|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CE marking article.|
|WikiProject European Union||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Brands||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Business||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Engineering||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Domestically, sure, you can buy even worse products; although, the mark's ubiquity night make it easier to doubt whether the product is certified. ["terse" isn't the word, unless this can be proven out to be a succinct issue, the word 'crude', is more like it] Also, China does have proper designers/government regulators/watch dogs for exports (i'm remembering the suloution to the recent overgrowth of algal blooms on the coast) Even if they only know Engrish-level marketing, the economy is regulated "niche by niche" from the top down. too-- not only illicit counterfeiters/forgeries. Some brands of E-cigs are imported from China, some of the 'decent' ones certifiably compliant/economically sound, with a CE endorsement (manufacture in China... Just as well, some of the the stripped down alternative products, are comparable, to domestic goods 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC) --L. Tischmann (talk)
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)
- 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).
- 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Change name of the article
- 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)
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.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
List of Product groups requiring CE marking
This list is not up to date: example it is missing Construction Products - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_Products_Directive
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.
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.
--126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Adding a graphic showing how the logo glyphs are spaced might assist with the possible confusion with the above mentioned China Export mark.
- The links below have diagrams showing the layout which may be on some EU standards page already.
- Idyllic press (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
“CE marking” move and history
- 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
Logo fix requested
Just a small request to whoever has the easy tools to edit the CE logo graphic. At each thumbnail and scaling level the edges of the image are trimmed by a varying number of pixels or whatever and this causes the parts of the logo that are touching the edges to become flattened or cropped. It would be an improvement if there was some whitespace around the image (in the amount of say half the stroke width) to prevent this from happening.