adaptors

Note number of pages: 20

Note year of publication: 2012

Note that it does NOT supersede any other standard!

FF-UK (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments on this, I have now revised, enlarged and clarified the Swiss section of the article, adding further references. FF-UK (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)