This is an archive of past discussions about AC power plugs and sockets. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Massive changes to article made by User:Wtshymanski
Through a series of edits made by User:Wtshymanski, massive changes were made to this article resulting in the loss of a lot of information (see the following differences in revisions [1]). I have my reservations over the edits that were made during this period, as a significant quantity of text was lost. Much of this article, it has previously been stated, is in needing of separation into new articles that deal with specific sections of this information. I know that this reduction was performed for the sake of reducing the amount of "wordyness" that this article has (and admittedly it is very descriptive), but I can't help feeling that we lost something during this flurry of activity. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you provide a list of exactly what you feel was lost that was vital to the article, instead of asking others to do so? Sorry but to me, the your lack of specifics ("I can't help feeling that we lost something") reads like someone spreading FUD. Jeh (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say that the edits were done to disrupt or that they did not have good intentions, just that after the two significant editing events on the 9th of Jan and 20th of Jan the article went from having a 'Concepts and terminology' section that was a beefy 600+ word description to a mere 9 sentences. This was not the only section that had large changes done to it mind you. I'm also not saying that I necessarily wish to revert these edits, but that the earlier state of these sections, which were far more elaborate, should be considered if we do eventually go ahead with splitting the article up further. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is still nearly 10,000 words, well over the usable length of an article. We should spend less time teaching about "electricity in general" and confine this article to its subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the removed material go into another article, or its own article? Does it duplicate existing articles? If so, should there be references to those articles? Gah4 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There are some indicators that this article is too large. I wonder if it could be split into regions of the world, maybe by continents. Partly some of the characteristics follow continents, and often enough one is only interested in one continent. Maybe one article with some history that is continent independent, and then brief descriptions and links to the appropriate articles. Gah4 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't think a geographical split would work well. Many of these are international standards used on several continents. We could reduce the size of any section that refers to a main article - lots of excess at the NEMA section,for instance. The compatibility section is pretty much redundant; the reader knows that round pegs don't nicely fit in square holes so we're wasting the readers' time here. Maybe move all the CEE details to its own main article and summarize it down to a list of types here? In some senses, I do like the length of details given as I ponder mankind's folly here, but it's way over length given that there's no explanation of how any of these types came about. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Prong vs. pin
"Prong" is used once in the article, without definition.
Prong says:
"Power plug prongs, the forking metal parts which project from the end of power plugs, also referred to primarily in British English as 'pins' "
Your point? If you're trying to point out the article is inconsistent, I would support rewriting the article so that it uses the more precise American English distinction between prongs and pins. "Prong" in American English carries a connotation of being blunt or fat, while a "pin" (at least in the context of metal objects) carries a connotation of being slender or sharp. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no socket defined to accept the Europlug. This is because the Europlug doesn't exist as a paired plug and socket standard, it's a compromise lowest-common-denominator plug to fill most of Europe's various sockets, without adapters. There is no need to generate a new and specific socket for it.
I don't know of any extension leads for Europlugs. There would be some sense to that, for two reasons. Firstly they're portable equipment, so like the Europlug itself, they could travel between countries. Secondly, an extension lead with a Europlug would thus be limited to only Europlugs, or equally limited plugs, being used from it (no earth, no fusing, low current, no polarisation). But I know of no such leads.
Nor are there any adapters specifically for them – I'm in the UK, we need "an adapter" to use Europlugs: but we use adapters which offer one of the common European standards. We're also (as always) a little slapdash about such, as we find ourselves using low current equipment that's then unfused (and so the cable is unprotected against damage faults) and we might also plug a Europlug into our compatible [sic] "shaver sockets", which have internal isolating transformers and are the only [sic] sockets permitted in bathrooms. Yet they don't have the current capacity for heated haircare products on Europlugs (the shaver socket will be either fused, or safely limits the current available - but the hair straighteners won't work).
There are no UK adapters for Europlugs, thus no sockets for them. We do have "conversion plugs", but these aren't adapters (in either a technical or legal sense). They "lock onto" the Europlug and can't be removed without a tool. Nor are they sockets - the converter is "assembled round" the plug, rather than the plug plugging into it.
These are actually quite common, at least here in The Netherlands. I'm not a photographer and I used my phone to take the photo, but here is a photo of one I own.An extension cord that will only accept CEE 7/16 Alternative II "Europlug" plugs I think the critical distinction here is that I think there is no socket for CEE 7/16 defined. That of course does not mean that they do not exist, just like the USB standard specifically disallows (passive) extension leads, in order to make it impossible to make a too-long USB lead. Yet, USB extension leads are abundantly available and used in practice. Digital Brains (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Photo of CEE 7/16 Alternative I
Can anyone provide a photo of the elusive CEE 7/16 Alternative I? Even though it is described in words, I'm rather curious what it looks like exactly, and I can't find it on the web! Digital Brains (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Proprietary plugs
I think that next to the Bticino section, there can be attention to some more widespread proprietary standards. I know that Wieland GST18 is often used in furniture lighting and can be found as sockets in many 'light commercial' settings, especially since it doesn't have its own page. Next to that there's the PowerCon which is not used as widely, but has the rather rare feature of being able to be disconnected under load safely. Both of these are not limited to being device connectors. Tkteun (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Zero and Phase
In many plug designs, the plug can be inserted two ways (rotated 180 degrees). But in designs where it cannot - including most designs with an earth pin - it is possible to differentiate between the zero pin and the phase pin. E.g., for Danish type K and DK 2-5a, looking at a wall outlet from the room, with the semicircular earth hole (PE or earth symbol; green/yellow wire) at bottom, the phase (L or P; brown wire) is the left hole and zero (N or 0 or B; blue wire) the right hole (unless the electrician messed it up, which unfortunately is not unlikely). This means that rocker switches, lamp sockets etc. can be mounted so that the risk of contact with phase is minimized (for better security), and also means that IT devices can be connected so that they have the same zero and phase (for more stable communications). This info - which pin is zero and which is phase - could naturally be included in this article, for all types where the distinction is possible.--Nø (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Most small switching power supply devices will run from 100VAC to 240VAC. I have a Philips rechargeable shaver that will charge, but not run, on 12VDC. They sell a cord with the usual plug on the shaver end, and cigarette lighter plug on the other end. Devices with iron core transformers usually don't do that. Gah4 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I acquired my Philishave in the Netherlands many years ago. It came with a detachable cord equipped with the Dutch plug. when I got back home I acquired a cord with a NEMA plug. I have recharged its battery at different times with either 110 V at home or with 240 V in England or the Netherlands, but I never have recharged with 12 V. I am operating it on either voltage or by battery alone. Peter HornUser talk21:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
NEMA
There is a recent edit summary mentioning NEMA is a US standard. It seems that it is US based, but not part of the US government. As well as I can tell, groups from other countries can be members. Since Canadian standards are close, and there is likely much cross-border trade, I don't think it is so far off to say North America. Mexico uses the same plug styles, though possibly with different standards. It seems that there is a NEMA office in Mexico. Gah4 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
IEC
The IEC could make a general recommendation based on ones that have an appropriate ground pin, but I agree, it is better without statements that are just a recommendation. Are there any known cases of something falling on a partly inserted plug, and electrocuting someone? Gah4 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
IEC 60320 link
@Wtshymanski: Greetings! Regarding this revert: I added this language in because I was in fact on this page looking for the name of the plug that is commonly used with computers, and I was unable to find it on this page or any link to it. It was only after I did a separate search that I figured out the IEC 60320 link on this page was trying to highlight that information. Unfortunately, anyone looking on this page for info about the IEC computer plug or kettle plug by searching for "computer" or "kettle" isn't going to find that link, either. As it stands, it looks like the link might be referring to heavy-duty appliances, like the 240V ones here in the U.S., or industrial appliances. Do you see a downside to adding more descriptive language, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: This is in a "See also" section, which generally doesn't have inline citations. All those sections do is describe or summarize the contents of the target article. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
adaptor
I don't have any interest in changing them, but as far as adapter says, both work. I am pretty sure it is unrelated to being used for power or other things. IBM used to sell the channel-to-channel adaptor to connect two of their mainframe computers together. Then later changed the spelling. This question comes up in other articles, too. I don't know why it changed. Gah4 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian uses "Adaptor" to refer to electronic equipment, while "Adapter" is specified for use in describing persons. See here: [3]. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, The Guardian is British, but it doesn't seem to be a word that divides well between British and US usage. As well as I know, either is fine, but usage has changed over the years. As I wrote above, I am not interested in changing it, but I am interested in the distinction. It has come up in other articles. Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is hardly a definitive guide to English given its frequent spelling mistakes and typos.
Adaptor is regarded as archaic these days and neither the Oxford nor the Collins [British] English dictionaries list the spelling. The Cambridge dictionary does note the old spelling but also notes that 'adapter' is the current (British) English spelling. A quick check of spelling around modern British English sources (catalogues, specifications etc.) shows that 'adapter' appears a little over two and a half times as frequently as 'adaptor'. 'Adapter' in US usage appears over eight times as frequently as 'adaptor' so probably not a US -v- British English matter. Although the article appears to use predominantly (but not exclusively) British English (e.g. 'socket' and not 'receptacle'), 'adapter' should now be regarded as the modern correct spelling in both English variants. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed previously. See here. However, it seems that the prevalence of 'adaptor' has diminished somewhat since this 2016 discussion. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what Gah4 is talking about with respect to the "channel-to-channel adaptor." If you look at the first item of IBM technical documentation linked in the footnotes of that article, IBM itself calls it a "channel-to-channel adapter." If you look at Google Books, "adaptor" seems to be used primarily to describe (1) a specific class of proteins and (2) a specific software mechanism in the Oracle Tuxedo middleware platform. But I agree with 86.146.209.237 that "adapter" is far more common. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Gah4 was referring to the discussion located at Talk:Channel-to-channel adapter. As to the claim that the usage has diminished since 2016, I highly doubt that. In a mere 4 years we wouldn't be seeing a dramatic shift in worldwide English usage over such a short period of time. This article: [5] actually lays out (in graph form) the usage in US vs British English variants. The article itself does state that the matter is far from settled though, or a definitive usage preferred. However, I do slightly disagree with portions of the conclusion reached in the article based on statements it makes within itself, but for the most part it remains accurate, and states that the variant is indeed more utilised in British English than in US English, additional to the situational distinction. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The CTCA goes back to IBM S/360 and S/370, in the 1960's or 1970's. The 4381[1] manual mentions it with the adaptor spelling. It seems that somewhere over the years since, IBM changed its spelling. Since much of IBM documentation still spells disk drive DASD, they are often pretty slow to change spelling. The CTCA was the computer equivalent to a device that might be described in this article, with two (male) plugs on it. Plug the ends into two different houses, and transfer power across. It connects two different computers, such that one does a write operation, the other read, and data transfers across, with no storage in between. (IBM also has dual port disk drives, which can transfer data between computers.) Gah4 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, a shift in English usage and spelling in just four years is par for the course these days, given the enormous prevalence of American English publications. Also: it should be borne in mind that nearly all so called British companies who would normally produce [British] English publications are now foreign owned (usually by American corporations) and no longer do so. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
At a minimum the spelling used should be consistent throughout the article. I would say that no matter which other article (within WP or outside) you read, a word in contention would be used consistently throughout. What we have here is just a dog's breakfast. inveniotc03:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
