Talk:CE marking

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

European Union Start‑class Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findnotice

China Export Mark

Who removed the China Export Mark diagram showing it's differnece with the CE mark? Somebody has removed this section of the article with no discussion. I've put another picture at the bottom. No doubt the Chinese will delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.123.157 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference list contains links to a commercial website (www.cemarking.org) that sells the texts of directives(!). This is bad, because these texts are published by the EU free of charge. Please remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazu123 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick sanity check around my household shows the "Chinese" version of the CE mark on several items that are unlikely top be fake and do not appear to originate from China. The EU sais that there is no relation between malformed CE labels and fraudulent labeling. Is there any hard evidence that this is not true? It seems to me that the "Chine Export" symbol stuff is an urban legend. Of four sources cited in the article, two are dead links, one is a youtube video and on is The Inquirer.

This, I strongly suggest to label this as a "rumor", not state it as fact. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 18:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the cited youtube video shows the "bad" logo as an example of "correct" labeling at 0:32.

Sure, there are "grey" imports with false labels, many of them come from china. But I think many legit products also bare the "terse" version of the CE logo. And I don't buy anyone would go through the trouble of creating a phone CE trademark for "China Exports". Rip-Off companies will put any label on their stuff, why go through the trouble making a slightly different label if you can just slap on the real thing? -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this whole section is an urban legend. I'm a compliance engineer, and 99% of the time I have seen this so called "China Export" mark, it was put on by a manufacturer who simply didn't know the ratio and spacing requirements for a legitimately earned CE mark. All the references seem extremely vague and not particularly authoritative. This section is perpetuating a myth. --Stephend01 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is okay for Wikipedia to have information on myths, as long as they are "notable" enough and not presented as facts. I actually had a go at rewording it and removed some of the dodgier references the other day. I still wonder about that “difference between European and Chinese” picture. Where did it come from? At least it should be reworded. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The picture should go, it's misleading at best. Even the description in the image page should be changed.

I agree that it's ok for Wikipedia to have info on urban legends, but it's not ok to perpetuate them. The section should clearly state that this is a popular but apparently unfounded claim. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 19:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only now saw your changes. Much better, thanks. Removed the picture, though, since it contains the misleading "Chinese Export" label. -- Duesentrieb-formerly-Gearloose (?!) 19:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The China Export is a joke on the CE mark made by european engineers, who have actually been through CE testing of their products in euro labs and know how rigorous it is. Seeing the poorly made CE marked stuff, verified in China, that would never pass an euro lab test is why the China Export joke came about.

Change name of the article

As per offical EU website the term to be used is "CE marking" and not "CE mark" Chetankathalay (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is so per the website you mention. Regrettably, however, "CE marking" is a mistranslation of "marquage CE" and causes confusion. The correct translation is "CE mark", which is obvious once one realises that what is wrongly called "CE marking" is in fact nothing more than the two letters CE. English speakers would call this is a "mark", not "marking" or "a marking". "Marking" wrongly suggests to everyone who comes across the term that there is some sort of system or collection of CE marks or CE information that a manufacturer puts on his products. I oppose the idea that when a text is mistranslated - even when the powers that be hand it down as the official and legal text without first getting it properly checked - we should perpetuate its mistranslations. We are meant to promote understanding, not confusion. EU documents are stiff with ugly malformities of language owing to hasty half-translations and mis-translations that often get inserted into legal documents. (The expression "acquis communautaire" is another mistranslation and an offensive eyesore to everyone who knows French and English.) I say that even if an EU law uses English wrongly, we must when discussing or applying that law use correct language, especially where (as in the CE mark case) the correct name is so close to the incorrect official one that anyone referring to the mistranslated legal source can see what has happened. The only time it would be right to use the incorrect term would be when actually quoting a passage from the mistranslated text. In the present case we have additional support for using "mark" rather than "marking" in that fact that the previous official translation correctly called it a "mark". If we call it that, the uncertainty in the minds of English speakers about what this thing is would go. No mother-tongue English speaker would ever have called the two letters CE "marking" or "a marking", so the only reason they do so is that the translators were not sure what was meant by the French "marquage". Translators habitually tend to translate the French suffix "-age" by adding any available suffix, usually "-ing", hence they came up with "marking", but if they had understood what the authors actually intended they would not have called it a marking, since that suggests a collection of marks.UBJ 43X (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rewrite

May I suggest to you that this entire article requires a rewrite. In my opinion, the quality of the writing and the gramatical style is quite poor.--94.194.125.249 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example of a real CE mark

Just found something in the German article about the CE mark that might help to identify wether it's the "real deal" or the China Export mark, which usually has the C and the E much closer together.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/f/fd/CE-Norm.svg and
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:CE-Norm.svg&filetimestamp=20090427185808

Might be worth adding to the article. I'm a wiki-noob, so I don't want to mess up the article trying to add it.
--84.62.146.232 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions Information is missing

"The letters "CE" are not enough." CE_mark#Dimensions -- 06.03.2012 08:36
If that is so, what has to be written next to "CE" ? As already said above, a rewrite would probably raise the quality of this article. Killalord1 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“CE marking” move and history

I don’t think there is an issue with changing the article title (suggested at /Archive 1#Change "CE Mark" to "CE marking"), but it was done with a cut-and-paste move.

In January 2004 the page under CE marking was created
In December 2004 this page under CE mark as created as a stub
In January 2005 CE marking was merged into CE mark
Now (2012) we want to rename the article CE mark → CE marking

To preserve the history of the current article, as well as the history of CE marking from 2005, I suggest moving

CE marking → Talk:CE mark/CE marking (2005 history)
CE mark → CE marking, including the talk page and subpages

However I cannot do the second move, despite expecting to be able to. I have asked for the temporary redirect at CE marking to be deleted. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all is well now. I had to move the subpages manually; I thought there was meant to be an option to do it automatically. Oh well. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]