Talk:NEMA connector/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Terminology section

Renamed and moved from "There's your definition" above.

the connector is a locking type and whether it is a plug (male connector) or the corresponding receptacle (female connector). Very concise, and not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And "blade" in the very next paragraph. Jeh (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, regarding your deletion of the Terminology section of the article, 8 months ago you reinstated this section after another editor deleted it! Please refer to the section above: Redundant terminology section which deals with this issue, and in which you clearly stated: "Agree with FF-UK and JimmiCheddar". The outcome of that discussion was a clear consensus that the section should be retained. What has changed? FF-UK (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion re these two paragraphs has changed. Am I not allowed to do that?

The removed section took about ten lines of text (depending on window width) to define exactly two words - words that are used in NEMA but which you claim would be "unfamiliar" to speakers of what it (derisively) referred to as "normal English": "Receptacle" and "blade".

First: I find that claim to be dubious. These are everyday words used in all varieties of English, used here in a fashion not at all incongruous with their usual meanings; their specific application in this context should be far from nonobvious. It's not as if the words were, say, "frobnitz" and "krebler". Or if we were calling our "plugs" "receptacles" instead.

Verb. Sap.: We use "blades" instead of "pins" because with rare exceptions, ours don't have circular cross-sections. (You don't call thin rack-mount server chassis "pins", do you? Yeah, I thought not.)

Do you seriously mean to tell me that if we're talking about electrical connectors, a speaker of "normal English" would not figure out, with no conscious effort, what "receptacle" or "blade" referred to here in about 0.1 seconds?

And I think we can presume that speakers of "normal English" are not very damn stupid, which they would have to be to not make these very minor inductive leaps.

Second: Of course, we shouldn't rely on the reader making any sort of intuitive leap. But we're not. These terms are defined very clearly the first time they're used. Which is how WP MOS recommends we do it.

MOS does not recommend a pre-emptive paragraph per word, preceding as it did the article's own introduction and use thereof, saying "per this other standard which isn't even the topic here, this word we haven't actually used and defined yet in this article is called something else."

The text in question here is completely out of proportion to any defensible purpose.

--Jeh (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC) (speaker of what I guess is abnormal English)

I have added efn's which serve the stated intent. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(End of moved content.)

Wtshymanski, you wrote "not an advertisement for where to download IEC standards", this is a completely misleading statement as the text which you deleted contains no such thing! The link to the IEC is to the "Online Electrotechnical Vocabulary", a completely free online database. Before leaping in to delete stuff, perhaps you should actually read it!

Jeh, you wrote "My opinion re these two paragraphs has changed. Am I not allowed to do that?" Normally an opinion only changes when there is a change in the facts or circumstances on which the opinion is based, otherwise any such change suggests that either the original, or revised, opinion is frivolous and without a sound basis. You have not actually responded to my question to you "What has changed?" When you reverted the earlier deletion of this section, you did so with the comment "I disagree with this edit" and made it clear on the talk page that you agreed with the rationale for including the section. To now take the diametrically opposite position on the basis that your opinion has changed, with no explanation as to why, is not indicative of a responsible approach to WP.

The section which you have now removed does far more than define two terms, it makes the point that the terminology used in electrical standards is normally that which has been agreed by the international body responsible for such things, of which the US is a full member. However, US standards bodies are an exception to this norm and use non-standard terminology, in the context of NEMA standards this is a valid point worth making.

The origins of the use of "pin" to refer to the male contact of an electrical power connector can be traced back to the first known patent for such a connector, the 1882 British patent numbered 4162 in which the applicant, Thomas Tayler Smith, refers to "two hooks or pins of copper or other good conductor" which mate with "a pair of insulated metallic shoes or sockets formed to receive the hooks or pins". These hooked contacts which he called pins were shown in his accompanying diagrams as consisting of formed pieces of flat sheet metal, a similar construction method to that later used by Harvey Hubbell. In 1894, Chapter VI of the seventh edition of "Electric Light Installations, Volume II, Apparatus" by Sir David Salomons describes a number of power plugs and sockets and refers to the plug contacts as "pins" and sometimes the plugs themselves as "pin connectors". A variety of plugs and sockets are illustrated and most are similar to the two pin plug shown here. My personal copy of this book, the eighth edition published in 1901, has a title page showing that the publisher, Whittaker & Co., had an office on Fifth Avenue, New York. We may safely assume that the book was available in the US by that time. (Additional info has now come to hand, the Fifth edition of the book was reviewed in March 1890 in "Science", the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The review indicates that the book was published in America by Van Nostrand of New York. A quick check of this edition includes pictures of a "wall connector" and its mating plug, and refers to the "plug pins". Thus, there can be no doubt that the knowledge of power plugs and sockets as invented in Britain was readily available in the US at least 14 years before Hubbell patented his device.)

Despite these earlier precedents, Harvey Hubbell's original patent 1904 for a separable connector, U.S. Patent 774,250, refers to the pins (which were of round construction) as "contact-posts". In his follow up design of a plug with coplanar flat contacts, U.S. Patent 774,250, he describes those contacts as "knife-blade contacts". In the description of this latter connector, published in the 1904 Hubbell catalog, he refers to the contacts as being "on the knife switch principal", so I guess this is the origin of the term "blade" for an American plug contact. In the 1916 Hubbell patent US 1,179,728 for a three-pin plug, the contact pins are again referred to as "knife-blade contacts", but the modern Australian standard AS/NZS 3112, which is based on the 1916 Hubbell design, calls them pins in accordance with standard international practice.

It should also be noted that the flat plug contacts of the modern British plug are also called "pins" in BS 1363.

Jeh, you also wrote "These are everyday words used in all varieties of English, used here in a fashion not at all incongruous with their usual meanings", that is completely disingenuous. "Blade" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the flat cutting edge of a knife, saw, or other tool or weapon" there is no reference relating to electrical contacts. "Receptacle" is defined in the OED as "a hollow object used to contain something", with a reference to North American usage as "an electrical socket". Neither word would be recognized by a non-American speaker of English as having anything to do with electrical connectors (unless that person had direct experience of American practice). By contrast, "pin" is commonly used by Americans as a word relating to plugs of various kinds, including the American "pin and sleeve" connectors. Likewise, "socket" is a common term for a power outlet, as I know from personal research among American friends (some of whom did not relate to "receptacle" at all), and references to wall sockets are common in American literature of both a technical and non-technical variety. (A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The situation regarding these words is far from symmetrical!

The Terminology section (as you previously seemed to understand) is actually far more than a couple of definitions.

Finally, I would remind you that, although you have both been associated with editing this article for some years (Wtshymanski for 11 years and Jeh for 4 years) neither of you bothered to clean up the mess that it was in. That task was left to this British editor when earlier this year I did a major clean-up to improve accuracy and consistency. That clean-up involved many replacements of non-standard (often British English) terms with the appropriate American terms! It was in the same edit that I added the terminology section because it was then I realized how badly it was needed! I welcome the fact that at least one American editor, Reify-tech, appreciated my work! FF-UK (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We are so lucky to have a scholar of such erudition. But seriously, isn't an article on plugs and sockets a stupid thing to have in an encyclopedia in the first place? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

My reply to FF-UK is still in progress - I've been busy with a work deadline. Jeh (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for delay in commenting, I am travelling overseas and mostly without internet access. My view is NOT changed from what it was earlier this year. The section is a valuable feature, and in the light of what FFUK has written above, it should probably be expanded re history. NEMA can be a very nationalistic and blinkered organization. Some of you may be familiar with this extract from the October 2014 ‘NEMA electroindustry’ magazine, page 20, available here: http://www.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/NEMA/g44837_nema_ei_October2014/index.php#/22 "Plugs and outlets: U.S. configurations of plugs and outlets were never included in IEC standards; the rest of the world developed their own configurations, which eventually became IEC standards. As a result, European devices became the standard throughout most of the world outside of North America and the United Kingdom. Trying to correct this error of omission has spanned more than 20 years." What arrogance! It completely ignores the fact that other advanced countries were using plugs and outlets long before they came into use in the US, 20 years before in the case of the UK! It also fails to acknowledge that the basic Hubbell legacy NEMA 1 and 5 designs (unchanged in their fundamentals for over 100 years) have always been inferior to their European counterparts, despite arriving late to market. It also ignores the fact that IEC have adopted the NEMA 5 design as the IEC 60906-2 standard, but that is a completely integrated standard which includes performance and safety requirements (unlike the basic dimensions only approach of NEMA) and uses internationally agreed terminology. Why is it that so often our country joins international organizations, and then ignores the rules? Obviously, such considerations themselves should not form part of this article, but the basic fact of non-conformance to IEC standards to which the US has agreed are a valid mention in the deleted section. JimmiCheddar (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best not to get too much politics here, but it seems to be a side effect of the US political system. Note the current (2017) non-agreement between the US and some other countries on the Iran nuclear deal, and also the Paris climate change agreement. Two that could have large effects on many people. Relative to those, some disagreement on plugs isn't so bad. Gah4 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Er but... NEMA is not a government organization. It's a trade industry association. IEC is also an NGO. An agreement by NEMA to use IEC terminology would not be an agreement "between countries". Jeh (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, but sometimes it happens anyway. Someone might say "well they did ... so we can do ...!" Gah4 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

As there are no coherent reasons given for the removal of the section, I have reverted it. JimmiCheddar (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion is premature. I'm still working on my replies. You took days, why can't I? Jeh (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not panic, the worst that can happen is that readers will have more information than you want them to have. Nobody will get hurt. JimmiCheddar (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to FF-UK

You wrote...

"The section which you have now removed does far more than define two terms, [...]"

No argument there. The question is whether the "far more" belongs in this article, particularly in such a prominent position. Rather than in, say, a footnote.

"in the context of NEMA standards this is a valid point worth making."

The points that are worth making are made entirely sufficiently by the footnotes I added: a) There are other words commonly used for these things, and some of those "other words" are supported by the IEC "vocabulary", which is linked.

Much that of the deleted "terminology" section that goes beyond the current footnotes smacks of chiding, finger-wagging, and NNPOV. If you really want to make the point about how awful it is that NEMA does not follow IEC terminology then it should probably go in an article entitled "Comparison of electrical connector standards" or some such. But here? It is completely improper to interrupt the flow of this article, right after the lede, to tell the reader that the NEMA terminology is somehow "abnormal English"! That will not help the readers' understanding of NEMA connectors. Articles should be about their subject. The subject here is "NEMA connectors". Not "things Americans do wrong".

Your extensive exposition here about the "pin" terminology has nothing to do with the question of inclusion of this section. However, the nature of your response to my little offhand remark about the word "pin" is interesting. You responded to a single sentence with about 500 words that do nothing whatsoever to defend the presence of the Terminology section. (It doesn't really contradict the notion that NEMA's contacts' non-round cross section has discouraged calling its male contacts "pins", either.) Did you think that overwhelming me with the history of the terms "pins" and "blades" would encourage me to go away? As in "Oh, he knows a lot, I should withdraw"? Whatever. The fact remains that in general usage, "pins" are generally things with a round cross-section, though of course there are exceptions.

(I suppose you're now going to write 1200 words that you think prove that I'm wrong about that. By all means go ahead - it's your time to waste and I will simply be bemused.)

"you also wrote "These are everyday words used in all varieties of English, used here in a fashion not at all incongruous with their usual meanings", that is completely disingenuous. "Blade" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the flat cutting edge of a knife, saw, or other tool or weapon" there is no reference relating to electrical contacts."

Here's a definition from the OED for you: "Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." I don't see how the second part applies at all, and as for the first part, I am completely sincere in my expressed belief. Please don't call me dishonest again. I have done nothing to deserve such an accusation.

And another: "Incongruous: Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something." It doesn't mean "not the same as" or "not interchangeable with". The shape of the prongs of the typical NEMA plugs is "not incongruous" with the shapes of other things called "blades". And "receptacles" are things you put things in. Is that really incongruous with the function and use of a female electrical connector? I don't think so. You put the "blades" in the hollow things, do you not? I cannot imagine that anyone of even moderate intelligence and reasoning ability would puzzle over these terms in this article for any significant time. Humans do have the ability to intuit meaning of unfamiliar words from context; that's how most of us learned our native language.

And if the reader still is uncertain, or wants more information, we do have the footnotes.

Your previous work on the article in harmonizing terminology, etc., was certainly appreciated here. (And your implication that only one person appreciated it is just silly.) But it doesn't give you a pass in subsequent discussions.

"The Terminology section (as you previously seemed to understand) is actually far more than a couple of definitions."

Yes, it certainly was. That was the problem. The question I would like you, FF-UK, to answer is: What useful purpose in terms of the subject of this article is not served by the existing footnotes? Jeh (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, The footnotes fail to bring to the attention of the reader that, despite the US being a full member of IEC, the NEMA connector standard has not been brought into conformance with IEC standards, this is a simple fact relating directly to the subject of the article, there is absolutely nothing NNPOV about it! Why do want to hide that fact?

Some pins are round, others are square or flat, hence the common phrase "a square pin in a round hole". Definitions of "pin" in common parlance do NOT imply roundness. Try searching on the words: USCAR square pin, you will find no shortage of references to a very common, completely American, square pin connector used in the auto industry!

Whatever you may think, "receptacle" is not a word that is used outside North America as an alternative to socket.

I realise that there IS something of significance which has changed since I originally added the section. Another editor added the words: "In North America, the term socket more commonly refers to lamp bases, in particular the round screw-in base used for standard lamps or light bulbs, while the terms outlet and receptacle are used interchangeably." I now remember noting that at the time, but did not feel sufficiently motivated at the time to challenge it. That uncited addition seemed unnecessary to me. Actually, "socket" is often used throughout the English speaking world to refer to lampholders, although lampholder is the term defined by the IEC and also used in relevant ANSI standard C81.62 (note: ANSI have adopted the IEC 60061 standard, with appropriate modifications). Could it be that the addition of those unnecessary words is what actually led you to change your opinion? Perhaps we should simply agree on the original form of the section? FF-UK (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bringing NEMA's non-conformance to IEC's terminology to the reader's attention is not the primary purpose, nor an essential purpose, of this article. The article describes the configuration, nomenclature, and use of various connectors as defined by NEMA. That a couple of details of the nomenclature are different from corresponding ones in IEC could remain unknown to the reader and this would not impede the reader's understanding of the article content in the slightest. It is of secondary interest at best. The prominent position you gave those paragraphs was completely unwarranted.

I realize that, given how insistent you are about criticizing NEMA, the inclusion of that section as the first thing in the body is very attractive to you. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to go along.

And don't put words in my mouth. I haven't "hidden" anything except your specific language.

Speaking of which, it is not the situation that NEMA does not use IEC terminology that is NNPOV. It is the way the previous text described the situation.

Anyway, the essential information is in the footnotes. Moving something to a footnote is not "hiding" it, it's just putting it in its proper relationship to the rest of the article. The reader who needs or wants it can easily find it, but the reader who doesn't need or want it won't have to scan through it to get to the article's actual content.

Certainly neither group needs two paragraphs in a section titled "Terminology" right at the top of the article body to explain what can be (and already is) explained in two sentences. If the information there was essential for understanding of the article, then you'd have a stronger case for moving it out of the footnotes.

I never said or implied that I thought "receptacle" was used outside NA to refer to a socket. I don't know why you (again!) made the point that it is not; that was never in question.

You however seem to believe that the term "receptacle" in this context is not only unfamiliar to many readers but will actually be completely incomprehensible to them. So much so that the entire article is thereby rendered opaque! Despite "receptacle"'s meaning being completely obvious from context and explicitly stated in what is now properly the first graf in the body:

"[...] and whether it is a plug (male connector) or the corresponding receptacle (female connector)."

The notion that that leaves any doubt whatsoever in the reader's mind as to what the term "receptacle" means here -- even if said reader had never heard the word before at all, let alone in an electrical context -- is a complete fantasy. Anyone with the slightest interest in this subject will know that common electrical connectors involve pointy-shaped things inserted into hollow-shaped things. So, we define the "receptacle" as the "female connector" (hollow-shaped thing) that "corresponds" to a given "plug (male connector)" (pointy-shaped thing).

And of course, we have the footnotes too.

If that's not enough to tell people what a "receptacle" is, then what do you think it would take? Flaming letters in the sky?

Given that "receptacle" is already completely sufficiently defined here even without the footnotes, your insistence on the inclusion of the "terminology" section makes it clear to me that your primary purpose is to use this article as a platform from which to wring your hands at NEMA for its lack of use of what you call "normal English". That's why nothing but the previous first-thing-after-the-lede position will satisfy you.

Is there some reason that you can't put this criticism of NEMA in the NEMA article? It's not the connectors that are fault here!

The addition of the bit about the term "socket" has nothing to do with my opinion.

The common idiom btw is actually "square PEG in a round hole." (300,000 Google hits vs 1200) That should tell you something. Jeh (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to JimmiCheddar

I can't imagine much that you could have written that would have more thoroughly convinced me that your support for the (at the moment deleted) "Terminology" section is based almost entirely in your desire to rub Americans' noses in what you see as their hand-wringingly horrible mistakes. The section was slightly NNPOV and argumentative. Your position as expressed here is grossly argumentative and NNPOV. Do I really need to state that expressing such opinions is not the purpose of this article? Jeh (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Back home in sunny Florida and back on line again. This patriotic American objects in the strongest terms to being accused of having a "desire to rub Americans' noses in what you see as their hand-wringingly horrible mistakes"! Jeh, there is nothing remotely "NNPOV and argumentative" about the deleted section (which you were fully supportive of when it was first added). As for what I wrote on this talk page: "Why is it that so often our country joins international organizations, and then ignores the rules? Obviously, such considerations themselves should not form part of this article, but the basic fact of non-conformance to IEC standards to which the US has agreed are a valid mention in the deleted section". Anyone with an awareness of current affairs regarding our country's behaviour regarding international agreements, whether governmental agreements or those between NGOs,would not query that my statement was true, and quite clearly you did NOT "need to state that expressing such opinions is not the purpose of this article" as I had already made that clear myself! Your replies to me and to FF-UK have been distinctly uncivil as well as inaccurate. JimmiCheddar (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided any cogent responses or rebuttals to what I wrote previously, just denials. Not NNPOV? What do you call contrasting NEMA's terminology with what that section derisively calls "normal English"?

The "basic fact of [NEMA's] non-conformance to IEC standards" is already perfectly sufficiently covered in the footnotes - sufficiently, at least, as far as the topic of this article is concerned. Exactly what important information is in the disputed section that the reader of this article is not going to get by reading "In IEC 60050, the International Electrotechnical Vocabulary, these devices are referred to as socket-outlets" and "IEC 60050, the International Electrotechnical Vocabulary, refers to these parts as "blade contacts"; however, common usage is to call them "pins."? I even got the full name of IEV and a link to it in there.

Why do you think an article about NEMA needs 156 words about something NEMA does not do, right after the lede, where 36 words in footnotes will do?

By the way, you continue to write "our country", but both NEMA and IEC are NGOs - they're just industry trade organizations. The claim that the "US" is a "full member" of IEC is misleading. The organization that IEC has accepted as representing the US's interests is ANSI (not NEMA!), but ANSI is likewise an industry trade organization, an NGO. Jeh (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, you seem to have a rather hazy understanding of the IEC, which is classified as a "quasi-governmental organization", not an NGO. The IEC itself lists the US as a full member (http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:16:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:1046 ) so I cannot imagine why you claim otherwise? The President of the IEC, James M. Shannon, is a former US congressman, and former President of the NFPA. Member countries of the IEC are represented by a National Committee, some countries (such as Canada and Russia) are represented by governmental organisations, others, such as the US and UK, are represented by NGOs. The NGO representing the US is ANSI (as you say), but the US National Committee has members from relevant manufacturers as well as ANSI, NEMA and UL, it is certainly not just ANSI.

As far as "our country" goes, we clearly have very different ideas of what that means, as far as I am concerned "our country" includes all citizens and national organisations as well as the Government. When it comes to international relations, then we are all ambassadors for our country, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

The beginning of a technical article is the usual place for a terminology section, that way readers who are unfamiliar with the terminology used are brought up to speed before they encounter the terms, much better than referring to footnotes (but I have nothing against footnotes as well if that is the consensus).

(By the way, I live hundreds of miles from Tallahassee - I choose to live somewhere that winters are warm. Your 'snide' comment below was not appreciated.) JimmiCheddar (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, your assertion that ANSI is "just (an) industry trade organization" is a further example of your apparent disregard for facts. ANSI was founded in 1918 by five engineering societies and three government agencies, it remains a private, nonprofit membership organization which, in its own words, is "comprised of Government agencies, Organizations, Companies, Academic and International bodies, and individuals". Hardly just an industry trade organization! See this ANSI webpage.

Regarding the comments about NEMA's involvement with the IEC made by JimmiCheddar, NEMA's own description of its close relationship with the IEC can be found on the NEMA website. FF-UK (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You'd have a point that footnotes alone are not sufficient... if, indeed, all we had were footnotes alone. But the definitions of the terms are in the first and third sentences of the article body. Wtshymanski pointed them out weeks ago. The footnotes are simply footnotes providing more information about the definitions. They say ~"not in accordance with IEC terminology", they link to the IEV, they link to the IEC. The general reader needs only the information that's already in the main text, and the person who's further interested in the terminology will find more info in the footnotes - the reference numbers are an invitation to "click here for more info".

So I don't understand why you find the footnotes PLUS the definitions in the main text insufficient.

Re the USA and the IEC: First, our own article says that the IEC is an NGO. (If you think you should correct it, please be sure to bring solid references. A well-referenced, precise definition of "quasi-governmental organization" would be good, too.) The fact remains that the "United States", as a legal entity (or "country"), is flatly not a member of the IEC. (I challenge you to find any act of Congress, Executive Order, or similar that declares us as such.)

Saying that "the US is a full member of the IEC" without explaining the full truth of the situation is just sloppy writing at best. At worst it's intentionally misleading.

The true situation is that IEC recognizes ANSI as the organization that represents the interests of its US members (again, not "the interests of the United States") to the IEC. ANSI is, of course, an NGO - the "American" in its name implies just as much government affiliation as it does for, say, "American Express."

Yes, some countries are represented to the IEC by "official" agencies of their governments. But as you agree, the US is not. Since we're talking about NEMA, we're talking about the situation of the US, so what other countries do wrt the IEC is irrelevant here.

The reason I object to this phrasing is that it implies strongly that the country called the "United States" is breaking some sort of treaty or similar-level agreement by the fact of NEMA using the word "receptacle" instead of "socket-outlet". And I have little doubt that it was written that way to make NEMA's supposed transgression seem hugely important.

But this is simply not the case. We never promised - not even ANSI or NEMA, let alone the entire United States - to anybody to follow everything in the IEC's standards, and the IEC has no legal authority to enforce anything. In fact the IEC itself states that adoption of their "Standards" is voluntary, even by "full members."

So, NEMA, which is not itself a member of the IEC anyway, doesn't volunteer to follow the IEC's voluntary recommendations regarding two terms (one of them completely ridiculous on its face).

Well imagine my concern.

I don't expect you to agree, but perhaps you can at least understand why I think the importance you apparently ascribe to this, and the amount of text you want to include regarding it, is beyond all reasonable proportion.

Hm, I appear to have failed to sign the above. Odd that signbot didn't catch it. Well I have one more thing to add here, so a sig here will suffice:

Your 'snide' comment below was not appreciated. I didn't think it would be. When two brand new IP editors show up within a short time to back up a registered editor's vehemently stated opinions, and those IPs geolocate to a place that could be near where the reg.ed. says they live, it is completely reasonable and not at all "snide" to wonder if sockpuppetry might be involved. Jeh (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference "quasi-governmental", I have corrected the IEC article, with references. JimmiCheddar (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that the term "Quasi-governmental organization" is pretty unclear to the general reader. On WP "Quasi-governmental" redirects to State-owned enterprise, but that article does not mention the term. Nor mention the IEC among the "state-owned enterprises" it lists for Switzerland. Is IEC , then, actually owned by the Swiss government? And to what extent does the Swiss government control it? Jeh (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I had removed that redirect to State-owned enterprise (as it is irrelevant to quasi-governmental) before changing the IEC article. When I checked a little while ago I found, like you, that the redirect was back, the history made no sense, but following a further edit (which I have now reverted) the history came back, and showed that the page as I edited it had a deletion template added, which is fine by me. To my knowledge the Swiss Government neither owns or controls the IEC, it is owned by its members of which Switzerland is one. Some of the member National Committees are governmental organizations, some are not. The point is that (as the references show) both the IEC itself, and the Swiss Government, classify IEC as a Quasi-governmental organization. (Swiss Government also classifies several other organizations headquartered in Switzerland the same way, as well as a far greater number of organizations which it classifies as non-governmental). JimmiCheddar (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

further discussion

A plea to all, please stop this edit war. I have reverted to the original version of the text which achieved a consensus. 81.128.173.187 (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Asking "please stop this edit war" simultaneous with reverting the article to your preferred version is not exactly helpful, especially given that you have not participated previously in this discussion. If you want to help resolve the dispute, please respond to the points made so far, on whichever side you like. I believe I have raised valid criticism of the section and that my criticisms have been met only by denials, stonewalling, and JimmiCheddar's ... whatever that was. Jeh (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a majority view that the terminology section (which is a common feature of other WP articles on mains connectors) is a useful section, and is not to be confused with nomenclature, which refers to the various NEMA style sheets, as opposed to the terminology of connector standards. The reference to NEMA not using the international standard terminology is a valid point. Perhaps those objecting to it are acting on behalf of NEMA (either officially or unofficially)? I will reinstate the section and hope that those attempting censorship will cease. 216.227.27.175 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Disputes on Wikipedia are not decided by the "majority" (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), but by reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The disputed section violates P&G by presenting a WP:NNPOV (it clearly is written in a disapproving WP:TONE), putting an WP:UNDUE emphasis on the situation described (this article is about NEMA connectors, not NEMA the organization's sins), and by not respecting national varieties of English (e.g. the snide reference to "normal English").

I do not believe it is possible to read the disputed section without concluding that its author(s) are disapproving of the situation described. Certainly that is crystal clear after reading FF-UK's and JimmiCheddar's defenses of the section here. That's NNPOV.

We don't publish editors' opinions, no matter how subtly they are presented or with what vehemence they are defended. Citing an opinion from a WP:RS is a different matter, but that's not what's happening here. These are opinions expressed in Wikipedia's "own voice". Deleting them in favor of a more neutral presentation is completely in accordance with P&G, even if you think it's "censorship".

The proponents of this section have countered these objections with nothing but denials ~("no, it isn't NNPOV"), hundreds of words of irrelevancies about points that are not even in contention, and much hand-wringing about how oh-so-horrible and "arrogant" it is that NEMA and this article use a grand total of two easily-understood words that aren't the same as the IEC's words, therefore the section is important to include regardless of its flaws. The proponents seem to think it is absolutely essential that the reader know all about it before reading anything that actually pertains to the article's topic. Even though they have never demonstrated that these words cause any problem for anybody. Unfamiliar to some? Ok, but an actual stumbling block to understanding? That claim has not been defended at all.

The proponents have also presented no counter to the argument that NEMA's definitions of the words, along with references and links to the IEC's standard, etc., are presented with complete clarity in the footnotes, other than "we think it's too important to be relegated to footnotes".

If this material belongs anywhere it belongs in the NEMA article. (Or in someone's blog.)

Finally, this is not "censorship" because the facts, presented in a neutral tone, are all still there in the footnotes. All of the information in the disputed section that is essential to the article's purpose, and more, complete with reference to and link to the IEV, is right there. The terms in question are clearly defined in the article text even without the footnotes. Nothing has been "censored" except the P&G violations I just described.

Do you have any cogent responses to the above? Your claim of "censorship" doesn't fly. It is true that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, but it is most definitely edited for compliance with our policies and guidelines. Neither does appealing to the "majority", as WP is not a democracy. Jeh (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, It is perfectly normal to have a section dealing with terminology at the front of an article such as this, it helps the reader understand the terms used in the article. (A similar approach is taken in most standards documents.) "Pin" is the normal English term which is used in most English speaking countries for flat or rectangular plug contacts, for example in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and UK, all of whose standard domestic plugs use non-round contacts. "Normal English term" is a simple fact, and certainly not "snide"! To claim that it is NNPOV is complete nonsense. Having been confined to my bed for a while due to illness, I have been reading a few novels, one, "Void Moon" by my favourite crime writer, the American author Michael Connelly, was of particular interest as a key part of the story involves hiding a secret camera in an electrical outlet, but nowhere in the story does this American author refer to "outlet" or "receptacle", only "socket"! In my experience it is very rare for ordinary Americans to use the terms "receptacle" and "blade", what they actually say or write is "outlet" or "socket" for where they put their power plugs, and "prongs" for the pins of a plug. It can be safely concluded that the terminology section is of use to non-technical Americans, as well as other speakers of English. FF-UK (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The UK is right, see: https://books.google.com/books?id=fyhrv0iHZAYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22VOID+MOON%22+CONNELLY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXhNmQyrbXAhXJOSYKHXhXD3wQ6AEIKDAA#v=snippet&q=%20socket%20&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.248.126.230 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

To the second brand-new-IP editor from near Tallahassee FL (hmm. JimmiC says he lives in FL) to have shown up in the same week - "The UK is right"? You linked a Google Books search result showing the use of "socket" in the book mentioned by FF-UK, and you conclude from this that the entire UK is right? That's remarkable. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FF-UK, whether or not "receptacle" or "blade contact" are terms uncommonly used by the general reader (Wikipedia is written for the general reader) has never been the issue.

You do continue to use arguments that pertain to points not in question, and are only minimally related to the real question... I don't think anybody here has ever claimed that "receptacle" is the more commonly used term in NA, or that we don't prefer "outlet" or "socket" in general use. You cite a novel by an American author that uses the term "socket" a lot. Even if that one example was enough to prove anything, it's still off point.

Continued focus on a point not in contention in the first place is often a sign of someone who can't find good arguments for their position on the actual issues.

The salient questions here, though, are a) whether the general reader needs anything more than the definitions of the terms that were and are already in the first three sentences of the "Nomenclature" section, and b) if so, what is the appropriate material to add to the article to address the need.

If the sole desire is to alert the reader to the meanings of these terms, then a) the previous terminology section "buried the lede" by putting that information in its second paragraph, preferring instead to establish the primacy of the IEC and their IEV, and b) the meanings are completely sufficiently defined in the first and third sentences of the "nomenclature" section. As to the first point, the general reader would likely read the first sentence of the section and think "oh, this is about the standards organizations, I don't care" and skip the rest. Re the second point, if the definitions in the nomenclature are not enough, the footnote indicators do call the reader's attention to the further explanation, and cites and link to the IEV. "Read here for more information."

"To claim that it is NNPOV is complete nonsense." That's is simply "argument by vigorous assertion". (I note your continued use of exclamation points, as if your vehemence strengthened your position. It's the written equivalent of shouting and getting "in your face". Bully much?)

"Normal" in many cases can be an emotionally loaded term. Certainly its antonym, "abnormal", is often used in a derogatory fashion. (I suppose the IEC's establishment of the ridiculous term "socket-outlet" makes everyone who simply calls them "sockets" "abnormal".) At bare minimum it expresses a judgment, your judgment. It most certainly is not "respectful of national varieties of English", an attitude which is required here by Wikipedia (see WP:ENGVAR) whether you agree that the term is NNPOV or not. It reminds of every time a speaker of "British English" has inappropriately changed "color" to "colour" on WP, usually with a snide edit summary of e.g. "corrected spelling". And its use is simply not necessary to present the essential points here.

So why defend it so vigorously?

I agree that the terms "receptacle" and "blade" as used here require explanation. But the text in the "nomenclature" section completely and sufficiently defines them, and the footnotes provide the mention of the IEV and links to it. And IMO the footnote indicators and text pop-up that appear in the main text call the readers' attention to their presence and importance in a way that is superior to the original. So: What does the disputed section do that a) the reader needs and b) is not done by the article without that section?

Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope you feel better soon. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeh, Please do not continually twist words. Let's start with Merriam Webster's definitions of "normal": "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle" and "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern". Nothing there to justify your claim about "emotionally loaded", or "expressing a judgement", it is, as I said before, simply a fact that "the normal English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin". "Normal" is absolutely the normal word to use in this context.

I do not wish to get bogged down in discussing your comment: I suppose the IEC's establishment of the ridiculous term "socket-outlet" makes everyone who simply calls them "sockets" "abnormal", but being dismissive of an internationally agreed standard term is hardly constructive, and is in an indication that the real problem here is that it is you who are not taking a neutral position.

Let me remind you again of what I wrote back in February " It is normal for IEC members to align their standards, where possible, to IEC standards. This does not mean adopting everything in an IEC standard, for instance the overarching IEC standard on "Plugs and socket outlets for household and similar purposes", IEC 60884, does not include any standard sheets for particular styles, but does define general principles and terminology. NEMA is one of the few exceptions to this norm. It is not my place to comment on whether the deviations of NEMA are a good or bad thing, but it is important to assist non-North American readers to understand the differences, and for North Americans to be aware of international standards." Your response to this was "Agree with FF-UK and JimmiCheddar." You have still given no explanation of why you were in favour of the section then, but not now. There is no logic in your current position. FF-UK (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Y'all see the notice at the top of the page that "This is not a forum" ? You have private talk pages for chit-chat that is no longer related to the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FF-UK, I am under no obligation to explain my change of opinion to you and you are in no position to demand such an explanation. "You had a different opinion previously" is not at all a compelling argument, and your continuing to harp on it just looks like a feeble attempt at deflection. You may choose to believe that I think my previous opinion was too-quickly considered; you may choose to believe that my current position is ill-considered; you may choose to believe anything you like. Regardless, the fact remains that I have brought up several independent objections to the section and you have countered none of them other than with a weak cite to a dictionary, which I'll address in my next reply. (Simply declaring "there is no logic in your position" doesn't cut it.) Jeh (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a summary of my objections that have not been countered:

• The primary purpose of a "terminology" section is to define the terms (duh), but that's already done, using far fewer words, in the "nomenclature" section (now renamed to "terminology and nomenclature"). So, the disputed section is redundant, at least as far as its primary purpose is concerned.
• Pointing out that two of NEMA's terms don't match either common usage or the IEV is very much a secondary purpose. But that's already done in the footnotes - a completely reasonable place for a secondary purpose. (I would have a lot more sympathy for the POV that we absolutely must point out differences with the IEV if more people actually followed the IEV. Not very many people go around using the IEV's term, "socket-outlet", either!)
• Establishing the IEC as a recognized standards body, and the IEV as its publication, is likewise very much a secondary topic. This article is about NEMA connectors, not the IEC nor even NEMA. Those organizations' descriptions are to be found in their respective articles, which are linked from the footnotes.
• Establishing that the US (as represented by ANSI) is a "full member" of the IEC is a tertiary purpose at best. Furthermore, as phrased in the material under dispute, this info is very concise - but in this case conciseness makes it very misleading. It carries a strong implication that the US as a country is a member of the IEC (we're not) and that we're being a bad international citizen by ignoring two of the definitions suggested in the IEV. Well, maybe we are, but we can't say that (or anything that implies it) in Wikipedia's voice.
• As for the broader details about NEMA, ANSI, and the IEC I would prefer to leave those details to their respective articles. Two of those are already linked from the footnotes and I would have no objection to including concise mention of ANSI in the footnotes as well.
• To the extent that NEMA's non-compliance with the IEV is mentioned, it must also be made clear that compliance with the IEV, as with all of IEC's publications, is (per the IEC) completely voluntary.
• The disputed section's use of the term "normal" to describe terminology other than NEMA's is on all fours with calling NEMA's usage "abnormal" - and that most certainly carries a negative implication no matter what any dictionary says about it. In light of WP:ENGVAR here we must be more respectful of alternate word choices than that. I am completely certain that if I went around WP promoting US English spellings as "normal English" numerous UK folks would complain, and FF-UK would be in the vanguard, and rightly so! No, we should not label any such choices as "normal" in Wikipedia's voice. The current footnotes avoid that.

• Some of these points would admittedly be weaker if alternate wording was not available. But of course, alternate wording is available. The current footnotes avoid judgment, avoid e.g. saying that one usage is "normal" and another must therefore be "abnormal", while still conveying the needed information. (this sub-point added Jeh (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) )

I do not believe cogent rebuttals have been offered to any of the above points. Jeh (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeh Once again I have to apologise for the delay in replying. My illness can be very debilitating, and while I am usually able to follow talk pages, I am not always well enough to respond.

I am going to refer to the history of the IEC and provide here a few extracts on the IEC's work in establishing standard electrical terms.

On 15 September 1904, delegates to the International Electrical Congress, being held in St. Louis, USA, adopted a report that included the following words: "…steps should be taken to secure the co-operation of the technical societies of the world, by the appointment of a representative Commission to consider the question of the standardization of the nomenclature and ratings of electrical apparatus and machinery."

By 1914 the IEC had formed four technical committees to deal with Nomenclature, Symbols, Rating of Electrical Machinery, and Prime Movers. The Commission had also issued a first list of terms and definitions covering electrical machinery and apparatus.

From these extracts I think we can see that using common definitions has always been an important purpose of the IEC as testified by the very first Technical Committee (TC1) being devoted to it.

In an earlier response you referred to "the IEC's establishment of the ridiculous term 'socket-outlet' ". I do not know when that term was agreed by the IEC members (although we can be certain that both the US and the UK, as the major English speaking members, agreed to it). What I do know is that it was in use in the US between 1915 and 1931 as these references show: 1915, 1917, 1921a, 1921b, 1921c (penultimate sentence under the heading "Pull socket current taps"), 1921d (third paragraph of main body of the ad copy), 1931

I am not aware of the use of "socket-outlet" in the UK before 1934. The term used in all British Standards for mains sockets, starting with BS 73 in 1915 (the first national standard anywhere for such items) until BS 372 in 1930, was simply "sockets". In 1934 the first edition of BS 546 was called "Two-Pole and Earthing-Pin Plugs and Socket Outlets", this is an indication that the IEC terminology had been established by then, and it is probable that it was an acceptance of existing US terminology. To treat this term in the derisory way that you do is not NPOV.

You have asserted that "Not very many people go around using the IEV's term, "socket-outlet", either!" , but I would point out that (as far as I am aware) all English language standards for plugs and sockets, other than NEMA, use that term. Noting that this NEMA standard uses terminology which differs from international norms is a perfectly valid thing to do when describing the standard.

NEMA representatives are very active as part of the US representation on IEC committees. There is nothing unreasonable in stating that the US is a full member of the IEC, as the IEC itself clearly indicates that it is here. Independent support for that statement is provided in this recent book (page 175, second paragraph of section 5.7.3.2). If the concept of the US being a member of the IEC troubles you, then suitable alternative language would be: "published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (of which the US National Committee (USNC) is a full member)." citing this NEMA page as a reference. (Please note, that NEMA page also links to a document which details the extent of NEMA involvement, note particularly the entries for "IEC TC 23/SC 23BSC 23B - Plugs, Socket-Outlets and Switches" and "IEC TC 23/SC 23CSC 23C - World-Wide Plug and Socket-Outlet Systems", both of which committees have several NEMA delegates.) That reference also includes the statement "NEMA is very supportive to promoting the adoption of relevant IEC/ISO standards on a sector-by-sector basis as US and North American standards." However, despite that stated intention, it is a fact that although the NEMA 5-15 type is the basis for IEC 60906-2 (originally published 25 years ago in 1992), that standard has still not been adopted as a US standard.

I note that you are still very unhappy with the words "however the normal English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin", perhaps you would find the following more acceptable: "however the internationally standardized English term used in connection with mains plugs is pin"?

Given the position of NEMA, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to state that this standard uses non-standard terminology. This is information which is specifically relevant to ANSI/NEMA WD-6 and therefore belongs in this article, not some other article.

Jeh, the Terminology section that was original added to the article in February 2017, with your approval, remains the most appropriate way to provide this relevant information to readers in a form which is consistent with similar WP articles. But, as I mention above, there are a couple of language tweaks which should answer your specific language objections. FF-UK (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

THe footnotes combined with the text that is currently in the "nomenclature" section are perfectly adequate. The terminology section that's under dispute still has the problems I cited above; in particular it is much more about beating the drum of the IEC and wagging a finger at NEMA than it is about terminology as used in this article. And it would take rather more than "a couple of language tweaks" to fix them. Given that the existing text leaves no doubt about all of the relevant facts I see no need to pursue that path. Jeh (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

NEMA STANDARD THAT ALLOWS 2 BLACK WIRES AND GREEN SFTY GND FOR US MEDICAL APPLICATIONS

I am looking for the ANSI/NEMA standard that utilizes a power cord with 2 Black wires and 1 green w/yellow safetyy gnd. The Black wires are faintly labeled 1 and 2. Which goes on the Hot and which goes on the neutral in a standard US 120VAC application? 40.137.115.234 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A little context would help. As far as I know, that should never occur for US 120V wiring. In the case of NEMA 6 series, which have two hot and one ground wire, that might be appropriate. I have never looked at the color coding for such, if they have any. In the case of zip cord, with one plastic covering all wires, there is a texture difference between the wires, but then there wouldn't be a color to the ground wire. Gah4 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is another possibility, though I don't know medical electronics enough to know. There might be circuits that are 120V with center tap grounded, such that the two hot wires are each 60V from ground. I believe this is sometimes used in audio systems to reduce 60Hz hum from coming though, and I suspect that it could also be used in medical equipment. Gah4 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remember, as it says at the top of this talk page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NEMA connector article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. This discussion is out of order. FF-UK (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I try to give at least a little latitude here. OK, what color wiring should be used with NEMA 6 and 10 series plugs? Gah4 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

two phases

As far as I know, NEMA 6, 10, and 14 series connectors can be used on either 120/240 circuits, or two phases of 120/208 circuits. Most appliances that use these connectors are designed to work either way, though heating appliances will run at a lower power. (Electric dryers, stoves, and ovens are common for the larger ones.) Larger buildings are commonly supplied with 120/208, especially ones that are not individually metered, such as industry, dorms, and hotels. Smaller motels might be 120/240, though. I changed a recent edit to allow for both, but would be interested to know about other opinions or references. Gah4 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

cars

Also, charging stations for electric cars, both at home and away from home, are getting more popular. Some might be directly wired, but many use plugs. I am not so sure where the outlets and plugs used should be discussed, though. Gah4 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The NEMA 14 section already says "Newer applications include Tesla Motors's Mobile Connector for vehicle charging, which recommends the installation of a 14-50 receptacle for home use." I don't think we ought to single out any one manufacturer, and could broaden it to say something like "Electric car charging stations are commonly provided with ___________ plugs". A cursory glance at Clipper Creek's catalogue shows they sell equipment meant to be hard-wired, but also with 14-30P, 14-50P, 6-50P, L6-30P and regular ol' 5-15P plugs. CplDHicks2 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not owning an electric car, but having seen charging stations around, I assume that they are not specific to one manufacturer. I believe with 5-15P the charge rate is much lower. Gah4 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

NEMA connector: mislabeled prongs.

In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA 14" (non-locking) it says the L-shaped prong is neutral. In the Wikipedia section on "NEMA L14" it does not mention the nature of the L-shaped prong. According to the drawing in the Wikipedia section "NEMA Nomenclature" the L-shaped prong is neutral also in L14. (The prong across from the L-shaped prong is green, ground.)

However, according to http://www.stayonline.com/reference-nema-locking.aspx the L-shaped prong in L14-30 is G (Green, Ground) while the prong across from it is W (Neutral).

I checked with Hubbell. They confirmed: The L shaped prong (they call it the dogleg prong) in L14-30 IS Ground, and is ground in all NEMA L14-30 plugs etc.

So that means that Wikipedia is wrong.

I did not check whether the error extends to other plugs, like other locking and non-locking plugs etc. I suspect it does.

Teun Ott (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Teun Ott

The L shaped blade is neutral in NEMA 14. The (differently) L shaped blade is ground in NEMA L14. I cannot see any error as 14 and L14 are quite different. Mautby (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He's referring to the image below, which shows the L14's L-shaped prong as green (ground), which is consistent with his own description based on the link he gave. Dovid (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The NEMA 14 section is wrong, confusing, and dangerous for anyone that might look at it and rely on it to wire something. The NEMA 14 section tells what the pins are, "The 14-30 has a rating of 30 A, and an L-shaped neutral blade.", and shows a diagram of a 14-30 and a 14-50 (I was concerned with the 14-30), and you click to see the diagram and it says, "Clockwise from the top of each, the pin designations are: neutral, live, ground, live." Well, look at the diagram, top is up on your screen, and it's hard to talk about "clockwise" if a clock can be upside down, and the L-shaped blade is not at the top, but what is at the top is being called neutral. I really don't want to ground my machines to the neutral line by accident.208.127.8.7 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is nice to have the drawings, but there is also a tradition of actually coloring ground screws, and related metal parts, green, and neutral parts silver. I suppose we could also mention the color codes here. Gah4 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, all the NEMA 14 have the neutral at the top, and only 14-30 has an L shaped pin. Note that while similarly numbered, L14 is not 14. Gah4 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What the IP editor means to say is that the description for this image is incorrect. It was correct when it was originally uploaded, but someone switched the diagram around so that the ground would be at the top. There's nothing wrong with the prose in the article itself. CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, discussion should go on the discussion page in wikimedia. Gah4 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed the 220sb diagram's description, which was indeed wrong ever since the image was rotated ground-up in 2015. Olawlor (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ground pin up for NEMA 14-30 and 14-50?

After looking at several newly manufactured 14-30 dryer and 14-50 oven cables, which are clearly designed to put the ground pin on top, I just reoriented the few remaining ground-down receptacles in my NEMA_simplified_pins image so every receptacle is shown with the ground pin on the top side of the receptacle. The NEC appears silent on this issue.

I realize most residential 5-15 receptacles are installed using the traditional ground pin down orientation, but I've been reading about how electrical practice is moving more toward ground-up installations, and this is required in some healthcare and commercial installations, so hopefully depicting 5-15 with ground up isn't going to start an edit war here! Olawlor (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

articles are about their subject

Recently a large deletion was made with the summary: articles are about their subject. While articles are about their subject makes some sense, it is nice to have context for articles. What came before, and what (might) come after. Much of the deletion is the development of the NEMA 1 connector, before NEMA got to it. But maybe that should have its own article. Some is about connectors in common use that people might expect to be NEMA connectors, but for some reason aren't. It would seem reasonable to at least have enough to link to the right article. Gah4 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

download?

According to the article, and according to nema.org, I should be able to create an account and download WD-6. I filled out the account form, but never get an e-mail to verify it with. Gah4 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it never verified, I sent e-mail asking why, and they set me to verified. It seems that e-mail verify doesn't work. Gah4 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

sigfigs

In describing polarized NEMA-1, it says: neutral blade is 5⁄16 in or 7.938 mm wide, 1⁄16 in or 1.588 mm. The metric values seem to have more digits than is necessary, but if the standard actually specifies those digits, then they should probably stay. I suspect, though, that someone converted 5/16 inch with too many digits. Is there a tolerance on the inch value? Gah4 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I got my account (see below), downloaded the PDF, and read it. Normal blades are 0.25in +/- 0.01in, so +/- 0.25mm. The wide blade on polarized plugs is between 0.307in and 0.322in, or 8.0mm +/- 0.2mm, so 8.0mm is close enough. Gah4 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems that this came up again, so I changed them back. Gah4 (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

NEMA-10

The article mentions (un)safety of the NEMA-10, in that the neutral could break or become loose. Since they were common for many years, and I believe grandfathered in current use, it would be interesting to know if anyone was ever electrocuted through this process. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)