Talk:Major appliance/Archives/2015

White and brown goodsl

Brown goods are almost always serviceable down to "component-level" (integrated circuits, transistors, etc),

Is this really true in a practical sense anymore? MartinPool 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the opposite is more true now. If my washing machine or dish washer breaks, I'm getting someone to take it apart and fix it; if my DVD player breaks, it's going in the trash. Does anyone object to totally rewriting this section? ike9898 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Where in the English speaking world is this word used? Here in the US I don't recall ever hearing it. Is it more common elsewhere? ike9898 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it among professional economists that the terms "white goods" and "brown goods" are used? I've never heard of them before. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce neologisms. If there is some particular community, such as economists or department store sales personnel or the like that uses these terms, the article should say so. Michael Hardy 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you never heard, does not mean that the terms do not exist, "White Goods" are defined by all the major dictionaries, for example here is Merriam-Webster's defintion: [1]--Hq3473 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since someone posed this question in a talk page summary, I shall answer it. 'White goods' and 'brown goods' are used in the UK electrical retail sector to describe two classes of appliances. 'White goods' are goods such as fridges; freezers; washing machines; cookers; etc. - traditianally goods that are supplied in white enamelled boxes. 'Brown goods' are goods such as radio sets; television; sets; record players; (and laterly) amplifiers; tuners; cassette decks; etc. - traditionally goods supplied in wooden cabinets (the wood usually being brown). The terms are still used today even though the goods described are not always white or brown. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So much more needed

Needs history - growing wealth shows by buying more appliances. Market penetration in households for 1st world and 3rd world countries. When did a stove, fridge, and washing machine become standard in mo50% of homes? Economic impact - jobs, steel consumption. Sociological - automation of "women's work" frees up their time to work outside the home (so they can afford more major appliances). Energy efficiency - how does a fridge from 2014 differ from the fridges of 1974 (some of which are still cooling beers in garages today)? Bounty paid by utilities to scrap old fridges. Global trade. Is a furnace a major appliance? Window AC? TV? Environmental impact - energy use, recycling, hazardous materials. There's got to be a few books on this topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wtshymanski I work at Consumer Reports, which is an organization with some expertise in this field, and as a Wikipedian I also want this kind of information. I have been unable to find sources, but I have not looked too deeply. I am fond of At Home: A Short History of Private Life which gives a history of a lot of individual appliances but I know of no treatment of the impact of the advent of appliances as a whole, although I am sure that some must exist.

My organization has a lot of data from appliance testing but I am still thinking of what I can do with the decades of information here. Most of it is not easily accessible, and even if it were, a historical narrative would not immediately come from our contemporary publishing. If I see sources then I will share them here, because I share your concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A cursory Google search give me lots of things about trunks and tails and ears and toenails, but very little about elephants. The problem with decades of product testing reports is that Wikipedia can't say anything about those tests because they are primary sources - we can't even say "The fridges of 2013 are more than 25% more efficient than those of 1984", etc. unless someone at CR published an overview of trends. This is probably far enough beyond their mandate that they haven't done it. But scholars study the darndest things and I'm optimistic a real look for sources will turn up more data. Even a popularization such as the Mary Roach books would be a starting point. I shall "Continue the research."--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:(sic) If you are working for an organisation that deals with the subject of this article then I suggest that you review the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest without delay. I note that although your affiliation is declared on your user page, you have not so far contributed to the article so no conflict has yet taken place. I just thought I should draw it to your attention. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wtshymanski I am optimistic too, and as you say, a general review has historically been beyond the scope of what my organization covers. I also think that a book or paper on this topic might exist somewhere, and I hope one will turn up, but in three years of my looking from time to time I have not found one yet. Of course I will signal here if I find something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt Acknowledged. If there is anything more that I could put on my page to indicate that I intend to comply with rules then let me know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:No. It is clear from your user page. There is no suggestion of malfeasance thus far. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)