Talk:AC power plugs and sockets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article AC power plugs and sockets is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2004.

Discussion: does Hong Kong just merely use British Standards or have its own?[edit]

This is to discuss whether the statement in BS 1363 section:

Some of these countries have national standards based on BS 1363, including: ... Hong Kong ...

is proper or improper.

I have added Hong Kong twice in the section, and twice was removed by FF-UK. FF-UK's argument is that Hong Kong does not has its own standards but just use British standards.

I dispute FF-UK's statement that 1) Hong Kong has its ordinance of law (in which Chapter 406 covers the regulations of electrical standards, and 2) Hong Kong government publishes Code of Practice at that covers schematics and specifications of outlets. As such in my opinion that while it refers to British standards, it stands on its own.

Rgl168 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement referred to (regarding the 50 countries which also use the BS 1363 type) is quite clearly Some of these countries have national standards based on BS 1363, including: (list of such countries). Whilst Hong Kong uses the BS 1363 standard under the laws governing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, that territory does not have its own national standard in the sense in which that term is normally understood. Hong Kong Chapter 406 Electricity Ordinance does not even mention the word "plug" and mentions "socket" only once, and not in a context relevant to standards. The Hong Kong Wiring Regulations, referenced by Rgl168, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a "National Standard", and the document makes no claim to be that. If Rgl168 believes that a Hong Kong National Standard for plugs and sockets exists, then the standard number must be referenced!
By contrast (for instance) Malaysia does have its own similar standard (MS 589:PT.1:1997), as does Singapore (SS 145).
It would be quite improper to include Hong Kong in the list of countries having a national standard based on BS 1363, it does not. FF-UK (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Is Hong Kong a country? Does Hong Kong use sockets compatible with or derived from BS1363? We should explain what we mean. --Wtshymanski (talk)
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is clearly not a country! It does use the BS 1363 standard and refers to it in its wiring regulations. FF-UK (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I inserted the phrase "and territories" into the introductory sentence so that it reads; "Some of these countries and territories have national standards..." Problem solved, we're done here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That most certainly does not solve the problem, as clearly only a nation can have a national standard! Hong Kong use BS 1363, not some local standard based on it. The edit has been reverted. FF-UK (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The word "Nation" does not required to be a sovereign territory. For example, Canadian Parliament passed a motion that "...Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." Also on Wikipedia's page on "Nation": "that is most commonly used to designate larger groups or collectives of people with common characteristics attributed to them—including language, traditions, customs (mores), habits (habitus), and ethnicity." Therefore to reject HKSAR does not have "national standards" solely because it is not a sovereign territory is inappropriate. 01:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Rgl168 Firstly, would you please show respect for your fellow WP editors by signing your comments! With regard to your comments on the word "nation", they are not relevant to the definition of a "national standard" in the context under discussion. Your claim that there is a Hong Kong standard for domestic plugs and sockets remains completely unsupported by what you believe that standard to be. You have mentioned regulations, these have the force of law but they are not standards in themselves, they reference standards, and in the case in point the standard referenced is BS 1363! The policy of the Product Standards Information Bureau of the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Commission makes the position on standards in Hong Kong completely clear in this statement: Hong Kong, China does not have a central standards body developing and issuing domestic standards. Our regulatory agencies use standards as and when necessary, and avoid the position where the setting of standards dictates market development or becomes a means of protecting certain sectors of the industry. Rgl168, there seems little point in you continuing to argue for a non-existent standard, in opposition to official statements of the Government of Hong Kong! FF-UK (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I have inquired with Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department regarding the relationship of British Standard and CoP. If HK simply adopts British Standard, then you would think that if the underlying British Standard got changed, it would automatically get applied in HK, right? The answer I got is as follows: "In Hong Kong, the CoP, as general technical guidelines on how the statutory requirements on the Electricity (Wiring) Regulations can be met, should take precedence on BS document. To keep abreast with the development of technology, the CoP will be updated in every 5-6 years." As such, FF-UK's assertion is incorrect that HK simply adopts British Standards. in the next few days, I will modify the document based on the updated information given by Hong Kong Government. FF-UK: if you continue to delete the edits, it will be reported to the Wikipedia admins as vandalism. Rgl168 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
A private communication to you is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. (That's a link; please click on it and review.) The document cited by FF-UK, on the other hand, as a document published by the relevant agency and publicaly available and verifiable, very definitely is. In light of this, your intention to introduce text into the article that is not based on a reliable source, and report as "vandalism" any attempt to revert your edits, is very ill-advised. Your threat to "report to admins as vandalism" is also very much not WP:CIVIL.
Remember, the standard for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. (See WP:TRUTH) Claims that are not supported by reliable sources can be deleted immediately, particularly if they are countered by reliable sources. You may have to resign yourself to go away thinking "Wikipedia is a bunch of silly people following silly rules, that won't let me add content here that I know is true." It's happened before and it will happen again. But the insistence on verifiability—even though sometimes annoying—is, on the whole, of great benefit to WP. We won't make an exception for this article. My suggestion? Look for an officially published version of the communication you received. Jeh (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Jeh, wise words as ever. Two additional thoughts from me: 1. Nowhere in that reported communication from Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Services Department does it mention the essential word "standard", it refers to "general technical guidelines". 2. Whether or not the BS used by Hong Kong is the latest version or not is irrelevant, it is still the British Standard. The CoP refers to BS 1363, not any particular version. FF-UK (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#Major rewrite of this page needed.[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion of the content of this article and the content of Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets#Major rewrite of this page needed. Please contribute to the discussion there. Per Wikipedia talk page guidelines please do not split the discussion (see WP:MULTI). Thank you. CplDHicks (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

YOU are apparently the ones violating WP:TALK, to wit:
"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. " (emph. added)
i.e. discussion about this article should take place on this article's talk page.
Changes to this page that are made without discussion here will likely not be received well by those who have put time in on this article and on this talk page. Jeh (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a notification to everyone interested in this page that a relevant discussion has already begun at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets. It will not be split in two. If you want to contribute to the discussion then follow the link. CplDHicks (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
CplDHicks I will again remind you that the page views for this article are ten times greater than for the article which you wish to be the place to discuss your misguided proposals. Please follow normal WP procedure and discuss this article on this page! FF-UK (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
sigh... Quoted verbatim from WP:MULTI: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link." Discussion has started in one location, and I have advertised in this other location using a link. If certain users are too stupid or recalcitrant to follow said link it's not my problem. CplDHicks (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It is fine to alert users that a discussion about Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets is taking place there, but any discussion about THIS article must take place here! FF-UK (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Quoted verbatim from WP:MULTI: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link." Discussion has started in one location, and I have advertised in this other location using a link. If certain users are too stupid or recalcitrant to follow said link it's not my problem. CplDHicks (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Um, my quote was verbatim also. And I read yours the first time. And I understood it the first time. Apparently you think that simply repeating the same thing, which I did not find convincing before, will convince me. Instead, it tells me that you have no other argument; in particular you have no counter to what it says at the very top of WP:TALK (which is what I quoted).
Since you are hung up on this "same thread" and "same topic" issue, I'll be more clear: You can talk about changes to the other article and its scope on its talk page. And you can talk about changes to this article and its scope, here. Two separate topics, two separate threads, not "the same thread". There is no need for a single unified discussion as there is no need for a single decision that covers both pages; in particular, regarding the current issue, there is no need for the scope of the two pages to be exactly disjoint. It's not that hard. Accordingly I will regard any changes made to this article without discussion here as "undiscussed". That's not a promise that I'll invoke WP:BRD immediately, but you can assume that I'll certainly lean in that direction from what I've read there so far. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jeh, the only reason this notification is here in the first place is because FF-UK refused to discuss at Talk: Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets on the basis that I can't discuss it there, I have to discuss it here because it pertains to this article. It's his means of preventing discussion altogether, and if it's not discussed—if it hasn't reached "consensus" on the whichever talk page he has decided is relevant—then he's justified in reverting any changes and he gets to keep his precious little articles exactly the way he wants them.

It is one topic, that much is patently obvious when the very first lines of this article direct readers to Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, but if you want to split the discussion, fine. I didn't start the discussion at Talk:Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets, I just put a notification here because of that obstinate fuck FF-UK. Do whatever, I don't care. I won't participate any further. CplDHicks (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this article points to an article on a related topic doesn't make it "one topic". I believe the section I added just below, about NEMA 14 connectors and this article, addresses the issue of what belongs here. I do have some thoughts about the other article but I'll address them later. And please do mind WP:CIVIL. Jeh (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

NEMA 14-30 and -50 connectors and this article[edit]

The scope of this article as defined in its heading is "[connectors] used in domestic and light commercial environments." I find the notion that NEMA 14-30 and -50 connectors don't belong here to be patently absurd. I frankly don't know much about light commercial (or heavy commercial for that matter) but any recently-wired house (hence "domestic") in the U.S. wired for a full-size electric stove will have a 14-50. And if it's wired for an electric dryer it will likely have a 14-30 for that. That makes them "used in domestic environments". I would even say "commonly used". Granted there aren't multiple of them in every room in every house the way 5-15's are, but they're the standard outlet for those applications.

Whether or not NEMA 14 belongs in any other article is an independent question. In particular the question of whether not NEMA 14 connects to "multiple phases" (quick answer: It depends on how you're using the word "phase") doesn't matter here. There's nothing wrong with having two (or more!) articles where the NEMA 14 might belong. So I don't know about any other articles, but this article doesn't need a "major rewrite" to solve this non-problem. Jeh (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AC power plugs and sockets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)