Talk:AC power plugs and sockets

Overuse of non-standard (Type A, B, C etc) arbitrary designations

These terms originate from an old US Department of State document (originally intended for diplomatic staff but seemingly slipped into widespread circulation via the interner) and are completly arbitrary with no official or formal basis. Their widespread use in this and other wikipedia articles may give the impression that these designations have some official basis when this is clearly not the case. Wikipedia exists to break down misconceptions not propagate them further. Some may find the terminology convenient but its use should be kept to a minimum. 89.242.207.184 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with you if the origin of the Type A, B, C, etc. nomenclature is as you state. Can you point to some support for that assertion? If so, we can and should greatly reduce or perhaps eliminate that nomenclature from this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We cite ""Electric Current Abroad" (PDF). US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. 2002. http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf." - that's where the magic letters come from. If we get rid of it, someone will have to type in the formal names of al the different types. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's get to it, then; looks to me as if these letter designators are arbitrary and not the industry standard terminology our article presently suggests they are. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to figure out the national standard names for each type. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just how do you go about alphabetizing a list of different standards using different names originating from different alphabets, using letters or symbols which don't even exist in English? How do you establish word-definition priority?

Englishified names and designations are completely acceptable since this article is written in English, and the A/B/C system while arbitrary is neither better or worse than any other global organization method.

If certain editors feel so strongly about wanting other names used by the country of origin, these editors are more than welcome to do that on the many other language articles that wikimedia provides. Go ahead, do a copy-paste of this into the japanese language wikipedia and change everything to use the Japanese language's methods for naming and ordering things.

(I'm still waiting for en-us.wikipedia and en-uk.wikipedia to be spun off and put an end to Colour / Color...) DMahalko (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, yes, we know you're still waiting for Wikipedia policy to fall in line with your opinions and preferences; you've made that clear and been rebuked for your poor understanding of how things are (and aren't) done on Wikipedia. So far it doesn't look as if your point of view will gain much of any more traction here than it did over at Talk:Right- and left-hand traffic. The crisis of ordering criteria you're alarmed about gives every appearance of being without basis; I'm pretty sure this article will be just fine—better, actually—without inclusion of the unsupportably arbitrary letter designations. Suggest you find something more pressingly and realistically urgent to be alarmed about, please and thank you, such as "What if frogs had claws and teeth and lived in toilets?". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with this as well. I previously found myself questioning the emphasis on "Type X" as the main designation, but wasn't sure how difficult it would be to try to move more towards using the industry standard designations instead. We could also modify the table under #Comparison of sockets to use Socket standard as the first column and still keep Type as the rightmost column. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Screw this. My comment was not in reply to the comment directly above and if User:Scheinwerfermann can't leave my comment alone and stop changing the indentation to make it look like it was, forget it. [1] [2] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The A. B. and C. nomenclature is entirely arbitrary but it is the referable global standard we've got. Unless you want to start your very own new way of organizing the world's devices and then try to get the rest of the world to follow this article's way of doing things.... oooooooh, dear, I forget, no original research.... oooh too bad, we will stick with the arbitrariness we've got than the ideal we don't. Just as you stated regarding the Wiekiepaedieae spelling insanity. :-)

When you say we, remember, it's just you. (Unless it's one of your other personalities that retired from something on your talk page back in 2009. The rest of you sure looks active yet.)

DMahalko (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens. Please spend some time carefully reading and absorbing NOR so that you will understand what is (and is not) original research, before you start shouting about it where it's not happening. Also, it's usually best to add your comments to a talk page discussion at the bottom of the thread, not interstitially. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tothwolf, that's a very impressive flounce to add to the ones on your user page and your talk page, but it's unwarranted.. Nobody's trying to nefariously make you look as if you're agreeing with anyone in particular, and repairing hierarchical markup to keep the thread tidy is not refactoring. Just make it clear whom you agree or disagree with, right in your text, and there'll be no doubt about it regardless of indent, outdent, updent, or downdent. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just picked up on this discussion. I concur with DMahalko that the letters from the Department of Commerce document are the best available standard in common use, and I think they should be restored as headings within the article (I see that Wtshymanski has removed some of them). Even if they are not really a standard (in the sense of being promulgated by ISO/IEC), they are often used on retail displays for travel power plug/voltage conversion kits, and they are much easier to remember and use than the official national standard names. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a very narrow US-centric POV. The designations/names used should be those of the relevant authoroties who created the standards, not some totally arbitrary "travellers guide". Roger (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the best available sources. Until IEC puts all its precious deliberations onto the Web for free, we're only going to see US taxpayer supported resources quoted in articles, because that's what Google turns up. That, and all those Tata-McGraw Hill books that get digitized. I speculate that there are more edits complaining about US-centrism in articles than edits that give points of view from other countries. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we add both? This would allow the entries to be referenced by their official names, while still providing the A/B/C names which are referenced outside of Wikipedia and extensively used on the Mains power around the world article (using the full connector names on that page would decrease readability). For instance, the title of the first could be NEMA 1-15 (Type "A"). S-1-5-7 (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the letters is that the US department of commerce document doesn't ever properly define what plug type is meant by each letter It just gives a picture and a vauge description. Some of the pictures are obviously one particular type (E and G for example) but others could represent one of several incompatible or only partially compatible plugs and sockets. Going on the pictures and descriptions in that document and what I know about plugs and sockets.

A is clearly american/japanese two pin. But even within that there are two variants that are only partially compatible (IIRC you can use an unpolarised plug in a polarised socket but not vice-versa)

B has the same issues as A (but it's 3-pin)

C could be any of many incompatible or only partially compatible 2-pin plugs

D could easilly be any current rating of BS546 (which are all incompatible with each other) and probablly other national standards as well.

E is clearly a standard french earthed plug (dunno the formal name for it)

F is identified as a german schuko plug

G is clearly BS1363

H appears to be the older version of the israli standard

I is australian/chineese (which at least according to wikipedia are mostly compatible, at least compatible enough for travelers to get away with)

J was presumablly meant to be a swiss plug but there is also a similar but incompatible IEC standard plug.

K doesn't look like any plug i've ever seen. The tables imply it was meant to be a danish plug the plug body shown in the picture is the wrong shape for that.

L was presumablly meant to be an italian plug but there are apparently two incompatible versions of said plug.

The document also has misleading information in other areas (like marking countries with "A grounding conductor is required in the electrical cord attached to appliances")

In summary regardless of the fact it was produced by the US government that document is an APPALLING source. Sadly most of the information on plug types on wikipedia seems to have come from that document (or from a website that got it's information from there)Plugwash (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I agree with Plugwash. The document gives every appearance of containing arbitrarily assigned letters to various plug/socket systems for the sole purpose of identification within that document, written as a quicky guide for Americans intending to plug stuff in abroad. The letters amount to "Figure A", "Figure B", "Figure C", etc. This is not a standard of any type—not a national one, not an international one—and it is inappropriate for this article to elevate of these letter codes to quasi-official nomenclature. Our job in writing this encyclopædia is to describe the world as it is, not to decide how it ought to be. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a little unfair to lambaste the Department of Commerce for not providing a better free reference for an on-line encyclopedia 15 years later. Let's change the letter names to the national standard names. If we can find out what they are called, anyway - the set of "free" references and non-American sources have a small intersection. (We had one fellow over at BS546 rattle off the list of $3000 worth of British standards, but still couldn't tell us why the first edition of BS 546 was 1950, not "before the war" as folklore would have it. ) --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That rather misses the point. If the groupings are based around a source which reasonable clueful editors agree is basically garbage then the groupings need to be dismantled rather than just renamed. It would be far better to simply list the standards by country and put up with duplication where present than attempt the sort of bogus aggregation which led to the current train wreck. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO the biggest problem isn't so much this article<, it only uses the letter names in passing in most places anyway (some have already been removed) and it does list proper standard names in most places. Some of the letters have already been removed and It would be easy enough to get rid of the others (we would just have to come up with a system for handling the case where several national standards define essentially the same plug, america/japan australia/china etc).

The REAL problem is what to do about "Mains electricity by country". We can't reliably translate from the letters to proper plug type references and since the article is uncited (and even if it was cited a lot of the sources would likely be behind paywalls) we can't go to the cited sources either.

Recompiling it from scratch to anything like the current country count would be a MASSIVE undertaking requiring people with experience in many languages. As wtsymanski implied in his last edit summary ("Wikipedia: the encyclopedia written by cheapskates") would almost certainly be beyond the means of those currently working on these articles in wikipedia and i'm not aware of any reliable meta-sources.

So our choices seem to be leaving that article as a relic of the age before wikipedia cared about sourcing (which is a problem for fixing this article because that article relied on this one to define the plug types, something this article no longer does properly), "fixing" that article while making educated guesses at what plug type was actually meant or gutting that article down to the few countries we have proper information for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2011 October 18

for letter in a...z do googleforrefs(letter.country, letter.plug); findout (nationalstandardnameforplug); editarticle(letter, nationalstandardnameforplug); citereference (nationalstandardnameforplug): next letter. Pretty much the way the whole Wikipedia is written. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

and as for Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Cyrillic or Klingon letters sort order, that's an issue for the developers and not for us mere editors to worry about. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What a mess... With this article at least, for connectors that don't have an "official" standards name (non-NEMA, CEE, BS, JIS, etc), probably the easiest thing to do would be to refer to them as <country> national standard, where country is the primary country which uses them or from where they originated. The majority of the newer connectors have some sort of official standards name though, so this may only be an issue for those listed under #Obsolete types and similar sections further down towards the end of the article. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Self appointed arbiter.

Wtshymanski seems to have appointed himself (or herself) as an arbiter of what may or may not appear in this article (and several others). Two contributions have been made that I regard as relevant.

First: an entry in the nomenclature tabel that highlights the fact that the term 'grounded', whilst regarded as a US term also has a completely different meaning in UK electrical engineering.

Second: The US term 'grounded conductor' (in US parlance) gives the false impression that the neutral wire will be at earth or ground potential. This is not necessarily the case especially in installations where the sole earth (or ground) point is at the substation.

Wtshymanski has unilaterally decided that he or she is entitled to delete them (and in one case providing a nonsensical edit summary). 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles ought not to contain things they admit have nothing to do with the topic. It wastes the reader's time.It's especially pompous when the article says in plain text "This has nothing to do with the topic, but I thought you might also like to know my cat's name is "Mittens"." Railway jargon has nothing to do with plugs and sockets, and we have a whole article on the differences between Indian English and American English, we don't need an arbitrary collection of terms here either. It would also help if the alleged usage could be *documented*, the last time I tried, I could not find anyone saying this, at least within the reach of Google Books. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "unilateral" any more regardless, as I'd normally remove amateurish footnotes like this on sight anyway. We do not need to add paragraphs of text explaining the idiosyncrasies of British versus American terminology to every article which discusses electrical power so long as the subject is discussed on one central location, and it already is. If a particular piece of terminology in a given article is ambiguous then we should endeavour to reword it rather than scribbling clarifications in the margins. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Grouping

Perhaps instead of letters we can group by "NEMA and similar types", "CEE and similar types", "Britsh and similar types" and "Other standard types". And maybe add a column to the table saying "US Department of Commerce arbitrary letters", as well as giving the CEE number or standard name for each group. It would be very comforting to quote from standards documents to clarify that socket <foo> accepts plug <bar> but will also meet standards if taking minimumm and maximum plugs defined in standards <quux>, <beable> and <grault>. Maybe one big cross-plugging table instead of all the repetitive statements explaining that plug X will go into socket Y using hammer H ("can fit" or "approved combination", say). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is beginning to remind me of the major restructuring we had to do with IEC 60320. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's more difficult because all the contents at IEC 60320 were in one standard, and at least one editor had access to the standard. Who has the Russian, Danish, Italian, Japanese,Chinese, Australian, etc. standards? --Wtshymanski (talk)

True, and at least two editors had access to the IEC 60320 standards documents...I had access to the later editions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

IEC TR 83 is not a standard for the letters

Does anyone have access to IEC Technical Report 83? Perhaps that is the source of the letters we're having so much trouble with. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Much later. From what I've seen of the preview of IEC 60083, it doesn't use the same letters as the US Department of Commerce document. IEC TR 60083 does define a short-hand nomenclature for plugs, for example, NO-3 is the third type designated for Norway, but since the standard costs $342, it's fairly inaccessible to us editors. It's also incomplete, as many countries (Argentina, Egypt, and more, according to the title page) don't have their national standards listed in IEC 60083. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Type A, B, C, ...

Okay, I think that it is silly that the conversion that has been going on has been generating so much angst. Given that the new Brazilian/South African standard has no letter, it doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that those letter types are in widespread use, and this article no longer contains them all, which it should somewhere in the article. Carolina wren (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support your assertion that the letter codes are in "widespread use" and perhaps you might swing the consensus in line with your preference. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whose consensus needs swinging? All I can see here against A. B. and C. are Scheiny, Wty, and (maybe) Thumpy. Everyone else says we want the letters.

If it is THAT much of an anal-retentive problem, then make different versions of the same article and re-sort the article however many arbitrary ways you want in each variation:

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard)

Is it THAT goddamn difficult of a problem to resolve? DMahalko (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit war has made a mess of the World Maps section. So wiseguys, what's the meaning of the letters on this map??

Though the meaning is perfectly understandable over in this article here for some reason..

DMahalko (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If the argument for not using the letters is "this isn't any real international standard at all: rather, it's just the method used in this one source", then "not using the letters means that we can't use an illustration based on them" seems rather self-evident. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dmahalko, this is not an "edit war". Matter of fact, it's exactly the opposite of an edit war. To learn the definition of that term, please see WP:EW. Moreover, despite repeated attempts at education by numerous editors—e.g., here, here, and elsewhere on this present page—you seem doggedly resistant to the reality that we don't create multiple versions of articles with this and that and some other spelling or sorting convention. That simply isn't how we do it here, and I don't imagine your future efforts in that direction will be any more tractive or fruitful than your past ones. We work by consensus here. Read up on it; it's not a popularity contest.

Thumperward, I don't necessarily agree that we can't use the letter codes in the world map. If we do, we would need a key to go along with it, that would accurately cross-refer the plug/socket types by their actual, real designations and by the letter codes. Such letter designators and keys are frequently used in images and diagrams where there's no space to spell out the actual designations on or in the image itself. That appears to be how the letter codes came to be in that Department of Commerce document—at least I'm still not seeing evidence to support the letters as anything more than just such a shorthand in that one particular document. If no such evidence is forthcoming, I still don't think we can legitimately inflate the letter codes' currency by using them as official type designators in this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is really just a popularity contest of finding enough people of certain a certain persuasion to vote down the opposing team. It's a simple majority vote around here, and often a VERY simple majority involving just a two or three people, and nothing else matters. The speedy delete occurred only because there is a campground of people sitting around just slavering to delete anything that doesn't comply with arbitrary fungible policies, and I forgot to rally some 40 other people to my side before starting the article fork. My mistake.

Also there is a certain level of pomposity and bravado required of editors to succeed in the popularity game, and you, Scheiny my friend have that one down pat. (Egads, dear me, well I never, good gracious, land sakes alive. Tut tut.) DMahalko (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The premise of your view of consensus is flawed; we don't vote. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, not technically. No, just the most vocal loudmouth says "I'm gonna do X", finds two people to back them up, and does it, and shouts down anyone else who comes along who wants to undo the changes, and says "We're all in agreement here, what's your problem, you moron???" Oh. Hi. DMahalko (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay let's talk about the article. It doesn't matter if the A B C thing is not a world standard. That is not the point. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to describe all the various ways that a topic is described by various countries around the world.

Is Schuko a global standard? No. Is it here? Yes. Is NEMA a global standard? No. Is it here? Yes. And the A B C thing is PART OF THAT MESS. Is it a global standard? No. But as with Schuko, NEMA, and all the rest, it is widely used around the world. So it belongs here, alongside all this other disorganization.

It does not need to be a guiding principal for how to organize the entire article, but it should be included somewhere simply to indicate that this is just another widely used, and yet incomplete way of describing things.

A table summarizing how the letters relate to everything else without all the descriptive text would retain content, and still make this article mesh with everything else that is already out there that uses the letter types. DMahalko (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You make it very challenging to assume good faith when you attempt to use the existence of a multiplicity of plug/socket standards worldwide as support for the use of an arbitrary nomenclature whipped up by one agency of one country's government. Also, you still haven't demonstrated that the letter codes are "widely used". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The general contempt for process and the presumably for-effect use of diminutives for other editors' usernames aren't helping either. I tagged the letters section for a split a week or so ago: what with the lack of evidence that it really denotes some sort of accepted global scheme, I'm coming round to the idea of simply merging any of the good bits to the existing Mains power around the world article and then summarising that content here. The discussion of the letters section could be retained in a single paragraph detailing how one particular classification system was laid out. I agree with your argument that the image can be retained to illustrate that particular classification system if for nothing else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann began the incivilities him/herself right at the top of this talk page, up in the "Overuse of non-standard (Type A, B, C etc) arbitrary designations" section. Everything else before that was quite civil.

Why should this editor get a pass for writing this: Suggest you find something more pressingly and realistically urgent to be alarmed about, please and thank you, such as "What if frogs had claws and teeth and lived in toilets?". —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC) ... with all these wikipedia policies, I would expect someone to be slapping him/her down for writing this to someone else in an otherwise civil discourse. But nope, nothing.

DMahalko (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:STICK Roger (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Land sakes alive. The frogs/teeth/claws/toilets thing was intended as a humourous, noncombative way of pointing out that your preferences and contentions, Dmahalko, were severely out of line with how things are done here. I'm so sorry the humour didn't register and you were offended. Perhaps that's what's happened in the other direction, too, and what has given me every appearance of mealymouthed obstreperousness on your part was in fact attempted humour. If that's the case, I must apologise for having missed it. Either way, Roger's right; WP:STICK is apposite here and now. How about a cuppa tea and a cookie? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support your assertion that the letter codes are in "widespread use" and perhaps you might swing the consensus in line with your preference. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, have you taken a look at any product catalogs for electrical plugs and sockets from companies that supply to the worldwide market? I don't see how you could have and believe these do not see widespread use. Note, I'm not arguing that the type letters should have been kept as the organizing principle for the article. I'm saying that the information is used widely enough that mention of the letter codes should be in the article along with their correspondence to the relevant standards. Carolina wren (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okeh, please show us some of the reliable catalogues you have in mind so we can do as you suggest and look at them. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's three product offerings I got on the first page of results I got from Googling for "Type M plug":

adaptelec.com

amazon.com

atomicmods.com

I'll presume you'll at least have heard of Amazon, though I'll grant probably not the company selling that product through them, Bombay Electronics. The point is not that these designations have universal usage, but that they have sufficient usage to be worthy of being noted and defined somewhere in the article. Carolina wren (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, these won't do. I note that the last of your three links appears to contain text lifted verbatim from this article here on Wikipedia, which is one of several sturdy reasons why we'll need reliable sources to support the notion that the letter codes are "widely used". I also note the scare quotes around "Type M" in your first link, which implies that whoever put them there knew the designation is less than fully legitimate. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me that you have officialitis. "Fully legitimate" indeed. While not sanctioned by any standards body they are in use by sellers of electrical equipment as I have already demonstrated, and frankly given the tone you have taken in this discussion, unless the IEC or some other standards body gives its imprimatur, you will never be convinced of their legitimacy. This isn't an issue I'm prepared to spend more time on this when I don't think you would ever be convinced they should be mentioned in the article short of their being adopted by an official body. I could understand your obstinacy if I was proposing to retain them as section headings, but I'm not so I don't. Carolina wren (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Show us a South African seller or manufacturer that refers to their plugs as "Type M" then we can talk. You seem to be suffering from "America-uber-alles-itis". See Ugly American. Roger (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Is this already on the list of lamest edit wars ever? The reason we use the US Department of Commerce document is that it is free and we can all Google it; whereas the IEC document (that might well have the same letter codes) is several hundred Swiss francs or is only available at bricks'n'mortar libraries. If it weren't for Americans not only would we not have a Wikipedia, we wouldn't have an Internet, either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because it's still not an edit war. It's a talk page discussion. They aren't the same thing. A document that doesn't adequately establish basis for using a system of nomenclature remains unsuitable whether it's free or costs money. And jingoistic babble about how the internet and Wikipedia wouldn't exist without the USA! USA! USA! USA! is fatuous and inapposite. If you're unhappy with the nature of this present discussion, please improve it by making substantive contributions. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it weren't for the American taxpayer, we wouldn't have a Department of Commerce reference or a Wikipedia to look down its collective nose at it. None of our team of volunteer scholars has bestirred himself to find the IEC technical report that might legitimize the letter classification among the anti-American bigots. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "anti-American bigotry" going on here; you'll need to try (much) harder to assume good faith. The document in question would be inadequate no matter whose government printed it up. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good faith is an unnecessary assumption. Can anyone find the IEC technical report? The Department of Commerce is not a bad reference given its purposes, and its very hard to find assertions in the varied collection of national standards that "Yes, we really meant that plug on style sheet X of national standard Y will interchange with our socket P in standard Q, and still meet all our requirements." --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Assuming good faith is always required here. Writing an encyclopædia is not always easy. Sometimes it's hard. That does not exempt us from the responsibility that we do it correctly. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Roger, for the same reasons that a U.S.-only manufacturer would be unlikely to refer to NEMA 5-15 plugs as Type B, a S.A.-only manufacturer would be unlikely to refer to SABS 164 as Type M. These type letters are of most use to those such as travelers who are mainly concerned about whether a plug adapter fits well enough for them to use their thingamajig, and not the fine details that differentiate SABS 164, BS 564, Indian Standard IA16A3, GOST 7396 B1, etc. That indifference to anything other than gross physical dimensions also makes them useful to this article. The main deficiency in that Dept. of Commerce report is that it hasn't been significantly updated in quite some time, and thus is somewhat out of date, especially in the case of countries that have adopted plug and socket combinations not in use anywhere the last time the report was revised. If there were something better than that report that does what it does, I'd cheerfully use welcome its use in this article. Until then, it's something that works well enough to be useful, and is in use outside Wikipedia and thus deserves a mention. Carolina wren (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am not at all opposed to it being mentioned or even used as a reference, what I am opposed to is having it be the index of the article. It is widely used only in the US. I apologise for my snarky earlier post - Many of us non-American Wikipedians face constant (uphill) struggles to counteract the pro-US sytemic bias across the entire 'pedia and at times unfortunately some heat may be generated. Don't forget that WP is not a travellers guide. Roger (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The types references are hard to search for, because the word type is already used for a huge number of other purposes related to electrical engineering and technology.

• • For mounting one 3kVA thru 50kVA transformer, recloser or sectionalizer, having 12” ANSI/NEMA type A lugs (no adapter plate required)
  • Meter Types: 1. Type A (e.g. PD690) meter bezel dimensions: 4.25 x 2.3 x 0.6 (108 x 59 x 15), depth behind panel: 4.7 (119) not including clearance for wiring
  • CMB-Type (NEMA BRACKETS), Cutout & Arrester Mounts, NEMA Type A
  • Class I motor control centers can be provided in NEMA. Type A or B construction
  • USB Type A/Female
  • SINAMICS G150 NEMA. Type A enclosed drive 150 – 800HP.
  • Motor Control Centers - 5071 Seismic Applications NEMA Enclosure Type ... control centers can be provided in NEMA Type A or B construction
  • Schneider Electric - Contactors and Starters > Manual Starters / Protectors and Switches > Type A and B Reversing Drum Switches
  • Type A Series Miniature Pressure Switches Watertight Stainless
  • Display: 8 lines x 40 characters; Keyboards: 3 x 4 navigation and 4 x 4 data entry keypads. Cabinet interfaces. NEMA Port 1 C15S; NEMA TS2 Type A connector
  • Specification for Traffic Signal Cabinet Assemblies, Type A detectors (2-channel)
  • Learn About Tubing, Type A – Acrylic resin coated
  • Industrial Control NEMA 30MM NEMA OL Relays, Coil, Breakers NEMA 30mm Thermal Unit Type A
  • Insulated Cable Engineers Assoc., Type A Flame Test

And that's just "Type A", nevermind B,C,D... Lots of unrelated stuff to wade through, so no suprise anyone else hasn't attempted wasting a few hours to satisfy Scheinwerferman's demands.

After selectively excluding all that, this search is starting to look promising. Lots of "clean" results:

Google: NEMA "Type A" -meter -TS-2 -TS2 -USB -induction -winding -drum -lugs -thermal -drives -enclosure -acrylic -arrester -bracket -pressure

DMahalko (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Off topic terminology section

Instead of the much-loved Wikipedia technique of reciting over and over the differences between US and Indian English, could we put the terminological stuff away somewhere and stay on topic for this article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

German book source

Alles über Strom: So Funktioniert Alltagselektronik By Christian Synwoldt, shows up in a Google Books search. Lots of pictures of strange-looking sockets there, but I don't read German and Google Translate only gives tantalizing hints of what could be there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

...but you don't want to know how he classifies plugs. Don't look at page 204! The really weird looking ones are phone jacks, not power plugs...what a relief. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Organization

I think that grounding and polarization should be described earlier in the article; it would seem to make sense to say "Here are the issues a plug and socket combination has to address, now look at all the different ways people have answered these points". And putting the interchange hazards section up front is a way of avoiding endless repetition of things like "Plug X will fit socket Y if hit hard enough with hammer Z, but the result may not be safe or even usable". --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. It seemed to me that the article took a long time to get to the point, so I moved these two sections to the end and banished the pointless terminology section altogether. However, the grounding and polarization section could also be trimmed substantially, possibly as a short section about compatibility, and moved up again. The history section is also too long, and it seems that beginning with "Design for safety" it ceases being a history section and a higher-level header is required. This part could be rewritten to incorporate the grounding/polarization/compatibility issues. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a try at my proposed organization, and I've distilled some of the key points. I think a Wikipedia article is most interesting and valuable when it just doesn't recite a catalog of how things are now, but instead explains a little of how we got to where we are now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work - it flows a lot better, and the background and concepts are much better organized. As I see it, the next issue is to line up all the pictures so that they line up with their respective headings - I'm guessing a large number of readers come here to look at plug and socket types, so this should be as well-ordered as possible. I'd suspect a consistent pix width would be a good idea, but tables or text boxes might be options, too. Cheers, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to make some use of <br clear=all>, sure it adds some whitespace for people with wide screens but it's far less confusing to have that whitespace than it is to have photos displayed next to the wrong section. Plugwash (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dual ratings

Why are the BS 546 plugs given as 5/6 amp or 15/16 amp ratings? 5 Amps for commoners, 6 amps for nobles or ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well prior to this edit by you the titles of those sections said "BS 546 (United Kingdom, 5 A/250 V grounded), equivalent to IA6A3 (India), rated at 6 A / 250 V" and "BS 546 (United Kingdom, 15 A/250 V grounded), equivalent to IA16A3 (India) and SABS 164 (South Africa), rated at 16 A / 250 V". I haven't read any indian or south african standards but my guess is they tweaked the nominal current rating to match that of some other major electrical component (maybe to quell arguments as to whether it was OK to put a (n)A socket on a (n+1)A MCB). IMO the titles of the sections should use the british standard ratings and if equivilent types in other countries do indeed have higher ratings this should be mentioned in the text. Plugwash (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Tis sport to see the engineer hoist by his own petard. I've unscrewed this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

New format is almost unintelligible to the casual reader.

I understand the concerns regarding there not being a global standard terminology, but arranging the article by names of countries' different standards makes it harder for the reader to understand what he/she is reading. Even if the alphabet types are unacceptable, there should still be a better way to name the sections. The haphazard arrangement of images also doesn't help.

As a reader, one of the first things I want to know from the article is: What are the major compatible groups of plug and socket types? The article should provide an overview of the major types before presenting the details of each and every one of them. I need to know the general difference between plug types which use flat pins and round pins before the difference between the 5-ampere and 15-ampere versions of the BS 546 plug. Perhaps it would be best to begin the types section with a comparison of the main features of each group, accompanied by a drawing, before breaking into detail. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia protrayed the situation as simpler than it really is, then Wikipedia was in error. There aren't "major compatible groups", only a whole bunch of ad-hoc work-arounds so that travellers from East Prussia can use their electrical gadgets in West Ipswich. It's messy and complicated, except for the 3000 km radius around my home that standardized on IEC 60906-2 long before the IEC got round to declaring it a standard. Agree that if we could find some authoritative sources discussing flat vs. round pins, we could benefit from plagiarizing researching those sources. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

...and I forgot to mention: The table has the same "groups" as before, just substituting the actual name of the plug/socket standard for the arbitrarily-assigned letters. There's a summary table later on which still has the Department of COmmerce letters, which could be bumped up in the article, I suppose. If we could find a copy of the IEC technical report, that might give a more authoritative basis for the letter codes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"the general difference between plug types which use flat pins and round pins" <-- there isn't really much of one from a practical perspective, an australian plug and an american plug are completely incompatible. Heck even a 5A BS546 and a 15 BS546 are completely incompatible.

Having said that I do think we should try to go for a layout that groups all the mainland european sockets together at least. They all accept the europlug and there are other intercompatibilties (both safe and unsafe) too.

It would also be nice to have a set of images near the start of the article with links to the relavent sections. Many people coming to this article will have seen a plug or socket but will have no idea what it is called. Plugwash (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Having seen no objection to grouping the mainland european types together again I have done so. Plugwash (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Swiss IP complaint

Can an admin have a look at this page? It used to be quite good before Wytmanski unilaterally removed all the standardized plug names and reverts anything anyone else does to it. He is just one guy with a fixed idea and shouldnt have the power to push his own agenda.

You can sign your talk page entries with a dash and four tildes. This Wytmanski sounds like a bad influence. You are right to put an obscure request for help here; no-doubt Jimbo Wales himself is preparing his response. What are the "standardized" plug names and what standard do you recommend? Someone from Switzerland could pop into IEC (3, rue de Varembé , Geneva)headquarters and look at their library for the current edition of Technical Report 83 and tell us if the numbers had any legitimacy other than the US Department of Commerce obsolete PDF? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contary recent edits to the article have replaced the letter names for which we could find no reliable sources with the actual names of the standards that define the plug types.

If you are calling the letters "standardised" please provide a reliable source which defines what plug type each letter refers to either by providing dimensioned drawings or by referencing standards that do so. A travel guide that only has non-dimensioned drawings and vauge descriptions cannot IMO be considered a reliable source even if it was published by a US government department. Plugwash (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The real problem we have is that Mains electricity by country basically needs a rewrite from scratch to replace the vauge letters from the US government travelers guide with the actual standards that are in use. However to do so would mean someone would have to first pay for the IEC technical report (other sources can be added later but I think the IEC report is the only place one could get the information in one big lump) and then put a lot of effort to build a page based on it. So far no editor has stepped up to do this. A simple search and replace would only make the problem worse by adding information that is likely false. Plugwash (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't expect someone to drive 3 hours from Zurich to Geneva, when my own city main library branch is on my bus route home and only 3 blocks from my workplace...and it's been weeks since I've checked out a library book to back up a Wikipedia article. Sadly, though my employer subscribes to a range of electrical standards, IEC TR 60083 isn't one of them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive? Of course not; I'd expect them to take the train ;) Jeh (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It turns out our standards subscription lets me look at the first few pages of IEC TR 60083; just the table of contents and pages about Australian and first part of Austrian standards, but it does show the letter sybmols used by the US DOC aren't used in this document. It seems IEC style is to refer to 83 and abbreviations such as NO-3, (third type for Norway). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

IEC 60083 costs $342 US - which is why no-one has a copy kicking around. That blows a big hole in most editor's beer and pizza budget. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's expensive, check out what a copy of "The Internet Encyclopedia" goes for. [3] --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the online catalogs of my county public library, the public libraries in the next two counties over, the two public universities in my county, and two other nearby U's known for their EE programs. One of those even has a specialty in power engineering (but that does tend to be more about Very Large Stuff, not consumer-accessible plugs and outlets). Nada. I did find a few other documents via Author: International Electrotechnical Commission, so I'm pretty confident of my search method. An interested editor in Switzerland, or even elsewhere in Europe, might check public and university libraries there. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)