Talk:Mains electricity by country/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Moderated Discussion

Three requests for Third Opinion is sufficiently unusual that I will try to centralize the discussion and we can have moderated discussion. I am willing to be the moderator. If both of you agree, I will close the three Third Opinion requests and we can have moderated discussion. I will ask the questions, except that I will start by asking you to state the questions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You are expected to reply to any questions or requests at least every 48 hours. Now, will the editors please restate concisely what the three questions are, and whether there are any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Centralized Discussion

The controversies we have so far: -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Map for voltage and frequency

• Should the article have a map for the voltage and frequency column, provided is is updated to match the table?

A map which tries to convey so much information about voltage and frequency, for countries which vary in size by many orders of magnitude, and some of those countries do not have a single voltage or single frequency, is simply not a sensible option when the tabular system is clear and to the point. It is an excessive complication and distraction, especially considering that there is also a map of plugs being proposed. Why would any one wish to examine two overcomplicated maps when it is only necessary to refer to the relevant country in the table to get full information? This article is regularly brought up to date as better sources are found, this is very easy to do with the tabular system, why impose a need to modify the maps each time a change is made as well? Over the course of this article such maps have been proposed before, and rejected because they do not actually serve the reader by simplifying the information. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I expect most readers have the opposite experience; they wouldn't want to have to consult a 200+ row table when they could simply consult a map. The table is also much harder to use when checking the status of multiple countries, and is almost impossible to use when trying to get a sense of the patterns around the world in general. I'm willing to maintain the maps. Since User:Robert McClenon and a fair number of other editors have expressed support for maps, and there are only one or two editors opposed, I'm ready to proceed with making updated maps. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I note that you have no response to the point that the user would have to refer to two maps, rather than a single country entry. You also ignore the fact that a map can only provide information about larger countries, and leaves smaller countries such as Malta, Cyprus, Andorra, Faroe islands, Gibraltar, Lebanon, Singapore, many Caribbean Islands, many South Sea Islands and other small countries invisible. Simpler? Absolutely not. You are wanting to restrict the information available, and please do not give me any nonsense that if someone cannot find the country they need on a map, then they go to the table. We need to stick to a system (which we already have) where it is very easy to find the country we are looking for. There is nothing complicated about using a list which is ordered alphabetically. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), I note that you still have not responded to the above points. FF-UK (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the minimum number of maps is two, so if a reader wants to know all the information for a single country, they would have to refer to two maps, or alternatively two columns in a single row. I'm not sure which method is faster, given that finding a country in the table would require either a lot of scrolling or activating a browser search feature. Regardless of the answer, there are other use cases I've previously noted (almost anything involving multiple countries) where the maps are faster. Certainly there are some use cases where the table is faster or better in some other way, which is why I'd argue to have both maps and table, not one or the other. I agree that all Wikipedia maps should clearly show small countries. Many of them currently do that by using not-to-scale circles, and we have blank global base maps for that purpose. Others sadly don't do that yet. Here's one where that is done correctly. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Map for plugs

• Should the article have a map or maps for the plugs column, provided it is updated to match the table?

Again, it is not that simple. The countries vary in size by many orders of magnitude, of the 225 countries on this list, only 35 have single plugs, a significant number have six different types! Many of the countries which use multiple plugs are the smallest countries. This is totally impossible to display accurately on a map, so why try? The existing tabular system is very simple, to want to provide impossibly detailed maps seems like a very retrograde step when we should keeping it simple.

I've already described how this can be displayed on a single map with lower amounts of information, or on multiple maps in full detail. Since User:Robert McClenon and a fair number of other editors have expressed support for maps, and there are only one or two editors opposed, I think the only question is which kind of map(s) we should have for this information. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The same arguments about size apply. Small countries do not group themselves in the same area of the world, so your multiple maps idea would be how many? Two maps is bad enough, now you are suggesting a nightmare scenario. It is quite obvious that you simply have not thought this through. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), I note that you still have not responded to the above points either. FF-UK (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have same response with respect to the small country issue as for the voltage and frequency map; we have a standard Wikipedia way of making world maps that show small countries, which this map should use. If you would prefer two maps to several, that's a valid choice I wouldn't oppose. If you have specific reasons to justify that preference, feel free to share them instead of insulting me by saying I haven't thought it through, when clearly I just did a lot of work elucidating the consequences of various map options. Please do not imply that everyone who has a different opinion that you is being stupid; it is not helping us reach consensus, and is not civil. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd also note one of the sites we link to uses the one map per plug letter method, and it's quite nice: https://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/ecw/characteristics.html -- Beland (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) Taking your most recent point first, agreed it looks reasonable, but how would it be labelled to show what the countries are? (How many people could identify Malta, Andorra or Burkina Faso?) Anyway, using that approach of one map per plug, that is 14 maps for plugs, and one for voltage. (And that is only for plugs which have a letter code.) You said at the beginning: "I expect most readers have the opposite experience; they wouldn't want to have to consult a 200+ row table when they could simply consult a map." But if that is actually 15+ maps versus 1 table in alphabetical order......? Really? FF-UK (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

While many people, especially in the US, are not so good at world geography, you might expect people to know about where in the world they are planning to visit, and maybe nearby countries. I agree that 14 separate maps doesn't sound so useful. The click on the letter, highlight the map, like the IEC site, might not be bad, though. Gah4 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hoverable maps would be ideal, though that doesn't work for mobile devices, which are probably the majority of our traffic. Fully interactive maps would be even better, but that's a lot more work to produce. Links to one map per plug type are the cheap version of that.

Most world maps of this type (like the one above) are simply not labelled. If you don't know where the countries you care about are, you're implicitly invited to learn. An unlablled map is not all that great when you're looking at a specific Caribbean country (which is where the table shines), but it is good if you want to know what the situation is there in general. Most people live in large, easy to find countries, so for most readers lack of labels turns out not to be all that big of a deal.

We could do one map per letter, but I think that would be a better addition to AC power plugs and sockets, where readers would be more likely to be focused on a specific plug type than a specific country. As I explained in the #Plug map section, it's possible to consolidate into somewhere between 1 and 6 plug maps using no stripes and a reasonable number of colors, depending on how much information we want to encode in graphical form. (Some areas would just be "mixed" if there's a single map.) -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Some other Asian countries

• Should the phrase "some other Asian counties" be changed to list which countries are being referred to?

Why? It is most Asian countries which do no have strict safety regulation, but which ones does not really mater, the message is that it is not just China. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Asia is a huge place. As a reader and potential traveller, this information is of use to me. Either we know or we don't know which countries we're talking about. If we don't know, we should just drop the claim. If we do know, we should be explicit. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is most Asian countries, although there are some rare exceptions like Singapore and Sri Lanka, references for which have been added. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), Thinking further about this, one source of references is Trip Advisor which has pictures of the sockets in use at various Asian hotels, not sure if this would be taken as a reliable source in this case? FF-UK (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Meets no standard challenge

• Should the phrase "meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types" (which was challenged as confusing for multi-standard sockets) be changed to "accepts plugs that meet a number of different standards" or something else?

Absolutely not as those two statements have very different meanings. The point being made is that multi standard sockets meet no standards, not that they accept plugs of different standards. As we now have a good reference which states that "certification standards for universal outlets do not exist." then this clearly is now moot.FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's the point you want to make, but what I'm saying is that making that point is confusing because it sounds like multi-standard sockets are actually no-standard, but they do related to standards for plugs. We make the same claim in prose; if we want to make it and then explain it, I think it should be done there. But that would be too long for an image caption, so I think we should just say the multi-standard socket accepts plugs of multiple standards and not mention that it doesn't meet any socket standard. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, your suggested wording simply does not mean the same thing! The are no standards for these types of sockets, and is not true to say that they are related to standards. They come from cowboy manufacturers who lie about what they do. Now we have a reference confirming that there are NO STANDARDS for these multi standard sockets there is no excuse for your argument. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it does mean the same thing. If these sockets had nothing at all to do with any standards, then no standard plugs would fit. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a completely separate point. The importance of saying "meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types" is that they do not meet standards. Whether or not standard plugs will fit is another matter. Will they fit correctly with adequate contact between pin and socket contact? Often not because the socket contacts are deigned to fit different shaped pins and therefore usually do it badly. Will they fit in the sense that they allow a standard plug to be fully inserted in the socket? Again, often they will not. Will they fit and provide the correct current? Again, usually not. Most Universal Sockets are rated at 10 A, whereas they are designed to accept common plugs rated at 13A, 15A or 16A.

Beland (talk), I note that you still have not responded to the above points. (However, I also note that it is another case where I apparently did not sign, for which, apologies) FF-UK (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you arguing that because the sockets do not meet a standard, we cannot say that the plugs they are intended to work with do meet standards, even if the plugs do in fact meet standards? -- Beland (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, only that when you put a standards compliant plug into a non-standard socket, you cannot predict what will happen with the combination. As a general point, in Britain pre 1934 it was normal to specify dimensions for socket contacts as well as plug pins. Post 1934 it became standard practice to precisely define the plug and require that the socket made good contact with it. Judging from the NEMA dimensional standard, the same philosophy applies in the US, the pin size and socket apertures are strictly controlled, but I can see no mention of dimensional control over the contacts. FF-UK (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So if you agree that the plugs are standardized, why can't we describe them as such for clarity? This caption is now at AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Multi-standard_sockets_and_adapters, and that section mentions immediately before this image that poor mechanical and electrical contact are alleged safety problems with this type of outlet. I don't see why the desire to make that point is an argument to describe the plugs in vague terms. -- Beland (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Bonaire

• Should Bonaire be listed with the sources cited on the talk page?

It is quite clear that the "sources" in question do not meet WP standards, so no. But that is not the real question. Bonaire is an example of a micro-nation whose political status is not yet settled. I suggest that it may not be appropriate for it to be listed here (it certainly not recognized by the IEC), and it is not clear if it has a single public infrastructure, or just a series of local generators serving its population of less than 20,000 people. I ask, but express no preference on that matter. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why the political status of the country has anything to do with what power is being used. It does have a single main public power provider, see [1]. I don't see any reason not to list it if reliable sources can be found; whether or not the IEC includes it is irrelevant to readers. I think the sources are reliable enough to use, and the disagreement on that point is why I'm asking for a third opinion. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

But you will have noted, I have expressed no strong views on whether they should be included or not. FF-UK (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I took away from the above, but since it sounds like you no longer have an objection, I added Bonaire. -- Beland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning that maps exist on IEC World Plugs

• Should the phrase "a list of countries giving the type(s) used and the mains voltage and frequency" be changed to "interactive tables and maps showing which countries use which plugs, voltages, and frequencies"?

This is in reference to IEC World Plugs, the existing phrase is accurate and all that is required, there is no need to misleadingly refer to anything else because of PoV pushing by those who are obsessed with maps.FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think inclusion of maps is relatively POV-neutral, I'm not sure what that is biased in favor of. I do think maps are useful to readers, as do the majority of editors. Given there are no maps on this page right now, it's even more useful to readers to point out they are available on the external web site. It has not been explained why this would be "misleading", it's a perfectly accurate statement of what is available. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It depends what you understand by the phrase Interactive maps, the maps on the IEC page are fully dependent on what you enter in the query boxes. To me an interactive map is something you can click on to change the information presented, whereas with the IEC map, clicking on the map itself will change the scale, but nothing else. FF-UK (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you can change the scale directly sounds like the maps meet even your very restrictive definition of interactivity, which I'm not sure aligns with the general usage of that term. Something can be "interactive" without the input and output channels being the same. For example, I am interacting with my computer via keyboard and mouse for input, and separate display for output. However, if you would prefer a different description of the maps, like "dynamic maps" or just "maps", I'm open to suggestions. -- Beland (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

History of similar guides move

• Should the section "History of similar guides" be moved to a section like "History of naming system" on AC power plugs and sockets?

That is a completely oddball suggestion. Editors need to understand that this system of letter codes, originating with the US government, much modified by the IEC, is specific to the idea of such guides as this. The system is very informal and quite different from the national and international standards function. There is no correlation between standards and letter codes, no standards mention letter codes at all, and the people who actually generate standards take no notice of them, and indeed, one of the most senior standards writers I know has written to me that "I too have had problems understanding the lettering system; none of my colleagues in BEAMA or BSI can explain them either. I have been unable to find any formal definitions even though some other CENELEC members refer to them." This is a de-facto system, and WP just has to accept it as it is with its many faults. It is, sadly, so central to this article that I cannot imagine why anyone should wish to separate it and put it elsewhere. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Material in the article is for readers, not for editors. Material for editors should be on the talk page or in HTML comments. I suggest moving this material because it is closer to the main topic of the other article, which has more details about plugs. I think this article should have a cross-reference to that article for the benefit of readers. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not twist my words, that is completely unacceptable and dishonest! I am not suggesting that the material in the article is for editors, but this is the talk page which IS for editors. I know you are determined to ignore the fact that the informal letter codes used here are specific to the idea of such guides as this, but that is how it is. Your suggestion that this information should be moved is simply completely wrong, and it is most certainly not "closer to the main topic of the other article". There is a brief mention of letter codes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Types_in_present_use and a further explanatory note here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Comparison_of_standard_types but that is all that is appropriate in that article. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FF-UK - Please re-read Assume Good Faith, and please be aware that accusing another editor of dishonesty is a personal attack. I had thought that this discussion was being civil. I still think that it has mostly been civil, but keep it that way. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dishonesty requires expressing something that one knows to be false. You said "Editors need to understand" so I took that at face value, that you think that material is important for editors. That's an honest interpretation. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry it was not clear from your words. I don't ignore the idea that the plug system is related to this article; that's why I think there should be a cross-reference. This is again going nowhere; I think we just disagree. -- Beland (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) Once again, the system of letter codes originates with the US Department of Commerce's publication "Electric Current Abroad" and was later taken up, and much expanded, by the IEC in "World Plugs" from which this article stems. What about that do you not understand? How can you possibly think that information on those belongs in AC power plugs and sockets rather than here? And why, when this discussion is going on, did you place merge tags (which I have reverted) in the article? FF-UK (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I tagged this section with {{mergeto}} to indicate a merge was under discussion, but User:FF-UK reverted with the edit summary "I am reverting again, because after you started a conversation about this on the talk page, and I have explained why this is completely wrong, you have not responded, but just put this tag up without any explanation. Disruptive editing if ever I saw it." I'm not sure what you're waiting for me to respond to; I'm awaiting a third opinion. One person can't just end a dispute between two people unilaterally, by definition. I don't think this content belongs here because it doesn't relate to a specific country, and it's not necessary for useful interpretation of the main table. For most readers in a general audience, it's uninteresting trivia, though I realize some readers will be curious where the plug naming system comes from, and this is good for that. But that background is too detailed for this article, where other editors have been complaining there's too much explanatory prose. -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to be suspicious, but this is something which has only come up since you decided to take an interest, and it seems that you have stirred up a hornets nest, all for no good reason. Your understanding of the issues casts doubt on how valid your opinions are. Your reluctance to consider seriously the points I have made in answer to your questions here (which no one else seems to want to engage in here) is also puzzling to me. You have made a few good changes, but most of your edits are technically wrong or, as in this particular case, make no sense. The information we are discussing relates directly to the subject, and your comment about not relating to a particular country means what? The reason the background is important is that it helps people understand what a shaky foundation this is built on, and I would like to think it might encourage others to make a real contribution to genuinely improving the article by finding more references for the information in the table. FF-UK (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith as I am doing. I have in fact seriously considered everything you have written; the fact that I disagree with some points does not mean I am ignoring them or that I haven't tried to make things make sense from your point of view. I very much welcome technical corrections! I am mostly rewriting this article based on the existing content and have to read up on sources as I go when new stuff is added, so having subject-matter experts fact-checking is quite helpful. I am an engineer and a linguist, though, so once I've got the right info in front of me I don't have a problem understanding it. Reading and understanding is different than having the same perspective on the source material that you do. Understanding why you have a different perspective is difficult from your edit summaries, but that's why we're discussing on the talk page.

To be frank, I think the reason a lot of editors are not engaging in this discussion is that it is both verbose and emotionally charged. I have noticed in your comments to me that you have used aggressive language, telling me to "back off", accusing me of "disruptive editing", calling me dishonest and a cultural imperialist, saying this editor "clearly does not understand this subject, and seems determined to destroy this article", that I'm doing stuff for "no good reason", and are very quick to label anything you disagree with as "misleading" or a deliberate falsehood, and you revert nearly every edit that I make, some legitimately but sometimes those you don't even disagree with. You sometimes say you've clearly explained to me why I'm wrong and get upset if I don't fall in line with your opinions, when I'm saying that I don't find your arguments convincing. You seem to think most questions are black-and-white, and that it is inconceivable that anyone else could have a different perspective on the same facts. If I had a thin skin, I would either be very angry at you or have sworn off editing this article altogether. I'm sure many other editors have been scared off by this behavior, and I think the article has suffered as a result. I think if you want to encourage others to genuinely improve the article, sharing ownership of the article with others more would go a long way. "Stirred up a hornet's nest" has negative connotations, and makes it sound like I'm creating problems by sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. My recent edits here have certainly generated a lot of discussion, but that's because you reverted a ton of things I thought were legitimate improvements, and on most articles most of my changes would have been accepted with occasional technical or grammatical corrections or objections when I add something I get from talk page discussion that I misinterpret or is not well-sourced. When you revert, unless I've made a mistake that's obvious to me based on your edit summary, I don't really have a choice but to open a discussion, so lots of reverts makes lots of discussions. Maybe I'm making up for lost time; this article seems to have become ossified because many editors have given up trying to punch through what seems to anyone wandering in like a wall of obstructionist reverts compared to the general experience editing other articles.

I happen to have noticed this article, which I find personally useful and interesting, is suffering from some structural problems and some excessive detail. It should be a relatively quick matter to load the page and find information on a particular country or on general patterns in the world. This article was created mostly as a spin-out to hold a long table. In list-like articles there should not be a large amount of explanatory text, but there should be a good legend and any important caveats. I'm happy for this to be a bit more than that, with prose explaining unusual situations and whatnot, but as other editors have been complaining, it is currently overgrown. An easy fix for a lot of that is to spin content back into the parent article, where it actually fits in with the other content. You seem to disagree with that idea, which is fine, but I think you lack a broad perspective on the needs of the general Wikipedia audience, and are approaching this from the perspective of a specialist who is both intricately familiar with the technical documents and who has been involved with adding the existing material to the article. A lot of other editors seem to agree that this material needs to be trimmed or restructured, which is why I'm often asking for third opinions - the rationales you're giving in a lot of cases just don't align with the goals of writing for a general Wikipedia audience.

To the specific question here, you were asking: "The information we are discussing relates directly to the subject, and your comment about not relating to a particular country means what?" I'm starting from the premise I mentioned above, that this article should mostly be a list, a legend, caveats, and notes special situations. Let's take those one by one. This doesn't have to do with a specific country, so it can't go in the table. The purpose of the legend is to map the values in the table to a real-world thing you stick in the wall. It should be concise. We could have used arbitrary colors or numbers, but we have chosen to use IEC guide's lettering system which has caught on as a de facto nomenclature on most consumer-facing web sites, plus some other common names to fill in the gaps of the lettering system. To be a useful legend, it does not need to say where the IEC came up with the system or that it builds on previous guides. It doesn't even need to say anything about the IEC and whatever other sources we are relying on for nomenclature anywhere other than in footnotes. Mostly we just need to use the nomenclature. This material doesn't fall into caveats (like "hey, you can plug X into Y but it's not grounded") or special circumstances like "British military bases use voltage X, not the local voltage".

You also wrote "The reason the background is important is that it helps people understand what a shaky foundation this is built on". But none of the sources mentioned in this section are actually cited as sources for this article since they are obsolete, so I don't see how any of this material helps make that case. We should point out where sources we are citing have known errors, and the text I proposed for a different section does do that. When you say we need to encourage editors to be "genuinely improving the article by finding more references for the information in the table", I do not know what claims you are referring to that lack sources, and reading that section does not illuminate the matter. I generally tag claims that are missing supporting sources with {{fact}}, and that's a fairly concise and precise mechanism. -- Beland (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) When I describe the "shaky foundation" I am, of course, referring to both the American original which introduced the concept of letter codes which only loosely relate to different plugs, and what the IEC has done with it. I have never understood how an organization like the IEC could show such differing levels of professionalism as between the excellent work they do on standards, and this World Plugs page which is full of errors and inconsistencies. (It can be said that is better than all other similar pages which are either vanity sites whose main aim is to attract advertising, or spam sites selling conversion products, but that is small praise.) I would like to see us get to the point where we have decent references for plug type (and preferably standard) plus voltage and frequency for as many of the countries as possible (eg, entries we have for Malaysia and UK), and then we could abandon the link with World Plugs except for the exceptions where we still had no other sources. You suggest that everything which is not sourced should be tagged, but I seem to remember that someone (not me) tried this shortly after I first got involved with this page, and was promptly accused of "tag bombing" and reverted. It is not an approach I have tried for that reason. FF-UK (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that tag bombing is to be avoided. If you believe that IEC World Plugs is a potentially unreliable source for plug type data or all data then either the column header or the general reference can be tagged with a single {{unreliable source}}. It's also mentioned in the prose explanation for the table that errors have been found in that source and thus other references have been supplied for certain countries, so it seems the shakiness has been well-established for readers without this additional section. We are not citing the obsolete American document as a source for the table, so why do we need to explain that it is not reliable? -- Beland (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Voltages

• Should the section "Voltages" be merged into the notes at the top of the section "Table of mains voltages, frequencies, and plugs"?

I do not know where this idea comes from, it seems to me that the section is appropriate.FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

All of the other notes that explain the table are in the same section as the table. If there are voltages elsewhere in the article that need to be explained, this statement should go at the end of the intro; it makes no sense to have it in the middle of the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have moved it. FF-UK (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Main reference source merge

• Should the section "Main reference source—IEC World Plugs" be merged into the notes at the top of the section "Table of mains voltages, frequencies, and plugs"?

Absolutely not, for reasons given above it is important to understand the origins of this system. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that merge actually removes any material of interest; it just says the same thing more concisely (since it's partially repeated in the section with the table). -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it is so central to the article that it is where it should be. FF-UK (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The table is also central to the article; not having the table and the thing that explains where the table comes from in the same section seems odd, and keeping them separate also means that we repeat ourselves rather than explaining this once. Other editors are complaining this article has too much explanatory prose; is there some way we can make this more concise? -- Beland (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Antarctica and airlines

• Should incidental remarks concerning Antarctica and airlines be included in the same article as the table? If not, where should those remarks go? If so, should the article be renamed "AC power by country" or "AC power by location" to match the scope?

Those items have nothing to do with the public electrical infrastructures in each country which is what this article is about. Quite clearly they do not belong here. My suggestion is that consideration should be given to an article on usable electric power in vehicles, aircraft and ships. WP articles about Antarctica exist, but seem a bit stub like, but that must be the right place to cover anything to do with Antarctica. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why information about public infrastructure in Antarctica should be exiled from this article just because it's not inside the political boundaries of a country. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not why it is excluded, it is excluded because there is no public electrical infrastructure in Antarctica. The summer population of the continent is approx. 4,400, the winter population is about 1,100. All of those people are scientists at the various research stations, about 40 of which are year round with others being occupied only in summer. Such research stations are not public, and are not served by public infrastructure. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/Publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html Visitors to the continent travel on cruise ships, and make day trips to land, but do not stay on shore. FF-UK (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the definition of "public" is that you're going for, given that the vast majority of the 120V NEMA plugs in the U.S. are in private homes and businesses. I also think the result of creating a small article with the exiled content does not serve readers. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your reference to the U.S. situation is false, the infrastructure is public (the grid, voltage and frequency), what is inside the home is controlled by local codes. That is a completely different situation to what pertains in Antarctica. where all you know is that there is a small wind farm which serves two out of the 40 research stations. You have presented no reference for what this article is concerned with, plug type, voltage and frequency. FF-UK (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what about the claim you're saying is "false"; as far as I can tell we're not in disagreement on any of the facts. My guess is that each base uses the power system of its home country, but we'd have to research each jurisdiction. Five minutes of searching around found me the official guide for U.S. visitors to Antarctic stations, which says standard U.S. equipment can be used at 110V: [2] I still don't understand what you mean by "the infrastructure is public". Do you mean that the power is available for sale to members of the public? That's also true of Alaska Airlines; anyone who flies there can buy electricity access, and unlike the customer of a landside utility, they don't have to rent or own a house or office to do that. If you're saying "mains electricity" only includes power generated by a public utility, I don't speak British English natively to know the nuances of the definition, but I'd say it's not a useful distinction to restrict this article only to customers of public utilities. If we accept the notion that some electricity utilities are government-owned, then when the U.S. federal government Antarctica Program makes power for its base, why wouldn't we accept that as the local equivalent to a public utility? How is that different than a municipally-owned utility in Alaska providing power to buildings within its borders on a small grid that's not connected to any other settlement? The article already talks about power strips, which could be used with a private generator, and it doesn't make sense to me to exclude homes that are powered by private generators, say in off-grid Alaska, since the same consumer safety and building laws apply there with respect to plug specs as to on-grid homes. On another matter...you seem to emphasize standards a lot; do you think we should note facts on the ground if reliable sources show they are different from what the standards say they should be? -- Beland (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), "false" refers to your comment "that the vast majority of the 120V NEMA plugs in the U.S. are in private homes and businesses" which is no different to anywhere else and does not affect the fact that they are connected to the public infrastructure. By "public infrastructure" I am referring to the mains electricity system which is a fixed part of a country's infrastructure, available in most developed parts of that country, often referred to as "the grid". It has nothing to do with who owns that infrastructure, as long as it is available to the general public to use (usually in return for payment). In answer to your question "when the U.S. federal government Antarctica Program makes power for its base, why wouldn't we accept that as the local equivalent to a public utility?" The answer is because that is NOT available to the general public, of which there are none present in Antarctica. With regard to off-grid installations, I am not qualified to comment on that, I imagine that the rules vary quite a lot according to jurisdiction. With regard to "do you think we should note facts on the ground if reliable sources show they are different from what the standards say they should be? ", if there is evidence to suggest that such differences are widespread, then yes, but not if there is reason to believe that they are isolated cases. FF-UK (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you used the word "false" to mean "true, but not germane"? When you say a claim I have made is "false", that is an accusation that either I have made a factual error (which I admit is certainly possible) or that I am for some reason lying. To be apparently accused of either when actually the factual basis of the claim is not in dispute is quite aggravating. More importantly, I don't see how it's possible to have a useful conversation where "false" can mean "true".

I'm not asking you to say what the rules are for off-grid jurisdictions, I'm just asking if by the standard you are proposing they should be in scope. Let me run through various potential scopes and see if that helps clarify anything. Here's a summary table, though depending on precise definitions, some of the answers might change.

General practices in and standards that apply to...	General public can plug in and notable	Connected to off-site grid and notable	General public can plug in, connected to off-site grid, and notable	Notable
Houses using public utilities	Y	Y	Y	Y
Houses using personal generators (Alaska, house boats, RVs)	Y	N	N	Y
On-grid private and government buildings accessible to the public	Y	Y	Y	Y
On-grid private and government buildings not accessible to the public	N	Y	N	Y
Off-grid private and government buildings accessible to the public	Y	N	N	Y
Off-grid private and government buildings not accessible to the public	N	N	N	Y
Consumer power equipment in general use (e.g. power strips)	Y	N	N	Y
Public transport, including airplanes, trains, and buses	Y	N	N	Y
Private transport (cargo ships, military ships)	N	N	N	Y
Extraterritorial government facilities (military bases, Antarctica)	N	some	N	Y
International space station	Y, but $$$	N	N	Y

Does one of these align with what you are proposing, or is there some modification that would? -- Beland (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) "Mains electricity by country" Is about mains electricity, therefore clearly anything off grid is not included. "By country" is self explanatory. Antarctica is a continent without countries, and without any mains electricity, therefore out of the scope of the article. There are various generators and wind turbines present to serve the 42 permanent research stations which exist there, in addition to a number of summer only stations, but although it is reasonable assume to use the same plugs as the countries which operate them, we do not know about voltages and frequencies but can only speculate, which is, of course, WP:SYNTHESIS. No aircraft or other vehicle is equipped with mains electricity. I do not see the point of commenting on your list as it is not within the scope of the article. I remain puzzled by your desire to introduce subjects which are not connected to the scope of the article, while at the same time banish subjects which are most definitely connected. FF-UK (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I made the list because I'm trying to clarify differences between what I think the scope should be and what you think the scope should be, and to try to make whatever scope we come up with have clear boundaries so we can all work with them. The title of the article is open for change, so that's not a good argument for why the scope should stay the same. And as you point out, other articles redirect here like "AC power around the world", so it's not illogical to either include everything that redirects here in scope, or change the name of the article to the name with the widest scope. (Otherwise something like "AC power around the world" should be a disambiguation page that links here and to places that cover the things that are excluded from scope here.) I already found a reliable source that says what is used at U.S. Antarctica bases, so lack of sources is no longer an argument for why Antarctica should be excluded. It sounds like you have four criteria you wish to apply:

• General public can plug in
• Connected to off-site grid
• Notable
• Inside the boundaries of a country

Notability is of course a requirement, and it's understood we're only talking about the geography of consumer AC power, but why is it helpful to readers to limit this article in the other three ways? Why is it good to exclude the things that are excluded? -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Well, the multi-socket section where we wanted to add mention of airlines has been moved to AC power plugs and sockets, so the constrains of "mains electricity" and "by country" no longer apply. I guess that can be added back in to that article. As for Antarctica, it's actually treated as a country elsewhere on Wikipedia. At least in the most general sense, "country" doesn't mean "sovereign law-making nation-state", it just means "high-level area of land designated for descriptive convenience" and could include dependencies and zones in an otherwise unified country (in the political sense) that are treated differently for customs purposes. It has an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (AQ) and is listed included in these articles:

• List of television networks by country
• List of ghost towns by country
• List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent
• List of highest towns by country

I don't see a good reason not to add it to the table, with sub-listing showing different countries' bases, like the different parts of Japan or different Caribbean Netherlands islands need to be shown because they are on different systems.. -- Beland (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rarely seen in other countries

• Should the phrase "They are rarely seen in other countries, and may not be allowed by the local building code." be added to the section on multi-standard sockets?

Well, you could, but it would not really be true as the threat is growing all the time. FF-UK (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, is there a reliable source we could point to that documents what the true situation is? -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added a variety of references to the illegal nature of these devices. FF-UK (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, that puts us on much firmer footing. -- Beland (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Meta

Sounds fine to me. At least some of those I believe are worth discussing. Some I probably don't care so much about. Gah4 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

How do we want to discuss this? Do you want me to offer a third opinion, or just facilitate discussion? I will insert comments if third opinion is desired. I think that maps would be good if someone will volunteer to provide the maps. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain the issue about airlines? (Presumably this has to do with locally generated power, since it is not easy to connect an airplane to a grid.) Can someone explain the issue about Antarctica? (Is there a grid connecting the generators?) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Alaska airlines now has AC outlets on their planes, I suspect mostly for people with portable computers. They use outlets that allow for many different plug types, and supply 120V 60Hz power, presumably generated from the jet engines, with some intermediate conversions. I suspect that the labs in Antartica use the power standard of those who build the lab. Gah4 (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FF-UK is the one who objected to all of the above proposals; the previous discussions can be seen in the other sections on this talk page. Their argument is that "mains electricity" or "grid power" only includes fixed generation sources. I found [3] which shows there are fixed generators (wind turbines) in Antarctica serving multiple bases in a "grid". I assert this means Antarctica is within scope under the current title, but FF-UK disagrees. Since airplanes are not fixed generators, I agree they don't meet the strict definition of mains electricity, but I don't think it would be useful to create a separate article for that. I'd be in favor of renaming the article to "AC power around the world" or somesuch to reflect the broader scope. Other editors have weighed in on that question, so I'm wondering if a move poll would be best. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Further discussion may be needed to clarify article scope. — JFG ^talk 12:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Mains electricity by country → AC power by location – (formerly AC power by country) Rationale:

• Affirm that the article is about what comes out of the wall inside residences and offices, not what is on the neighborhood mains. (For example, in the U.S., the three-wire 120V single-phase system consumers plug into, not the 240V 4-wire split-phase system that typically feeds each house.) The article title has been cited in previous talk page discussions as incorrect or confusing.
• Avoid excluding from article scope items definitely not connected to grid power, such as houses in Alaska that run on private generators, and marginal cases like offices in Antarctica that have dedicated fixed generation capacity. The article includes discussion of the legality of power strips, not just wall outlets, and these are not necessarily connected to grid power. The article title has been cited in disputes over scope on the talk page.
• Avoid excluding from article scope places that are not in any country, like the International Space Station, international waters, international airspace, and places which may or may not be a country like Antarctica or Bonaire (which is part of the Caribbean Netherlands but has a different power system than other islands).
• Improve the comprehensibility of the title for American readers, though the article is in British English. (See Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English.)

@AHeneen, Aspro, Beland, Ben.doherty, Cristianocampo93, DIYeditor, DocFergus, FF-UK, Gah4, GliderMaven, Juuomaqk, Robert McClenon, Skyhi14, Vatsmaxed, Wtshymanski, and ZH8000: Notifying active editors of this request.

-- Beland (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this was previously raised at Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country/Archive_3#Is_this_the_best_title_for_this_article?, which also involved Jeh and CplDHicks2. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support but might prefer name of "AC power by locality" or "location" for things that are not in countries. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with that; I amended the proposal. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support basic premise of limiting to consumer use and expanding scope of list to non-countries and non-grid power, but Prefer alternative suggestion of splitting and merging article per Netoholic below. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, but open to an alternative - When I clicked the article, I was expecting that is it was exclusively a list of countries/locations and their the electrical ratings they use. I felt somewhat WP:ASTONISHed that there was much more than the list - that there were several sections about plugs, safety, etc. My feeling is that the article needs to decide what it is. If its a list, then follow MOS:LISTS and merge the prose elsewhere. If its an overview, then change the name to something that reflects that and doesn't imply its just a list. -- Netoholic @ 23:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So something like separate List of AC plugs and receptacles by location and List of AC power by location and since there is also overlap with Mains electricity and AC power plugs and sockets, text could be merged there. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, something like that. I usually see this sort of list presented very simply without the extra wording, like this site that has a great title: "Plug, socket & voltage by country". I like this one that puts a visual icon for each plug type. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, sorry, thought to break out voltages/hz from socket type for some reason. So a List of AC plugs, sockets and power by location perhaps, with text taken to AC power plugs and sockets. I support that. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • A "List of" title will help it stay pure to its purpose for sure. Since the "sockets" part isn't in the current table, maybe List of AC power plugs, voltage, and frequency by location just to match the column headers? Would "cycles" be better than "frequency"? Maybe that's slangish in my region. -- Netoholic @ 01:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
          • I like that. "Cycles" sounds fine to my American ear, but "frequency" might be less confusing to those not familiar with the terms. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Cycles, short for cycles per second, used to be common, mostly before the Hertz unit was defined. I suspect that there are still enough around, but it is probably best not to use it. Gah4 (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree this article should be mostly a list. I have already tried to move "History of similar guides" to "History of naming system" in AC power plugs and sockets, and merge the "Voltage" and "Main reference source—IEC World Plugs" sections into the paragraph explaining the table. User:FF-UK reverted these changes, and I was trying to get other opinions to generate an informed consensus. If other editors agree the article should move in that direction, maybe we can restore those edits. I think the other prose sections should more or less be merged to AC power plugs and sockets since they don't fit the "by country" or "by location" mandate, except the parts that describe which plugs are which. I'll try some trimming and tagging. -- Beland (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Moot until a certain user relinquishes ownership – this is a travel guide masquerading as an article. It could maybe be improved if a certain user—and we all know who I mean—would relinquish ownership, but I doubt that will happen until his obstructionist behaviour is curtailed by administrators. As it sits now, frankly it's better to copy the content to WikiVoyage and turf it from Wikipedia. CplDHicks2 (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose this attempt by Beland (talk) to completely change the nature of this article. The article (using the same title) was started by a British editor, User:Chameleon on 28th July 2004, User:Chameleon had previously created the AC power plugs and sockets earlier the same month, but found that it was getting too big. Both articles have always been written in British English. This attempt to change the title seems to be completely against MOS:RETAIN. "AC power by location" is quite clearly a different meaning, "AC power" is a wider subject than "Mains electricity", the fact that some Americans are not familiar with the term is not, of course, a reason for changing it. See MOS:ENGVAR "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other". This move request reeks of an attempt at American cultural imperialism! Further, "location" is a much looser term than "country", countries make laws or regulations governing the areas which are the subject of this article, "locations" do not. Beland also makes a point about "in the U.S., the three-wire 120V single-phase system consumers plug into, not the 240V 4-wire split-phase system that typically feeds each house", but as this is a peculiarity of the American system of mains distribution, and not a feature found in most countries, that is not a good reason for this change. I will not repeat the points I have already made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country#Semi-Centralized_Discussion above, suffice it to note that Beland has a habit of shifting discussion to a different place when the discussion is not going his way. FF-UK (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, "location" is intentionally looser. If you want the term to map to the entities that make laws, in the U.S. that would actually include mostly state and local governments, but some national laws as well, and so "country" would not be the right term. We only care about laws for the "standards" column; for plugs, voltages, and frequencies, I think what matters more is what is de facto in use, and it looks like most or at least some places have no standard anyway. -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't started any discussions about this page anywhere other than this talk page. I have solicited more editor input when the two of us have an irreconcilable disagreement, because that is what is recommended by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I started a new section for this specific question because that's the standard procedure listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Not sure what you would have preferred. -- Beland (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • What you have done is to start this move proposal without continuing the discussion above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country#Semi-Centralized_Discussion, that seems to me to be utterly perverse, please continue there and answer my points rather than ignore them. FF-UK (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I have nothing to new to add in response; arguing about which section to have the discussion is not productive. I'm not ignoring the above discussion, I'm responding in both places. -- Beland (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Under MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:COMMONALITY says "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles.", which is a reason for American non-familiarity to cause a title change, assuming "AC power" is just as clear in the UK and elsewhere. I'm rather shocked to be called an imperialist, since I go so far as to fly a world flag on my house and not a U.S. one. Previously you've argued that because the title says "mains power" anything not literally connected to a large grid which qualifies as "mains" can't be included, but now you're arguing that even though the entire American system we're describing isn't really included by the term, that doesn't matter at all? This seems contradictory. The U.S. is also the largest majority-English-speaking country, and probably the largest audience for the English Wikipedia. It seems unwise to dismiss it as if it were an obscure country not worth taking into account when constructing an accurate title. -- Beland (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • But, "mains" is the universal English term for what we are talking about, it is the US which is out of step. For example, India is probably the largest country to use English as an official language, and as you can see from this central government act of parliament the term used is "mains" (page 7). Also, this electrical safety manual written by an Indian professor at an Indian university, (pages 5 & 11) uses "mains". The IEC is the international body which determines electrical terminology, so here are a selection of relevant IEC web pages: , , , , , , , . Australia also uses the standard IEC terminology:, , , , . So, you can clearly see that it is you who is wrong, I am not dismissing it "as if it were an obscure country not worth taking into account when constructing an accurate title", but pointing out that it is not as important as you think it is, whatever flag you may fly on your house. The right way to deal with this is not to to change the title, but to provide a redirect(s) to satisfy the needs of Americans. However, I find it interesting that the article has existed for 14 years without anyone having a problem with it before, it seems like most people have no great problem with the existing title. And, I see that you have decided to twist my words again: "you're arguing that even though the entire American system we're describing isn't really included by the term, that doesn't matter at all", which is nothing like anything I have written! Why do you do this? Of course the American system fits the description of "mains power", whether or not it is a familiar term to you. Please just stick to the truth! FF-UK (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing that American English is any more important than any of the other national varieties you mentioned. The Wikipedia policy says that if there's a term that's comprehensible in India, Australia, the UK, and the US (like "AC power") it's probably preferred over a term that's only comprehensible in India, Australia, and the UK (like "mains"). I don't know why you think "mains" can be considered "universal" when it's not present in US English. "Universal" is not the same as "most common in the world between two mutually unintelligble choices". "Universal" means "present in all major dialects" which "mains" is not and "AC power" as far as I know is. Whether or not you agree with the argument, this title has in fact been complained about before, which is why I linked to Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country/Archive_3#Is_this_the_best_title_for_this_article?. I have no problem with redirects if there are no universal terms, and I have in the past argued for British terms to be the universal one because it is less confusing to certain speakers, like "sportsperson" instead of "athlete". IEC determines technical terminology, but that is less important to Wikipedia than the terminology that a general audience is familiar with. Which includes "mains" in the UK and Commonwealth but not the US. -- Beland (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • This does not matter to the question at hand, but just for future reference, according to the numbers at List of countries by English-speaking population, the United States is the country with the most English speakers in the world, at 283 million; India has about 125 million despite a much larger population, because it is also more strongly multi-lingual. But the US is of course a minority of English speakers if you look at the whole world, about 24%. (These numbers can vary wildly depending on your definition of "English speaker" e.g. whether it counts only as a first language or at a certain level of proficiency.) -- Beland (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I see that there in fact many redirects to Mains electricity by country, they include: AC power around the world, Electric power around the world, Electricity around the world, List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages & frequencies, List of voltage by country, Mains power around the world, Voltage by country and Wall Current. FF-UK (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - title is about as clear as it needs to be and any elaborately contrived Wiki consensus title is going to get redirects from this title anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as this article is not just a list, but also explains the different standards and their history besides others. However, a some re-arrangements, better structure, and some c/e could be useful. -- ZH8000 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @ZH8000: Are you opposing adding "List of" to the title, or any change to the title in general? -- Beland (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compatibility notes

Old version

Type C-equivalent plugs generally include a variety of national and historic standards that use two round pins with centres 19 mm apart with diameters between 4.0 mm and 4.8 mm. This includes CEE 7/2, CEE 7/16 Alternative I, CEE 7/16 Alternative II (the so-called 2.5 A-Europlug), and CEE 7/17 plugs; and CEE 7/1 sockets. (See AC power plugs and sockets § CEE 7 standard.) These in turn are compatible with a variety of three-pin plugs and sockets of various letter designations which have been derived from the older unearthed two-pin standard.

Sometimes sockets of a given letter accepts plugs of a different letter:

• Type A plugs fit type B sockets (without using earthing)
• Type C plugs will fit into the following sockets but do not use the third earthing contact: F, H (post-1989 only), J, K, L (10 amp only), N.
• Type C plugs may fit into type E sockets, if the socket-male earthing pin does not physically interfere with the plug.
• Type E, F, and CEE 7/7 E+F combo plugs use a plug-female earth connection, so they act like Type C plugs and fit sockets of the following types but are not earthed: H (post-1989 only), K, L (10 amp only), N
• CEE 7/7 E+F combo plugs are specifically designed to fit either type E or F sockets and use earthing
• Thai standard TIS 166-2549 includes a socket which will also accept Types A, B and C plugs as well as the Thai plug (unofficial type O)
• "Universal sockets" accept plugs of multiple types, though critics of this practice have raised various safety concerns.

Not all plugs with a given letter will fit a socket of the same letter:

• Polarized A plugs will physically not fit into unpolarized A sockets
• Type I sockets in China/Argentina vs. Australia are physically compatible, but have the reverse polarity
• Sometimes the physical shape of the plug (especially when built into a device like an AC adapter) may cause the plug to be physically incompatible with the socket, or to prevent nearby sockets from being used.

Proposed table and notes

Not all plugs with a given letter will fit a socket of the same letter:

• Polarized A plugs will physically not fit into unpolarized A sockets
• Type I sockets in China/Argentina vs. Australia are physically compatible, but have the reverse polarity
• Sometimes the physical shape of the plug (especially when built into a device like an AC adapter) may cause the plug to be physically incompatible with the socket, or to prevent nearby sockets from being used.
• Various European-style plugs with two male pins fit a variety of 2 and 3-pin sockets, but compatibility is not complete across all types (see table).

Compatibility of 2-pin European style plugs and sockets Note: 3-pin plugs of type H, J, K, L, N, and Thai are only compatible with sockets of the same letter type.
Socket type	Europlug CEE 7/16 Alt. II 2.5A	CEE 7/16 Alt. I 2.5A	CEE 7/2	CEE 7/17	GOST 7396 C1 6A	GOST 7396 C1 16A	Type E CEE 7/6	Type F CEE 7/4	Type E/F earthed combo CEE 7/7	BS 4573 (shaver)	Type N 2-pin Brazilian NBR 14136	Type N 2-pin South Africa SANS 164-2
CEE 7/1	Yes						?
GOST 7396 C1 6A	Yes						?
GOST 7396 C1 16A	Yes						?
Type E CEE 7/5	Yes, but unearthed		No	Yes			Yes	No	Yes
Type F CEE 7/3	Yes, but unearthed			Yes, but unearthed			?	Yes	Yes
Type H new SI 32 (Israel)	Yes, but unearthed						?
Type H pre-1989 SI 32 (Israel)	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Type J Swiss SEV 1011:2009 Type 13 socket	Yes, but unearthed						No	No	No
Type K Danish 107-2-D1	Yes, but unearthed						?
Type L Italian CEI 23-50 10A	Yes, but unearthed						?
Type L Italian CEI 23-50 6A	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Type N (2 and 3-pin sockets)	Yes, but unearthed						?
TIS 166-2549 (Thailand)	Yes, but unearthed						?
BS 4573	No						?			Yes

Discussion

In the first subsection above is the text just before User:FF-UK removed it.

The edit summary was "Removing recently added section which includes much that is simply untrue! eg, type C plug is ONLY the Europlug having 4mm pins, not any plug with greater than 4mm pins. WP:SYN WP:RS" and User:ZH8000 had tagged with the objections "there are too many factual errors, what's the purpose; according to whom?; style; there is another article about plugs and sockets!!"

The purpose of this proposed section is to explain which plugs are compatible with which sockets. This information is useful for travellers, manufacturers, and people thinking about the economics of consumer devices and policy questions like trade and harmonization. I was trying to sum up information from other Wikipedia articles (we can copy references in from those) but if I can't do that accurately then I don't think there's any hope for most readers to get an accurate picture.

AC power plugs and sockets § Comparison of standard types has a column describing Europlug compatibility. I'm fine simply linking to that section from this article to avoid duplication. But that table does not summarize all the compatibility issues readers need to know about in brief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the claims in the above text are correct, other than those for Type C, E, F, and related. The Type C situation is very complicated, and not being European I have no personal experience with them, so help from Europeans and other experts would be helpful getting this straightened out.

In the second subsection above, I've drafted something which explains things in more detail. Please excuse the temporary references just to show where I'm getting this stuff from. We can pull proper references if we like this format. Lots of the table cells are blank and would want to be filled in following sources.

At Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country/Archive_3#Three_kinds_of_type_C, Jbohmdk gives a lot more info which may be helpful in filling in the table. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) There is no merit in having this discussion until you accept, without reservation, the following truths: That a Type C is a Europlug, and nothing else, and that there is no such thing as a Type O whatever assorted bloggers may say. Otherwise you have, yet again, in your inimitable way, just started multiple conversations on the same subject. FF-UK (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: We're already discussing those issues in other sections, there's no need to re-hash them here. I've removed all mention of Type C and Type O since it sounds like you can't see past those disputes. That didn't change any of the substance. -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), Your misunderstanding of the letter codes is pretty fundamental, but I will give you some comments on your amended version.

"Type I sockets in China/Argentina vs. Australia are physically compatible, but have the reverse polarity" Not true, it is Argentina which uses reverse polarity compared with China, Australia etc.

"Various European-style plugs with two male pins fit a variety of 2 and 3-pin sockets, but compatibility is not complete across all types (see table)." Vague, and table includes non-European examples.

"Note: 3-pin plugs of type H, J, K, L, N, and Thai are only compatible with sockets of the same letter type." H, N and Thai not used in Europe, not of European origin. FF-UK (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's commendable that you went to the effort to create this compatibility chart, but ultimately it's essentially self-referential (Wikipedia-referenced) original research. The compatibility of these plugs with their respective receptacles is of no particular concern to us in an article about "mains electricity" (whatever that means, still TBD). I think that gets lost in the fog of all of this: I'm not sure anyone (except apparently FF-UK...) really knows what this article is 'supposed' to be about, but it certainly isn't or ought not be about plugs. We already have a preposterously long article about plugs. Information "useful for travellers" should be at Wikivoyage, not here; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@CplDHicks2: Why do you say it's self-referential? The footnotes pointing to other articles aren't meant to be permanent, they should be updated to point to external sources, which should make this research not original. The footnotes are pointing to the internal pages and people where we should be able to find those sources. I'm not proposing to add this chart to this article, but AC power plugs and sockets as you pointed out. We have lots and lots of detail already about all the voltages and current ratings and standards that apply to plugs and sockets; the only thing we haven't done it produce high-level summaries that actually let readers make sense of it. -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Type C

The IEC is an influential source of terminology, but it is not the only source. Terms used in general commerce and in general conversation are also legitimate sources of terminology. To say or imply that IEC is the only "correct" source of terminology is not neutral. Wikipedia serves its readers best when it explains both technical and general-use terms, since both will be encountered in the marketplace, policy documents, and standards documents. It's perfectly fine to use technical terms when doing otherwise would be imprecise, but to use only technical terms when commonly understood terms are sufficiently precise means that we are using jargon and not making articles accessible to a general audience.

In this specific case, I think there is a general practice of referring to all round 2-pin European-style plugs and sockets as "Type C" based on the rough mechanical characteristics. (If some Type C plugs don't fit some Type C sockets, that's annoying and unfortunate but the same thing is true of Type A.) Some text I removed recently from Wikipedia was bending over backwards to explain how some countries could have Type C sockets according to the IEC, when allegedly according to the IEC there was no such thing as a Type C socket, only a plug. As was previously pointed out, http://www.iec.ch/worldplugs/typeC.htm does have a picture of a Type C socket, which only accepts Europlug-compliant plugs, even though that's not part of the Europlug standard. I think the IEC mention only the Europlug and not other 2-pin plugs as a convenient and maximally compatible plug for when they use "C" in their by-county table to indicate whether the sockets of a given country would accept that plug. I don't think it's intended to be an authoritative and complete definition of what Type C is for the whole world, especially given this web site is not a standards document and is not a dictionary. And treating it as such when there are contradictory uses in other sources is not neutral.

As evidence, none of the plugs described as "Type C" in these items are Europlugs, and there are also specific references to Type C outlets or sockets, establishing the terminology used in general commerce goes beyond what the IEC's web site explicitly uses. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

This article and especially the main table should probably use "Type C" to refer to the general class of 2-pin plugs, and specific names like "Europlug" and "CEE 7/2" to refer to specific plugs. Otherwise, we may confuse readers into thinking any C-class plug they find online will fit any socket, when in reality only a Europlug will fit. Either that or we need a general disclaimer about Type C differences and a supplemental table to explain 2-pin European style compatibility with various sockets. -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And here's a U.S. government source, mentioned in talk page archives, that illustrates a non-Europlug Type C plug and socket, including actual photos: [10]. The IEC lists the same socket as "Type C" if you go to [11] and click on e.g. Belgium. -- Beland (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also used by this blogger: [12] -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk) First of all, I do not know what you see, but what I see in each of those references IS a Europlug labelled Type C, in each of the photographs. No question of it, the flat shape of the plug, and the partially insulated pins, identify it beyond doubt (the C 7/16 is the only one of the CEE 7 series which has partially insulated pins). Once again, you are just plain wrong. Please remember, these codes describe plugs, not sockets. The fact that the IEC chooses to display pictures of typical sockets which each plug will fit does not change that.

Referencing a series of Amazon pages offering travel adaptor products (not plugs) of a type which are illegal in Europe is not "evidence" of anything but the number of sub-standard products sold through Amazon. They are certainly NOT WP:RS.

These letter codes are a system started by the US government, but taken up by the IEC. The IEC, and only the IEC, define what they mean, not assorted bloggers, and certainly not random internet sellers of shoddy products. (And not WP editors either.} Please stop making things up, and stick to the facts. FF-UK (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to slavishly follow whatever the IEC says about anything. This isn't the IEC website, this is Wikipedia: if there are reliable sources we should accurately describe whatever the reality of the situation is, not whatever one particular source says. Pravda said Stalin was a real swell fella; doesn't mean we have to parrot what they said about him. If people can reliably be shown to call only one very particularly defined plug "Type C", we should follow suit. If they can reliably be shown to call several similar but not expressed interrelated plugs "Type C", we should follow suit.

Personally I think this entire line of discussion is asinine. Who calls a NEMA 5 plug "Type A"? Nobody I know, except the IEC. Why does their nomenclature have primacy on Wikipedia? I see no reason why it should. CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that should say "Who calls a NEMA 1 plug 'Type A'?" or "Who calls a NEMA 5 plug 'Type B'?" See? This is perfectly emblematic of how ridiculous it is to slavishly follow some nomenclature that no one actually uses. CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Hmm, the Type C plug for Belgium looks round to me, but it's at a steep angle, so maybe it's 45-degree flat sides after all. Plenty of the standards we're talking about define sockets, including some which are discussed in common trade as Type C.

The IEC no more controls what terms are used in everyday commerce than the académie française controls what French words are used to describe things. The official name may be "courriel" but the French Wikipedia still says that it's also called "email" in French. The ultimate determiners of words are the people who use the language. To say that IEC is the only correct arbiter of the name is to take a point of view on correctness; clearly commercial practice does not follow what you think the IEC is saying, and I think you are dismissing the examples presented of actual usage as "unreliable" because you think they are "incorrect". I don't think the other vendors and customers on Amazon would agree that these devices are incorrectly labelled, and I'm not even sure the IEC would disagree. Apparently the U.S. government would agree that they are correctly labelled, and that assures me that this in fact a term in common commerce. I've tried to present the relevant facts, but you are confusing facts (a given organization uses a given term) with opinions (that usage is correct or incorrect). The fact is that English speakers use "Type C" to refer to a broad variety of plugs and sockets, not just Europlugs. It would be really surprising to hear IEC say that Type C sockets didn't exist, since they seem to be the most common type on the planet, and they appear to be pictured on the IEC web site. If you want, we could contact them and ask them to clarify the text of their explanation. -- Beland (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), you do seem to be suffering from a very peculiar form of selective vision. Regarding the IEC web site, once again, I ask you to read what it says about the Type C: "The Type C electrical plug (or Europlug) is a two-wire plug that has two round pins. It fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres" So, apart from explicitly naming the Europlug, it confirms it with the statement "fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres", all of the other plugs which you wrongly claim to be Type C have greater than 4.0 mm pins, mostly 4.8 mm pins, and are therefore clearly NOT Type C. Then we have the statement "Type C plugs are generally limited for use in appliances that require 2.5 amps or less." It says that because the Europlug has a rating of 2.5 A, all of the other plugs which you wrongly claim to be Type C have a rating of greater than that, mostly 16 A, and are therefore clearly NOT Type C. Then there is the picture of a flat plug which has partially insulated pins, only the Europlug meets that description, all other CEE 7 plugs have non insulated pins. The smaller plug picture on that page (a slightly larger version of the image shown on Type C country pages, such as the one for Belgium which you linked to) has the advantage that (unlike the country images) you can click to expand, so that is the one you should be looking at.

Where does your claim that "Apparently the U.S. government would agree that they are correctly labelled", come from? Clearly not on the page for The Netherlands that you have already referenced, the one that shows a clear image of a Europlug.

Your comparison with the académie française is completely irrelevant. The claim is not that the IEC can control what people what people call them, but if you want to use the IEC system of Letter Codes, then you have to get it right, otherwise use a different description such as a national standard or a common name (eg, the common name of the British plug is a "13 Amp Plug"). WP is not, as far as I know, in the business of promoting error. Claiming that you know what the IEC thinks, despite what the IEC says, is completely unacceptable.

I cannot let CplDHicks2 (talk) extraordinary comment "Who calls a NEMA 1 plug 'Type A'?" or "Who calls a NEMA 5 plug 'Type B'?" See? This is perfectly emblematic of how ridiculous it is to slavishly follow some nomenclature that no one actually uses. pass without debunking it. A Google search for: "nema 5" plug gave 1,370,000 results, whereas a Google search for "Type B" plug returned 4,630,000 results. Similarly, A Google search for: "nema 1" plug gave 467,000 results, whereas a Google search for "Type A" plug returned 11,200,000 results. Not bad for a "nomenclature that no one actually uses". Lets just stick to facts, not wild speculation. FF-UK (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

We can play games with Google searches all you like, buckaroo. If I search for nema 5 plug (less the quotation marks) I get 9,580,000 results. Facts are if I walked into an electrical wholesaler and asked for "Type B" they wouldn't have a clue what the hell I was talking about. If I perused their catalogues none of them would make reference to "Type B". CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

CplDHicks2 (talk), sure, and if I google type B plug without quotes I get 168,000,000 results, which is why I used the quote marks to make both searches more specific. I would not expect a North American wholesaler to list plugs as Type A or Type B, anymore that I would expect a British wholesaler to list a BS 1363 plug as a type G, but that is completely beside the point. Thanks to the US government we have this loose letter typing which the world seems to have adopted as a common way of describing plugs without reference to any actual standards (with the sole exception of the Europlug). I personally dislike it for many reasons, but that is my PoV and nothing to do with my editing here. As the world has accepted it, then WP has no choice but to work with it. FF-UK (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: My basis for thinking the IEC and the U.S. government site are showing Type C plugs that aren't Europlugs is based on what looked to me like round plugs but which might not actually be. So that just might be a mistake on my part. That said, it's still pretty clear that "Type C" is used in by both the IEC and the government to refer to both Europlugs and nonspecific two-pin sockets. It's also pretty clear that "Type C" is used in general commerce to refer to the broader class of European-style 2-pin plugs and sockets. To reject that evidence would I think take a reliable source affirmatively saying that products like this (2-pin non-Europlugs) are fraudulently labelled, which I haven't seen; the oft-quoted IEC Type C plug definition is definitely not affirmatively saying that, because it doesn't talk about them one way or the other.

You say "if you want to use the IEC system of Letter Codes, then you have to get it right", but the IEC is clearly not the only source of type designations, since the U.S. government has created some letters, and some are being used in general commerce that the IEC hasn't to our knowledge designated. Wikipedia can't choose which of these closely related systems is "correct", we need to be neutral about them. Moreover, we need clarity for readers so they aren't confused when the marketplace uses one system and Wikipedia uses a slightly different system without explaining the difference. It's easy to be completely honest about this with readers. In most cases, the terminology in general commerce and the IEC designations seem to be the same, so we can just use them without qualification. In other cases, we can note that Type O is not an official IEC designation, and that the Europlug is the IEC-designated Type C plug. The article should stop claiming to follow the IEC system alone; it should note that the letter designations are also used slightly differently in general commerce. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You have absolutely no grounds for your claims that the usage of "Type C plugs" includes anything other than the Europlug, or that there is such a thing as a Type C socket, it is all WP:SYN and therefore not allowed. All this "general commerce" baloney is meaningless unless you can produce a WP:RS, which you have not yet done. FF-UK (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How is an Amazon listing not a reliable source to show a vendor is selling a plug or adapter or socket that they are calling Type C? -- Beland (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Type O plugs

The term "Type O plug" is commonly used to refer to the Thai TIS 166-2549 plug, which is apparently new on the scene as of 2006.[13] [14] [15] [16] At least one editor has previously complained that the name is not officially blessed, and I don't see anything in a quick search that says the IEC has officially approved this designation (maybe that's just pending because the standard is so new). But WP:COMMONNAME specifically says that common names should be used in preference to official names. Based on that, I think we should use "O" in the table and plug identification guide for the Thai plug. I don't mind if we use TIS166-2549 alongside type O for clarity, but the letters are just easier to think about and remember compared to things like seven-digit numbers. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, this page mentions some IEC standards that apply to the Type O plug. Perhaps someone with access to standards can say whether Type O has been officially recognized by them? -- 18:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The term "Type O plug" is NOT commonly used to refer to the Thai TIS 166-2549 plug. It is the IEC who set letter types for plugs, and they have not done it for the Thai plug, or a number of other plugs. For instance, the British shaver plug has never been given a letter, despite the fact that BS 73 Wall plugs and sockets (five ampere two-pin without earthing connection) was first published in 1915, BS 73 the very first national standard anywhere for a mains plug and socket (the shaver plug is the same physical configuration as the original 5A version). There is no letter which applies to CEE 7/2, CEE 7/7, or CEE 7/17, despite the fact that they have all been in existence and common use for a lot longer than the Thai plug. Similar the Soviet GOST 7396 C 1 plug, and the Swiss 16A plugs have no letter. The fact that Conrad H. McGregor in his self-published spam site https://www.worldstandards.eu/other/contact/ has decided to award the type O designation is no reason for WP to use it, even if has foolishly been picked up by a couple of web sellers and couple of other spammers/blog sites. As far as the reference to International Configurations is concerned, the only IEC standards they mention are for the appliance connectors at the other end of a power cord. FF-UK (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: What sort of non-IEC source would you want to see "Type O" on before you accepted it as an unofficial designation? -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

worldstandards.eu seems to be a blog; what does that have to do with "spam" and what makes the author a "spammer"? -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, reading the old "History of similar guides" section again, it says that the plug type letters started with the U.S. government, not the IEC. What evidence is there that the lettering system comes from the IEC and that they are not just codifying general commercial practice? -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), whatever the source, the letter codes remain an informal way of describing plugs with similar physical properties, but without relating them to any actual standard, the exception is Type C which clearly states that "The Type C electrical plug (or Europlug) is a two-wire plug that has two round pins. It fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres." (This means that only the Europlug can be described as a Type C, and not any of the plugs with 4.8mm pins as you have mistakenly designated in a recent edit to CEE 7/2 and CEE 7/17 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#CEE_7_standards neither of those types have letter codes.) If the IEC World Plugs site does not show the designation, then we cannot use it as we have no WP:RS. The system does originate with the U.S. government, but they have not updated it for some time, and do not go beyond Type L. The IEC took it over, and added M and N.

The author of worldstandards.eu is a spammer in the sense that it is immediately clear that his site is designed to draw in people, and present them with adverts. It is also full of mistakes. FF-UK (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

An advertisement-based business model does not make an operation a "spammer", otherwise everything from CNN to the local newspaper would be considered spam. Lack of fact checking is a legitimate, but different and less hyperbolic problem for reliability. I don't see other sources calling non-Europlug Type C, so let's call those type C-compatible. But theoretically, if "Type X" was in widespread use on Amazon and in hardware stores, would that be acceptable even if not listed by IEC? -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By way of comparison, Wiktionary requires three citations to independent (not necessarily reliable with respect to facts, since the text is considered self-authenticating if you're just documenting the words writers use) sources published over the span of more than one year, to count as evidence that a word or phrase is being used widely enough to document. -- Beland (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Plug & Socket Types indicates that the letters come from the US Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, and the list includes O. Gah4 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gah4 (talk) 09:17, as discussed above, that site is Conrad H. McGregor's blog, and the US Trade Administration site list does not go above Type L (no M or N, let alone the fictitious Type O). FF-UK (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The references I've cited show that you can physically buy what the vendor calls a Type O adapter. There really are no grounds for saying Type O is fictitious without a reliable source saying that these products are fraudulently labelled. As at least 2/3 editors seem to believe that lack of IEC mention doesn't make "Type O" an unencyclopedic term, I'm restoring it. -- Beland (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), Please remember WP:RS, you have not produced one, nor have those other editors! FF-UK (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited references show clearly that the type is referred to by some as "type O". That is completely sufficient for Beland's phrasing in the article. You describe worldstandards.eu as "designed to draw in readers" and "present them with ads" - that describes absolutely every non-ad-free site on the web, including huge numbers of sites readily accepted here as RSs. Any source is a RS for what that source says! The plug type obviously exists, and some clearly do call it "type O". By the way, per Google search for "plug" and "type O", "some" is more than 300,000 (and a survey of the first few pages of results shows that only about 10% of those are false hits).

That another reference (IEC) does not support the "type O" name does not mean we have to pretend nobody has ever used it - regardless of how reliable that source is. Your insistence that the IEC is the only possible RS here, and that anything not mentioned by IEC can't possibly be mentioned in articles, is absurd. Jeh (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeh (talk), Let me tell you my PoV on this. The letter system for plugs was ill-conceived when it originated from The US Department of Commerce, it did not stay static in their hands, the 1967 version includes some information on plugs, but only three types were designated: Type A, illustrated by a US style 2-pin plug, Type B, illustrated by a sketch of a BS 546 type, and Type C, illustrated by a sketch of a BS 1363 type. The 1984 edition used the letters A to G in the same manner as they are used today, no consistency there. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the definitions were loose and open to much interpretation, with no reference to standards, it seems to have become popular. Why the IEC then picked it up is hard to imagine, it has nothing to do with the IEC standards organization, and seems to be a marketing department initiative without reference to the guys around the world who actually define standards. So here we are with these letters which are generally ill-defined and fail to do a good job. To make it worse, their World Plugs site has a lot of mistakes. For some time now editors have been saying that it is not a reliable source for what each country uses, but it is better than all of the self published variants (small praise).

Now, if WP wants to give credence to those bloggers and vanity sites, it is just encouraging the anarchy which seems to grow almost by the day. WP:RSSELF tells us that these bloggers and other self published sites are unacceptable as references, and yet some people are prepared to promote them as WP:RS. To claim, as Beland does, that https://www.bombayelectronics.com/products/orei-thailand-travel-plug-adapter-2-usa-inputs-3-pack-type-o is a WP:RS is complete nonsense. (That company makes the completely false claim that this adaptor is "CE approved", when there is no such thing, see CE Marking) So much for their integrity!.

Do we want WP to be a respected encyclopedia, or merely another worthless source of inaccurate information? FF-UK (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Letter codes are a good way to connect table entries to pictures, or other external data. If there was no previously defined letter code, we could define one just for the purpose of matching table entries to pictures. That is, make no claim that it is used anywhere else. To avoid confusion with any one else, we could use greek letters, or numbers. Or we could use the exiting letters, with a note disavowing their meaning outside the article. If there were conflicting uses for letters, or for O in particular, that would complicate things. Since it is mostly O that is in question, a note disavowing O would seem reasonable. Gah4 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, FF-UK, WP:RSSELF tells us (at WP:SELFSOURCE) that SPSs "may be used as sources of information about themselves." Those refs are therefore completely valid sources for the claims in question, because the only claim being made is "some refer to the Thai plugs and socket as 'Type O'". And lo! We have links to sites referring to the Thai plug as Type O. Claim is therefore proven. By, yes, SPSs, but SPSs used completely within the bounds set by WP:SELFSOURCE.

The text you're arguing against doesn't claim that "Type O" is established by any standard; indeed, it says that "Type O" is an unofficial, ad hoc designation. It "just grew", one might say. But the claim is only that it is used by "some" products and etc. sites. Which it unquestionably is. (The Google search I outlined above shows that "some" is not at all an exaggeration.)

Why should we refuse to acknowledge an unquestionable truth?

Especially when the current wording disclaims any "official" status for the designation? Why does that not satisfy you?

Oh yes, because of impending "anarchy." Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats, living together! (If you were to conclude that I'm not taking your pearl-clutching seriously, you'd be exactly right.)

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of that time that you or Mautby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (later discovered to be a sock in the Deucharman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) group) decided that since the IEC's official term for a mains supply socket was "socket-outlet" that this and all related articles had to be riddled with that horribly awkward term. That is an example of the sort of thing that gets Wikipedia laughed at.

As will stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that a term that's in use by thousands, is in use by thousands. "Thousands", of course, being a very conservative estimate.

Verb. Sap.: Next time, try reading all of the section at the policy page; don't stop after you think you've found something that backs you up. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeh (talk), Please refer to the original post at the top of this section, Beland is arguing for the use of Type O in the same way as other letter types, and that is what this discussion is actually about. I note that at this time that usage has not been reinstated, but neither has he acknowledged that it should not be used in that way. If the references to Type O remain along the lines of The Thai plug has not been designated with a letter code at IEC World Plugs, but is sometimes referred to and sold as "Type O", that is one thing, but it should not be given the same status as those defined at the IEC World Plugs site. I think I am turning your point about reading all of the section back on you :-)

I am puzzled about your reference to the socket-outlet issue, I took no part in that discussion, although I did make an edit which reduced the number of times it was used. FF-UK (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: All the places we mention the Thai standard in this article now say something like "sometimes known as Type O". Is everybody finally happy with that? -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Vehicles and non-country places

User:FF-UK wrote in an earlier comment: "...if you do not understand the difference between the fixed infrastructure of a country or territory (which does not move) and sockets to be found in various vehicles, aircraft and ships which are tethered to no particular country, then I cannot help you. But as the first line of the article says, this article is about countries and territories, not vehicles."

I think the general purpose of this article is to catalog where the various plugs, sockets, voltage, and frequency, are used for general electrical plug-in items. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia should include this information for places that are not part of the territory of any particular country, which includes Antarctica, ocean platforms, vehicles, seacraft, and spacecraft, where mains power is provided in a similar way to what a building would do. Though "by country" is in the title, this seems to me like the right article to do that, since it would seem weird to have coverage say on mains electricity for Antarctica and vehicles but not the land any country. (Obviously this would not be in the main table but in some prose noting the places that fall through the cracks of the table.) If there's another article that would be appropriate or there's a good title for one to be created, I'm open to suggestions. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), OK, now I understand a bit more of your problem. You do not actually understand what "Mains electricity" is! It is always part of the public infrastructure which carries electricity from central generating plants over the grid to homes and factories (see WP article on subject). None of these vehicles carry central generating plants, and try to imagine what an international furore there would be if someone tried to build such a plant in Antarctica!!!! Now, the variety of vehicle born electricity connectors and what is used in specialist situations like Antarctic research stations, (that includes many dedicated connectors as well as special versions of what look like standard connectors) is quite outside my experience, and absolutely does not belong in an article on mains electricity. So, again, please drop it, it just not apply. FF-UK (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Actually, there already is mains electricity in Antarctica: [17]. Where would you put information on that in the encyclopedia? To me it seems close enough to the title of the article to just add it here, but we could also change the title of the article from "by country" to "by location" to accommodate a slightly wider scope if we are being rigid about that alignment. -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The term Mains electricity isn't usual in the US, but that is fine. In the US, terms like AC power are more usual, which could be AC at 12 volts or 12,000 volts, but as with Mains, people usually know what is meant. As far as this section, though, it would apply to any source of 120V 60Hz AC in the US, including portable generators and power inverters. As there are research labs in Antarctica, which presumably need power, there must be some kind of generator there, but I suspect no gigawatt coal plants. As I noted, but someone reverted, Alaska airlines now has AC power outlets on their airplanes. In case anyone wonders, 120V 60Hz, but with outlets that fit a wide variety of plugs. Gah4 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no! As I made clear above, "Mains electricity" is always part of the public infrastructure which carries electricity from central generating plants over the grid to homes and factories (see WP article on subject). "Grid" is the US term, and that does NOT include any sort of local generator that exists in Antarctica, on Alaskan aircraft or any other vehicle. Please stop this silliness. FF-UK (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Grid" is in fact the term that the article I cited uses to describe what is happening in Antarctica. They have three 333kW wind turbines and a 500kW flywheel, powering two different bases run by two different countries. This certainly counts as fixed equipment, not portable generators; sounds like mains electricity to me. -- Beland (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but no-one in the US calls it Mains, (except visitors from some other countries), and also not grid electricity. The grid is the term for the whole country electrical system, not for what goes into individual houses. Why this article is called mains electricity, I don't know. Maybe we need a different article for the US system. Gah4 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

When something is called two different things in the US vs. the UK, Wikipedia just picks one for the title and puts a redirect from the other, mentioning both in the first sentence. -- Beland (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that readers would be better served to have a slightly wider scope. Why don't we simply rename this article from "Mains electricity by country" to "AC power by country" so it includes not only grid power, but also wall power that comes from the walls of vehicles? Or "AC power by location" if you prefer, to account for the fact that Antarctica does have a grid but is not a country, and that vehicles, boats, and spacecraft are also potentially outside any country or visit multiple. -- Beland (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The Wikipeida process isn't suited for producing a broader article. Let's keep it focused on the sort of thing our team of erratic dilettantes can actually achieve, and that an unwary reader could actually read. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: We've already found reliable sources to talk about the situation on airplanes and started to add content about it. What's wrong with that process? The content got deleted because of the name of the article, but other than that it seemed informative. -- Beland (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't actually suggesting widening it, but just not narrowing it. It seems that Mains has some specific meaning that isn't necessarily true. Which countries actually call it Mains, anyway? Previously, I didn't worry about the meaning, even though no-one I know calls it that, but if it requires central generating plants bigger than some size, then I don't think we need to narrow it that way. Gah4 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's wider than the narrowest interpretation of "mains electricity" that FF-UK has in mind, which is in turn I think narrower than the natural scope you and I have in mind. It's called "mains electricity" in the UK and perhaps other Commonwealth countries. But that's all semantics. -- Beland (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), Gah4 (talk), Please, once again, refer to the essential points above! "Mains electricity" is always part of the public infrastructure which carries electricity from central generating plants over the grid to homes and factories. None of these things you are both trying to add in are public infrastructure, they are all private in one form or another. The Antarctica generators are also, very clearly, NOT a grid in the generally accepted sense of what that means (and take a look at the headline, where it clearly states Antarctic "Grid", the journalist clearly knew that was an exaggeration). Just because a press release has misused a term, that does not suddenly constitute a reliable source. Now consider that in 2016 the three grids in the US (that country is too big for a single grid) provided 1,410 Billion kilowatt hours. In the UK, in March this year, a new record was set when 14 GW was generated by wind power. By comparison, a 1 MW (maximum) generator system which provides a private supply to a few scientists in an Antarctic base, is just tiny, and important though it is to Antarctic research, it is completely irrelevant in terms of this article! Who do you imagine would be interested in what plugs were used in this situation? It just does not figure. Similarly, there are no general public infrastructure electricity sources available on vehicles, only those which may or may not be made available to passengers on a single journey. As far as airlines are concerned, it is not possible to generalize, facilities will be made available according to class of travel and the typical range of the services flown. In any case, as already mentioned, these are not controlled by any national variety of plugs. Neither of you know what policy any particular airline adopts, except what they may say themselves, not really a reliable source. So, as I keep trying to explain to you both, these things are completely outside the terms of this article, and you are just wasting your time trying to shoehorn them in. Please, please stop, and concentrate on things which will bring benefit to WP, not derision. FF-UK (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the proposal; the idea is to expand the article beyond your narrow definition of "mains electricity" and "grid" to other areas some readers would be interested to read about. (Though I don't think it's right to start saying that only the things you want to cover in this article are "true" grids, and any other use of the word is incorrect.) Clearly Gah4 and I are interested in reading about more things than just landline electricity in large countries; I'm sure many other people are as well. This article is not catalogging what the utility sends into my house; here that's 240V split-phase power on four wires. It's catalogging what comes out of my wall, which is 120V single-phase power on two or three wires.

I don't think we can successfully argue that the types of plugs used on airlines is an obscure matter that the public is uninterested in, just because it comes from a privately owned, mobile generating source rather than a privately owned land-based power plant. Millions of international travellers use airplanes, and many of them have portable electronic devices they wish to plug in. We don't have to catalog what every single airline uses, but it would be interesting to point out general patterns. I'm not sure why being "controlled by any national variety of plugs" matters; what people are interested in is what national plug varieties the sockets on planes are compatible with. And I'm sure there are general patterns; the airlines that fly to certain countries are likely to have outlets (if any) that are compatible with that country's plugs, or the airline's home or hub countries. I do know what sockets are available on the airlines I've flown on (and train lines I've taken, for that matter). I would trust what an airline says about available outlet type, because they have an incentive to be honest about that (why needlessly anger their customers?), and in my experience it's been accurate. The Wikipedia policy criteria for using self-published sources for information about the source are listed at WP:ABOUTSELF, and I think power type meets them. We don't need to depend on primary sources (and we certainly shouldn't depend on original research), though; I expect secondary sources that provide travel advice and guides also mention this sort of thing. I don't see how that would be any less reliably than using a standards body declaration, which may or may not map to what's actually used on the ground in a particular country.

Antarctic research is an adventure and a high-profile scientific enterprise. People who are curious about the adventure or about how the science is being done may be generally interested in how everyday activities transpose into extraordinary situations. This is especially true for children learning about science. For example, when I was growing up I went over a friend's house and we ate freeze-dried food just like the astronauts on the Space Shuttle had to eat, and it's all part of the inspiration of the space program. Even more mundane things, like how time zones work for Mars researchers, which is a mundane thing that affects a very small number of people, got national media attention here in the United States on the occasions when the rovers were making interesting discoveries. I think it's neat to be able to say, hey, even though these folks are on a completely uninhabitable continent doing crazy research, their lab equipment plugs into the same type of outlet my TV does. It's also an interesting question of international cooperation. For example, with this New Zealand-United States shared generation, do they use the same voltages at outlets, or do they each use their own national outlet standards? More importantly, what happens on multi-national bases like the International Space Station? Does the U.S. buy 240V equipment for European standards outlet there (which would be interesting from a "buy American" political perspective and also government efficiency)? Does each nation have its own standard outlets for its own equipment, and if so does that mean it's difficult to share or move equipment between rooms? In some ways the messy parts of the global power system are the most interesting, because they highlight the consequences of not having a single global standard. FF-UK, you've done good service to this article keeping it accurate and well-referenced, but please don't stand between readers and well-sourced, interesting information just because you're not one of the people that finds it interesting. -- Beland (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

But they do not belong in this article! By all means, start a new article which could cover some of those subjects, but do not pretend that they have anything to do with mains electricity or the grid. FF-UK (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Beland (talk · contribs) - you wrote This article is not catalogging what the utility sends into my house; here that's 240V split-phase power on four wires. Assuming you're in the US or Canada, what the utility sends is only three wires - 120/neutral/120. The ground wire originates in the house via a ground rod driven in the ground near the service panel. It is bonded (which means "connected really really well") to neutral at the panel. Jeh (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)