Talk:Mains electricity by country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nomination for deletion

As an unregistered user, I cannot complete the full deletion process, but the procedure requires me to post my reasons here.

I removed much of the table some short while ago because it was largely unreferenced. The table was subsequently restored with an embeded reference in the article to the IEC website on world plugs. I note that there is sume discussion and agreement that this IEC website is incomplete and inaccurate and has been tagged as an 'unreliable source', not without any disagreement. I note that SSHamilton stated above that this article, "...does not meet the the normal standards of WP and it would be a reasonable proposal to call for its deletion." I also note that there was and still is much bickering over the interpretation of the IEC website, which has been noted above as a guide rather than any reliable reference.

I thus now propose that the article be deleted on the grounds that its content is not referenced to the standard expected of Wikipedia and the continued disgreement over the actual content is evidence that the material is controversial and doe not even have consencus for remaining. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• On the fence: Although I cannot fault the logic, the article is in the main largely correct (in my opinion which I accept does not have any credence in the reliable reference stakes). It is just a matter of finding the right references which would be a better result. It has been tagged for some time as requiring references and these have been slowly appearing. However, there is a very long way to go. If this article must be deleted, it would be preferable if it could be moved to a temporary location so that the references can be added as required. I feel that there must be someone who has access to the necessary standards to populate this article and maybe even correct the inaccuracies and omissions. I am aware that generally, elsewhere than the US, organisations charge ridiculously large sums of money to access both national and European wide standards on anything. I B Wright (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is too much work here to simply throw it away. Would it be an acceptable solution to go ahead and use the questionable sources, but document the problems with them? Jeh (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article has been vastly improved in the past week, mostly due to the efforts of SSHamilton (whose quote the anonymous proposer takes completely out of context as it dates back to November, several weeks before the improvements were started). Where the sources are imperfect that has been highlighted and the reasons given. Deucharman (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article still needs a lot of work, but it has been improving recently, thanks to the help of several editors (even when they don't completely agree with one another all the time). The topic is inherently difficult to reference to the highest Wikipedia standards because of restricted access to official standards documents, but the editors are making a valiant effort and the topic is worthwhile. Reify-tech (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I hope that it is obvious that I am doing my best to improve this article, despite the childish antics of some editors. Many thanks to those who are supporting the effort, I have not yet finished, but it would help if more editors would contribute good references. SSHamilton (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Observation: Your efforts to improve the referencing in this article are commendable. The observation that I have, is that even though I did not really support 31.52.11.70's AfD, I am now rather glad that I took a neutral stance. Even though it is clear that the AfD is almost certain to be defeated, it has had the effect of galvanising improvement to the article's referencing, so the AfD has had a positive effect. I don't know whether the refencing will ever become perfect. I have my own views of the standards of referencing in articles such as this and some other types where proper referencing is all but impossible, but unfortunately they do not square with the standards required by policy and enforced by the admins. Now all we need to do is get the childish editor to stop trying to incorporate fringe theories about what he thinks doesn't exist (and can't positively prove that it doesn't).

According to this diff the above unsigned observation was added by I B Wright

• Comment: It would have shown appropriate courtesy to other editors if Wtshymanski had bothered to place a notification on this page that he had completed the AfD. Deucharman (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too much work to be undone. People can work on finding references. This page can still serve as a guide to some people. Sean S. Jeremiah (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maps of world usage of plugs, voltage and frequency

I have restored thes maps to the article. Despite the assertion that they were unsourced this is not the case. The maps were copied from AC power plugs and sockets where the origin of the data was clearly stated as the US government publication "Electric current abroad". Although this publication is regarded as an unreliable source because the data is known to be not completely accurate, the IEC guide (from which the table is compiled) is also regarded as an unreliable source, again because it is known to be not completely accurate. It is thus hardly surprising that the table does not agree with the maps. Since the article is lacking any available evidence as to which is more reliable, there is no justification for deleting one over the other. It would be equally valid to delete the table and retain the maps. Indeed, if the logic were to be pursued to its obvious conclusion, the whole article should be deleted, but that is just defeating the ultimate goal. This just underlines the importance of finding those all important reliable references to support the data in the article. I B Wright (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Please identify exactly where you believe it states that these maps are based on "Electric current abroad". There is no indication of source in the map files other than the statement; "Own work (based on File:BlankMap-World6.svg)" .Mautby (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Please note that "Electric current abroad" is an obsolete document, it has been replaced by a web version: Electric Current Worldwide which still does not include the full list of plug types, it does not describe Type M or type N. There are sketches and photographs of each type, but no textual description or references to actual standards. Examples of errors in this website include the failure to mention that Brazil uses Type N, although that has been the national standard in that country since 1998; stating that the UK uses type C, which is not permitted there; and claiming that China uses Type H (the Israeli plug) when the main Chinese plug is actually type I. Mautby (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Here are some examples of significant errors in the maps: Brazil is shown as using plugs to IEC 60906-1 whereas the Brazilian National Standard is NBR 14136 which does NOT conform to the IEC standard (Neither the obsolete "Electric current abroad" or its replacement web version mention Brazil as using anything but types A, B and C - so that is clearly not the source). The main plug in China is Type I, but that is not indicated on the map. 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

4 The voltage map has insufficient differentiation between colours and insufficient resolution to be of practical use. Where countries have more than one voltage according to region they are shown as having multiple voltages across their entire geography. The maps have no practical value and do not add any useful information to the articles. Mautby (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 4: I do see a practical value in these maps, because they give a much better overview than the table about which socket/voltage is used around the world. I don't have problems with the colours. After clicking on the map, the resolution is also fine. Certainly for countries using multiple sockets, it would be even better to see the regions using different sets of sockets with different colours – but we need to use external sources, and if it's not obvious to draw the regions based on those sources, then the best is to have country-based maps. If users want more information about these countries (like China), they can go back to the table and view the comments. Hcs42 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above comment, neither map has any external sources, and both include errors. The general quality of the maps, with no textual indication of country names, and their finicky insistence on indicating small voltage differences (rather than just differentiating between nominal 230 V areas and nominal 115 V areas) adds nothing useful to the article. There have been a number of attempts to reinsert these maps with no justification provided, most recently by an anonymous user who claims removal was vandalism! Would all editors please desist from inserting rubbish back into this article as this simply detracts from the transformation achieved by SSHamilton's improvements! Mautby (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, I was very embarrassed when I realized that I should have removed these maps when restructuring the article. The map author claims the source is WP (which of course is not permitted, WP cannot cite WP) but more importantly, to cite an article which itself had no proper references is completely inexcusable. SSHamilton (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of references

The point above that much of the material is uncited is correct and valid. Wikipedia requires citations for "all material likeley to be challenged". The length of the above discussion suggests that much has been challenged and thus the article should be copy edited to remove all the unreferenced material. It can, of course, be restored as reliable supporting references are found. I was tempted to take FF-UK up on his challenge but on the law of averages, some of the unreferenced material could be true. It would be much better if citations were found for that which is true and citeable, and that which is unciteable be removed. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just reverted a mass 'tag bombing' of the article. Tagging every unreferenced point when the entire article is tagged as requiring further referencing is completely counterproductive. I did also consider removing the extra {{cn}} tags added by 86.171.44.21 on the same grounds, but I decided that as these are in a controversial part of the article that is the subject of a very lengthy discussion going on above, it was more appropriate to leave them. I B Wright (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright`s action in reverting Deucharman`s detailed tagging is totally unacceptable. The tag for the entire article has been in place for at least 34 months, it has clearly had no effect. It is 11 weeks since FF-UK suggested that they were thinking of removing all entries for territories which are not supported by citations from official sources. Nothing has changed. I commend Deucharman for taking the trouble to correctly identify all the unsourced material. Of the 227 territories listed only 6 are properly sourced!!! 6 have partial sourcing, 2 have sources which is potentially unreliable, and 213 are unsourced. This is completely unacceptable and must not be allowed to continue. If detailed tagging does not result in a significant improvement in the next couple of months then this article should be consigned to the trash can. Mautby (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to Deucharman for all those tags. I hope we will now see a flurry of proper references. FF-UK (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that inclusion of a plug/socket in the relevant country pages of IEC Technical Report 60083 (mentioned in the Wall sockets section of the article) is a sufficient source for that country's usage. Would others agree to citing that in the relevant entries? SSHamilton (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I had a Q on a similar issue awhile back, concerning Parallel ATA. A standard is considered a primary source and WP generally prefers secondary sources. However, I was told that where there is no conclusion being drawn or interpretation being made, i.e. WP is stating exactly what the primary source says, the primary source is ok, and also sufficient. Jeh (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to SSHamilton for revamping this article and drawing attention to the frailties of the various sources. The result is a vast improvement and provides the user with sufficient information to know that this is not completely reliable information, but there would appear to be no truly reliable sources for most territories. Reporting on what the internationally responsible body publishes seems to me to be as good as you can reasonably get, especially when other reliable sources are cited in the few cases where they exist. A reasonable argument could be made that this article be completely removed from WP because of the sourcing problems, but that would not seem to be the best solution. I note that anonymous user 31.52.11.70 is engaging in edit warring by repeatedly blanking most entries on the basis that they believe that IEC does not list voltages and frequencies! This is blatant nonsense and it has to be presumed that there is something seriously deficient in their browser! Deucharman (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In view of the lack of citations, I took the step of exercising every editor's inalienable right and deleting the inadequately sourced material. SSHamilton reverted it claiming that the IEC website as the 'primary' source of the information. The IEC is not a primary source, but very much a secondary source. SSHamilton freely admitted by the information that he added, that the IEC website is inaccurate and thus cannot qualify as the required reliable source. In any event, the voltage and frequency information (which is what the subject of the table is) is completely missing as a trip to [1] will show. The map on the website is similarly useless, as there are considerable inconsistencies - not to mention difficulty in identifying smaller countries. For example: according to the IEC, half of Japan is totally without electricity and the other half is simultaneously supplied with both 50 Hz and 60 Hz, which is a nonsense. If anyone wishes to restore any of the deleted territories than the burden is on that editor to provide the required reliable and verifiable sources. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at [2] as suggested, so I can confirm that the voltage and frequency information is completely unpopulated with data as suggested above. I even checked it on another platform just to check that it was not a browser problem. The raw HTML from that site has no data in it, so the assertion would be correct. As noted above, I stopped short of deleting the unsourced material, because I believed it to be substantially correct. I generally only delete unsourced material if it is obviously wrong. Unfortunately, the piece inserted in the article does clearly state that the IEC source is unreliable, so better sourcing is clearly required. I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick guide on how to use the IEC website! The page which has been linked by the above two editors is an interactive table. There is an expansion arrow immediately to the left of each location (beside the flag icons), clicking on this will give the full data for that country. At the top of the table, on the blue banner line entitled "World plugs by Location" is a button labelled "Expand All" (in one of their edits, 31.52.11.70 specifically denies the existence of this button, but it is there!) Deucharman (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, I have checked that the IEC site functions correctly in IE 11, Firefox 26 and Chrome 31. I can also confirm that (using IE) I can clearly see the voltage and frequency data in the HTML source. Deucharman (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but although there is a rightward pointing arrow next to each territory, clicking it produces a blank white panel underneath the country in question. In the blue banner line above the table there is (left to right); text:"World Plugs by Location"; Text:"Table search:"; A blank box (presumably where one enters a search key - doing so collapses the table to a single country); an excel icon; a printer icon. None of these looks remotely like an 'expand all' button?

Of course it is always possible that the web site has been badly authored such that it only works properly with a limited number of browsers, not unreasonable given that I have tried two different browsers on two different PCs with the same result (and 31.52.11.70 seems to have the same trouble, and I have no reason to disbelieve him/her). I did think about posting screen shots here, but thought better of it due to copyright issues. But this still leaves us with the problem that the article itself declares the reference as unreliable. As I have said, I am not unhappy with the information remaining as it does appear to be substantially correct, but good references do need to be found. Surely someone should have access to a list of the relevant national standards. I B Wright (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Found a browser on which the table works - a humble iPad! There are definitely some inconsistencies. The table shows Thailand using type A and type B at 220 volts. However, the extended discussion above suggests that this is not the case. Also in the Netherlands, the most frequently encounterd socket is type C (despite the article alleging that such does not exist - in fact almost every light switch has one built in). As such, most of the Netherlands accepts plugs of Type C, F and E. Only in the newest buildings will sockets of Type F be found. I B Wright (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SSHamilton has done a good job of rationalizing this article, she is quite right to make it clear that that the IEC World Plugs page is of doubtful quality, but the fact that IEC is the world body responsible for international standards in the subject means that they cannot be ignored! For at least three years this article has been tagged as needing additional citations, but as of the end of 2013 only the UK and US had valid references for plug type, voltage and frequency.

Please bear in mind that this whole lettering system is not actually the subject of any agreed standardization, it is just a shorthand system with a doubtful pedigree that has been taken up by the IEC without official definition. With regard to the ongoing "Type C socket" controversy, it has to be realized that "World Plugs" is about just that, PLUGS! While in most cases plugs and sockets are defined by the same, or paired, official standards, "World Plugs" clearly describes Type C as being the Europlug, and that is defined by CENELEC Standard EN 50075 which specifies only the plug, no sockets. Whilst the the Europlug has been designed to fit a number of different European socket standards, there is no such thing as a Type C socket! The sockets which Europlug mates with are include CEE 7/4 (Type F) and CEE 7/5 (Type E) as well as various older socket types which have been used around Europe but have no specific letter designation. The Netherlands socket which I B Wright refers to is one of those, like Type E and Type F it is compatible with the Type C plug, but it is NOT a type C socket!

A type C plug can be a Europlug, but not necessarily. Any socket which has a socket contact arrangement that matches the type C plug is, by definition, a type C socket. The IEC's illustration of the type C socket clearly shows plugs and sockets of this type. Since the IEC strictly only address plugs, you could equally argue that there are no type A, B, G, sockets etc. etc. either. To try and claim that there is no such thing as a type C socket is a nonsense as any Dutch electrical shop will be only too pleased to sell you one (for replacement of a socket in an older installation). Whatever you might like to believe, the type C socket exists - a socket that accepts two pins of size and spacing of a Type C plug and has no earth (ground) contact whatsoever. Furthermore, I feel very confident in stating that the socket design is undoubtedly covered in a Netherlands technical standard somewhere. As an aside, here is a link[3] to a supplier of a 4 way extension socket for the Dutch market populated entirely with type C sockets and fitted with a type C plug (though designed to mate with a Type C, E and F socket - but not with the earth contact). The type C sockets will accept type E and F plugs though are not fully compatible as there is no earth connection. I B Wright (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I B Wright, you keep referring to Type C sockets, but if you check the IEC site you will see that there is no such reference (although it does refer to Type E and Type F sockets). I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not two-pin sockets with no grounding, some of which are designed to accept 4 mm pins while others accept 4.8 mm pins, but as they are not described as Type C sockets on the IEC site they cannot be referred to as type C sockets here. This is just one of the ambiguities of the IEC site which makes it a lot less than satisfactory, but it is still as good as it gets on this subject! Mautby (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the IEC website before you make erroneous claims of things that are not there. If you click on the 'C' tab for the plug type, you will observe four illustrations. The large illustration is of of a Europlug underneath which there are three smaller illustrations. The left most illustration is for a dual socket that will only ever accept two europlugs. Nothing else will ever mate due to the shape of the recesses. Since this socket will only ever accept Europlugs and it is illustrated only on the type C tab, it is clear that the IEC have illustrated a type C socket. The rightmost illustration is also of the more usual round socket pattern and its presence on the type C tab establishes that the IEC regard it as a type C socket. It is thus also clear that the website establishes that the europlug shaped plug is a subset of the type C plug as that last illustration is not of a europlug.

Yes indeed, the IEC site has many inconsistencies, errors and omissions. The type C tab describes the type C plug as 'generally limited' for use at 2.5 amps or less. That is a rather vague statement. The europlug is limited to 2.5 Amps but the round version of the type C plug is rated at 16 Amps, and used to be found pre-attached to 3 kW fan heaters (as well as other high current appliances) offered for sale in the Netherlands (the CEE 7/7 plug is now the standard fitment as they fit both the old and new sockets). But when all is said and done, a poor reference is better than no reference - not a lot better, but better. I B Wright (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Starting with I B Wright's point that "the type C plug as that last illustration is not of a europlug" On this we can agree as it is clearly not any sort of plug, just a sketch of a pin or hole configuration - impossible to tell which! With regard to the socket illustrated on the left hand side, agreed that it would accept two Europlugs, but is not a socket made to any known national standard and there is no basis for your claim that the IEC considers this a Type C socket. Many old European sockets of various types will accept Type C plugs, but they are not classified under the IEC letter system, so could only be referred to by the applicable national standard, if there is one. Please concentrate on the text of the Type C description provided by the IEC, there is no suggestion whatever that there is a type C socket, only a plug which "fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres". You are inferring something which is simply not there, and that is something you cannot do on WP. With regard to your comment that "the round version of the type C plug is rated at 16 Amps", as that plug has 4.8 mm pins, then it could not fit into a socket accepting only 4 mm pins, the 16 A plug is NOT a Type C by the IEC definition! Please do not make these unfounded claims. Mautby (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that it is you that are attempting to interpret the material presented by the IEC to suit your own argument. For Wikipedia reference purposes, you cannot interpret what is given by the reference - that is synthesis which is not allowed. You can only use what it actually says. I am not aware of a national standard that covers the dual europlug socket, but so what? We are discussing what the IEC website actually says. It has an illustration of a socket under the tab for type C plugs and sockets. Therefore the reference says they exist - they have illustrated it. Your assertion that there is no national standard is an interpretation, and one for which you have failed to provide any evidence. It is quite irrelevant that they fail to mention it in the accompanying text. Standards often rely on illustrations for many features over text. The illustration is there under type C and thus the direct interpretation is that the IEC consider it a type C socket. Your stand that because it is not mentioned in the text and therefore does not exist is purely your interpretation and is synthesis precisely because it does not explicitly state this.

Similarly you claim that the right hand illustration is of a pin configuration and not a socket, but there is nothing that directly states that this illustration is of a plug and not a socket. Since every other plug and socket type refers to both a plug and a socket arrangement (though not all specifically say so), the interpretation that the type C also does so, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion (especially given that they actually do exist - see later) - anything else is interpretation. Your assertion that there is no type C socket is, once again, purely your interpretation, precisely because the IEC reference does not specifically state that there are no type C sockets. And if they did make this claim, they would be wrong because the Netherlands, as has regularly been pointed out, is almost exclusively wired with them. There clearly cannot be such a reference because the existence of the Netherlands' type C sockets would be proof alone that it would be wrong (and I would be very confident in claiming that they undoubtedly conform to some Dutch national electrical standard).

If you wish to claim that there are no type C sockets, then you must provide a reference that specifically makes this claim as the IEC have not. The IEC specifically state that the Netherlands use type C and type F sockets (the later only in new installations). The older Dutch type C sockets and plugs have 4.8 mm pins and are rated at 16 amps (and look exactly like that right hand illustration). As has already been pointed out, the Europlug is a compromise design designed to fit more than one type of socket, and the IEC is just plain wrong to claim that the type C is limited to the Europlug. It has been established and agreed by several users, that the IEC guide is inaccurate in many areas. Let's face it - that is really all that it is - a guide. It is not a standard for plugs and sockets by any stretch of the imagination. Meanwhile, the Dutch continue to plug their 16 amp type C plugs into their 16 amp type C sockets unaware that the IEC has failed to specifically include them on the type C page in their increasingly inaccurate guide. I B Wright (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact this website has a photograph of a socket that 'clearly' conforms to that right hand illustration on the IEC guide's type C page. And here is a web site with a photograph of a dual socket (you have to scroll down the page quite a bit). Granted it has a Europlug plugged into the top socket, but the lower socket clearly conforms to that right hand illustration in the IEC guide's type C page. The illustration is even large enough that you can scale the pin size from it and it is certainly larger than 4 mm. I also feel the need to repeat that the article itself contains an illustration of a type C plug that is not a Europlug and the elusive (to Mautby) type C socket. I B Wright (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion with great interest and suggest that I B Wright needs to stand back, examine their contributions, and realise that it is they who are misinterpreting, inferring, and synthesizing what is said on the IEC World Plugs pages. As far as I know, World Plugs is the source of the current letter system which, while being generally accepted as a useful shorthand, is not the subject of any actual standard. If we want to be strictly correct then, in the absence of a definition of plug letter types which is defined in a standard, we must discontinue their use on WP. However, if it is agreed that the letter types are useful then WP editors must restrict their use to the descriptions provided by the IEC. (References to the outdated and grossly inaccurate American web page are unhelpful, and in any case it should be apparent that any list of other countries plug usage produced by a department of the US Government is completely trumped by one that is produced by the international standards body responsible for coordinating world electrical standards.) It is quite clear that World Plugs does not describe or define a "Type C Socket", despite I B Wright's imaginings. I would draw attention to the following fundamental errors made by I B Wright:

"The IEC specifically state that the Netherlands use type C and type F sockets (the later only in new installations)." Where is this stated? The list of Plugs by country is only of plugs, not sockets, and has no mention of "new installations".

"The older Dutch type C sockets and plugs have 4.8 mm pins and are rated at 16 amps" As has been previously pointed out, a Type C plug will fit into a socket which accepts 4 mm pins, so a plug which has 4.8 mm pins is NOT Type C!

"... the IEC is just plain wrong to claim that the type C is limited to the Europlug." It is an IEC system, they can define a Type C however they want!

"... the interpretation that the type C also does so, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion (especially given that they actually do exist - see later) - anything else is interpretation." A very interesting comment this - it appears to imply that I B Wright's interpretations are good, but let no one else interpret anything!

With regard to the repeated references to "the existence of the Netherlands' type C sockets", I see no evidence of anyone suggesting that the Netherlands does not use unearthed two-pole sockets which will accept Europlugs as well as various unearthed 4.8 mm pin plugs, only that they are not Type C sockets. The Digital Museum of Plugs and Sockets illustrates a Dutch two-pin socket (no 12 on the linked page) so I asked the curator, Ouf Oud, if he could tell me what standard applied, but he said as far as he knew there was not one. He also told me that they are only on the CEE 7/16 page because they do not fit anywhere else in his structure. FF-UK (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

But this is all down to interpretation. The IEC guide (it is not a standard) describes textually, that a type C is what is known as a Europlug (which by itself is meaningless), and we know that the guide is incomplete and not necessarily accurate. They presumably mean (see: we are interpreting again) a plug conforming to CEE 7/16 though they don't actually say so. CEE 7/16 defines a specific type and shape of plug and I understand that the standard itself does not use the term 'Europlug' to describe it. But the specified shape does not match the plug or socket shape illustrated at the type C page in the IEC guide (lower right illustration). The guide does not explicitly state that there is no corresponding socket and even your linked museum exhibits type C plugs and sockets that are not CEE 7/16 compliant but do conform to the shape illustration on the type C page of the IEC guide. In this case there is no intepretation, the plugs, sockets and illustation in the guide are all explicitly present. Thus a reasonable interpretation (there's that 'i' word again because this time it is not explicitly stated) is that the IEC consider the CEE 7/16 plug to conform to type C, and that it is but one specific example of the larger set of type C plugs. As for your curator: he seems to believe that type C covers the larger round plug (see exhibit 4 at [4]). That he is unaware of a standard covering type C sockets does not mean that there is not one. I am unaware of what the standard is, but I would never accept that as evidence that there isn't one. What did the manufacturers use to determine the dimensions of the sockets that they did produce? Guesswork? In the absence of a standard, it would be nothing short of a miracle that the many manufacturers just happened to produce sockets that were all of even roughly the same dimensions.

The curator of your museum handsomely demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he is talking about (and I suspect that the site is really a fan site) when he describes that 3 gang Europlug socket (sic) at photo 5 as being rated at 7.5 Amps total. I am not aware of any electrical code or standard that requires multiple sockets to be rated as a simple sum of the individual sockets. For example: here in the UK, if that socket were allowed, it would be rated at just 5 Amps and if it were the only socket on a spur, it could certainly be wired with 5 cable and protected by a 5 amp fuse or breaker (other jurisdictions undoubtedly vary). I B Wright (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if contributors to this discussion bothered to check their facts! It does not help when so many of I B Wright's statements are simply wrong and completely unverifiable. For goodness sake, when you do not actually know something, and cannot verify it from your own physical references or on the web (from genuine reliable sources), get yourself along to a library and check before contributing! Please stop making guesses, you are wasting the time of those who do know, and misleading the rest. Here are, verbatim, the opening lines of the introduction to the standard EN 50075:1990:

This document has been prepared by CENELEC TC23X “Europlugs and socket-outlets”, when at its meeting on 18th and 19th November 1986 decided to prepare an EN for the flat, non-rewirable plug 2.5A 250V for the connection of Class II equipment, to Standard Sheet XVI (Alternative II) of CEE Publication 7 (second edition, 1963, and Modifications 1, 2, 3 and 4) or Standard C 5 (Alternative II) of IEC 83.

This plug, also known as the “Europlug”, has already been standardized in most European countries (except United Kingdom); the relevant national standards are either endorsements of CEE Publication 7 or based on this specification.

These words clearly show that I B Wright is quite wrong in their interpretation of what a Europlug is or is not!

Here is another example of I B Wright's "interpretation": I am not aware of any electrical code or standard that requires multiple sockets to be rated as a simple sum of the individual sockets. For example: here in the UK, if that socket were allowed, it would be rated at just 5 Amps and if it were the only socket on a spur, it could certainly be wired with 5 cable and protected by a 5 amp fuse or breaker Has this person never heard of BS 1363 where the most common socket is a double socket? I suggest that reference is made to the MK Technical Data section, this covers their Logic Plus devices and you will find on the first page (actually numbered 423) that their common double sockets are rated at 13A per socket outlet - a total of 26A! (The MK triple socket is fused and therefore rated at only 13A total). Also worth referring to is BS 1362-2, clause 16.1.2 (temperature rise) where you will find that a double socket is required to be tested at 20A total load, and an unfused triple socket at 28A total load. Of course, the actual total rating of the multiple socket is up to the manufacturer, providing that each socket is capable of 13A and in total it is capable of meeting the requirements of BS 1363-2. Deucharman (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not only do you read material into guides and standards to suit your own argument, but you read material into other people's posts as well. Where in my post did I try to infer that a Europlug was anything different from what everyone else believes it to be?I B Wright (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to answer that, I B Wright wrote ... "Europlug (which by itself is meaningless)" - the European Standard EN 50075: Flat non-wirable two-pole plugs, 2,5 A 250 V, with cord, for the connection of class II-equipment for household and similar purposes. identifies that it relates to the Europlug (as shown in the extract from the introduction above). Clearly, the term Europlug is NOT "meaningless" Deucharman (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As for your piece on MK sockets: you have read material into MK's literature that simply is not there. The MK double socket that you linked to above makes no claim that the socket pair is rated at 26 Amps. It does not state this. It simply and explicitly states that it is rated at '13 A per socket outlet' (which is perhaps ambiguous the way it is worded) - anything else is synthesis. The 13 amp per socket rating means that each socket is rated at being capable of delivering 13 A continuously - when used individually. You then went on to provide your own clue when you pointed out that the dual socket is only required to be tested at 20 Amps. Applying the calculation that I applied to the 3 gang eurosocket to the MK two gang 13 Amp socket gives a total rating of (guess what?) 20 amps, which is only what the protection and cable needs to be rated at if the 2 gang socket were the sole socket assembly on a spur. Why MK have chosen to limit (and fuse) their 3 gang socket to a maximum of 13 Amps is a minor mystery. I am not aware of any specific requirement that this is so (but that doesn't mean there isn't one), though I am aware that 3 way adaptors must be so rated and fused. If there is no specific requirement, the rating of the 3 gang socket would have been 28 Amps and that would also be its test current (which you seem to have confirmed). I doubt that it is up to the manufacturer. In the UK at least, there are specific rules for determining the rating of multiple loads (including multiple loads in a single structure) in any circuit installations (and for determining the cable size and circuit protection). A ring circuit is taken care of by requirements specific to that type of circuit, so the normal rules don't apply. I B Wright (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong! The MK spec I alluded to states: Current rating: 13A per socket outlet (except 3 gang which is 13 amp in total) The only possible reading of that is that the single gang is rated at 13 A total, and the 2 gang at 26 A total. A fuse in a BS 1363 socket must conform to BS 1362, and BS 1362 has a maximum fuse rating of 13 A, therefore any fused socket is limited to 13 A maximum. It is all quite straightforward if you take the trouble to read the words. Deucharman (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From the aforegoing and the edit warring at the article, it is clear that both Mautby and Deucharman either have not read or have not fully understood the policy at WP:SYNTHESIS. Basically put, you cannot use a reference to support any claim that is not specifically made in the reference quoted. Putting aside whether the IEC World Plugs web guide is a proper reliable reference (WP:RS) or just guidance notes (I believe the latter), it needs to be considered what it actually says. My starting point here is that I do not really know whether type C plugs and sockets (other than the plug known as the europlug) exist. Consulting the above guide, it refers to a type C plug as a europlug. The first thing that leaps out is that the guide does not state that a socket specifically designed for the type C plug does not exist (but in fact, as I B Wright has frequently pointed out) there is an illustration that clearly shows a socket designed to accept europlugs. Thus Deucharman is quite wrong to attempt to use the guide to support the claim in the article on the non existence of type C sockets and Mautby is equally wrong to claim it above. In both cases the conclusion has been synthesised from what the guide actually does and does not state.

As for whether type C plugs is limited to the europlug design? The textual part of the entry does describe the plug known as the europlug. Although it does not specifically state that there are other members of the type C familly, it does include an illustration of the plug (or socket?) design that does not meet the shape requirements of the europlug, thus introducing ambiguity. The presence of that illustration means that the IEC guide does not specifically exclude other plug types, therefore to conclude that the type C is limited to the europlug is, once again, synthesis and users are quite wrong to make the claim without other supporting evidence.

There is a big problem here that the scheme used to identify the various plug types was not originated by the IEC themselves. They used the identification scheme that was originally used by the International Trade Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Commerce) which published a guide in 1998, Electric Curent Abroad. Although that document is, today, regarded as obsolete, it was nevertheless the source of the plug letter identification scheme and thus needs to be considered a valid source in that context (the IEC did extend the scheme by two letters to cover plug and socket designs, presumably, not around in 1998). That document specifically illustrates the type C plug as a round plug and does not even mention or illustrate a europlug. The replacement guide, Electric Current Worldwide (I assume it is a replacement as I can't find a date) has recycled the same illustrations showing round type C plugs but included a photo of a europlug, along with a photo of a socket that accepts round unearthed plugs (and must thus be considered a type C socket).

From the available evidence, the conclusion would be that the type C designation is not limited to the europlug, though the europlug is an example of a type C plug. Also, that type C sockets exist in a version that accepts both the round plugs and europlugs and a version that accepts europlugs only. There remains the minor inconvenience that the original type C plug and the europlug variant of the type C have different pin sizes, but as the latter will correctly mate with full size type C socket, the issue is moot as the type designations are more about mateability rather than design specifics. --85.255.234.198 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully support the concept that "you cannot use a reference to support any claim that is not specifically made in the reference quoted" but deplore those who trumpet this and then go on to make unsubstantiated claims. IP 85.255.234.198 states that the system in use was not originated by the IEC but by the US government, that may or may not be true, but I am not aware of any proof either way (indeed, it may have been originated by some other entity for all we know). We do know that the 1967 edition of the US guide listed only three letter types, A, B and C (flat, round and square (sic) pins) - the reference is in the article. However, in the absence of an actual standard, a guide produced by the IEC obviously trumps one produced by the US government (as FF-UK says above), especially given the gross errors documented for the US guide.

We must base all discussion on what the IEC actually says (not un-captioned illustrations) and that clearly only describes a plug (the web version of the US guide also refers only to plugs, and while sockets are illustrated they are not mentioned in the text). Here is the full text for Type C:

Used in: Europe, with the exception of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta (see complete list of countries on the right)

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. They are being replaced by E, F, J, K or N sockets which work perfectly with Type C plugs.

Type C plugs are generally limited for use in appliances that require 2.5 amps or less.

In an earlier version of the IEC page there is a reference to Type C sockets, but that was removed shortly afterwards! the middle paragraph used to read:

The Type C electrical plug (or Europlug) is an ungrounded, 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. Type C sockets are ungrounded and are becoming obsolete as most countries require that grounded sockets be installed in new buildings. They are being replaced by E, F, J, K or N sockets which work perfectly with Type C plugs.

Clearly we may not speculate on the reasons, but it does suggest that the lack of reference to a "Type C socket" is deliberate. The point is, nowhere in either guide is there a current reference to a "Type C socket" so we cannot synthesize one!!!!! The Type C description in the article has been improved to remove ambiguity.

Anyone who has actually read the comments here knows that there has been no dispute that round shaped two-pin plugs with the same pin configuration as a Europlug do exist, as do a range of sockets having a round shape and which accept pins of various sizes between 4.0 – 4.8 mm. It should be noted, however, that a round shaped plug having 4 mm pins could not fit into the recess of a socket designed only to accept Europlugs (which are flat) and therefore they do not meet the description of a Type C plug. The original CEE 7 specification included a number of two-pin unearthed plugs and sockets of both round and flat shape, and these do still appear in the national standards of some countries, but they have not been assigned a type letter by the IEC. It is worth noting that there are may other plugs in current use which do not have a type letter, eg BS 546 2 A rating, BS 4573, NEMA 5-20, NEMA 14-30, NEMA 14-50 and so on. All of those are commonly found in domestic situations. Mautby (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue your argument to its logical conclusion and if you wish to restrict all references to the IEC guide, then we must remove all references to type B sockets from all articles on Wikipedia. The guide never mentions them, so according to your logic, they cannot be considered to exist. We also need to expunge all references to Type D (there is reference to sockets accepting type D plugs, but because they accept type M as well, they are not specifically type D sockets - the same argument as being applied to type C), Type K, Type L (reference to a duo socket but not the individual types) and Type M because the IEC does not mention them. Quote:'Clearly we may not speculate on the reasons, but it does suggest that the lack of reference to "Type B/C/K/L/M sockets" is deliberate' (your quote with added letters). You might think that this is getting silly, but that is exatly the stance that you are taking.

What makes you think that because an illustration appears in a document, that the fact that it is uncaptioned means that it isn't really there? We can only speculate as to why the author took included it, but a fair bet is that it is to illustrate some worthy point. If it wasn't then he wouldn't have gone to the trouble. I B Wright (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I B Wright Please, please, please cease these continued idiotic insinuations that others claim certain sockets do not exist, no one is doing that. The point is that you cannot synthesize the existence of a socket called Type C when there is no reference to it, please understand once and for all, the letter system applies to PLUGS and NOT SOCKETS!!!!! If there were any logic to your argument then you could just as easily claim that all sockets which accept a Type C plug are Type C sockets, but that is clearly not the case. Mautby (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one being idiotic and perhaps it is you that should stop trying to conveniently ignore the evidence to support your illogical and incorrect conclusions and editing. If you trying to insist that the letter system applies only to plugs, then why does the IEC guide refer to sockets by their type letter, as it does for all types other than B, C, K, L, and M? For example, it refers to 'type A sockets', 'type E sockets', 'type F sockets' etc. etc. Your argument that it only applies to plugs is the clear nonsense that you have been spouting since this started. The logic to my argument is that if the IEC describe sockets that are designed to accept (for example) type H plugs as type H sockets (as indeed they do - see the type H tab), even though they may be modified to accept something else, then the socket designed to accept a type C plug (and nothing else) must be a type C socket. You have so far failed to provide any viable evidence of the non existence of a type C socket. But as I am sick and tired of having to repeat, the Netherlands are full of them and there is no shortage of photographs on the internet. What evidence can you produce that these are not type C sockets? If you wish to maintain your position, then you need to produce a reference that specifically states that, "there is no such thing as a type C socket" (or words that say, but not imply, the same thing). You cannot use its non mention in the IEC guide (or any reference) as supporting evidence, because that is synthesis, because such an omission does not specifically make the claim that they do not exist.

"You can always tell when someone is pursuing some kind of fringe theory because they are incapable of producing any tangible evidence to support it." - an administrator. I B Wright (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, let me make it clear that I am not denying the existence of a socket of any particular pin dimensions, recess dimensions, or any other physical characteristics. What I am stating, emphatically, is that the Europlug specification defines a plug, not a socket, and that neither of the guides to world plugs refer to a "Type C Socket", therefore, without a proper source, no WP editor may claim that there is something called a "Type C socket"! I do not need a reference to the non-existence of a Type C socket to point out that those who attempt to introduce the expression into the article are not citing any references to support its inclusion. This is not about fringe theories, or indeed any theories, it is about sticking to WP policy. Mautby (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In lieu of the term "type C socket", would you tolerate "socket that accepts a Type C plug"? And would anyone else involved in this particular dispute have a problem with that? Jeh (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "socket that accepts a Type C plug" is perfectly reasonable, there are, many of them - including those designed to accept E, F, J, K, L, N, and the round pin version of Type H plugs. Also, the CEE 7/1 socket and other obsolete European sockets designed to accept 4.0 – 4.8 mm round pins on 19 mm centres. (Some might claim sockets designed to accept Type D, but that plug has 19.1 mm centres and 5 mm pins.) Mautby (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In view of the length of this discussion and that the controversy over sockets is not confined to just this area. I suggest that SSHamilton and LiveRail's proposal of eliminating the the troubled sockets from the article entirely be adopted. This should have support as nearly everyone is claiming that the IEC World Plugs guide focusses on plugs rather than sockets. I B Wright (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this was resolved, but User:ZH8000 has started a new heading below, see Switzerland, Type J (and Europlug) Deucharman (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Switzerland, Type J (and Europlug)

In order to make it clear for once and ever and to stop unreferenced and wrong assumptions.

The situation in Switzerland is very clear and defined (see references in the table of the article):

In the following I speak only about the single-phased (240V) and with maximal 10A versions!

1. The standard is SN SEV 1011:2009/A1:2012, brief: SEV1011. Period. Internationally known as Type J.
2. Swiss sockets: There are non-recessed sockets (SEV1011 Typ 12, will not be valid after 31.12.2016!) and recessed sockets (SEV1011 Typ 13) of Type J.
3. Swiss plugs: There are non-grounded, 2-pins plugs (SEV1011 Typ 11) and grounded, 3-pins plugs (SEV1011 Typ 12).
4. Type C is not an (official) standard in Switzerland!
5. But, since the non-grounded, 2-pins Europlug also incorporated the Swiss SEV1011 standard, it is therefore also compatible with Swiss sockets, whether recessed or not!!!
6. However, a Type C socket is defined by standard to accept pins with a diameter between 4mm and 5mm (and a distance of 19mm between them). E.g. the Schuko (CEE 7/4, Type F plug) with two 4.8mm pins.
7. The Europlug (CEE 7/16) is defined to have pins with a diameter of 4.0/3.8mm (conductive tip/insulated shaft), only!
8. The diameter of Type J socket holes is only 4mm. Therefore the Europlug can connect to any Swiss socket, even the outdated only 2-pins one!
9. And therefore, it is not obvious that any kind of Type C derivate will work with Typ J sockets!

Got it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZH8000 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

ZH8000, the main reference for this article is clearly stated as the IEC "World Plugs" which describes Type C as being the Europlug, and that is defined by CENELEC Standard EN 50075 which specifies only the plug, no sockets. There can be no question that a type C plug will operate in any socket designed to accept Type J plugs. (I think that you will find that EN50075 is approved for use in Switzerland.) Contrary to your assertion, a Type C socket is NOT defined by ANY standard. please refer to the "Lack of References" section above and you will see that a consensus was reached that this article IS NOT about sockets. Please desist from edit warring. Deucharman (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I am a bit surprised, to say the least. Of course, I can of course accept that an article only states the situation of plugs around the world. But then I have to raise some questions:

1. Why does then this article have the title "Mains electricity by country"? This is misleading, since I would expect that such an article states anything about mains electricity. To my knowledge mains electricity does not only consist of power plugs, but also of sockets and domestic-specific electrical requirements. Especially, as a traveller or as an expat moving somewhere I am mainly interested whether my appliances will be attachable, both, physically and electrically at my new place. Alternatively, at least this article should be renamed to Power plugs by country!!! But then I still need to know what will work and what not.
2. Which offical document defines that Type C is, a. only the Europlug, and b. that these kind of types only define power plugs but not also their "alter ego", the sockets, which are the specific doors to the domestic power supply system? E.g. the SEV1011 aka Type J standard clearly defines both, plugs and sockets of course!
3. That plugs and sockets is not separable from each other is inherently obvious for everybody in charge of electrical standards in any country. I would say, that's actually the main purpose of any standardization: how things can be attached to each other in order to prevent accidents. Then you consequently have to define both interfaces, plugs and sockets. And which ones are compatible with each other. But, if you leave out the sockets, then how should everybody know how to connect? Well, the standard I know more thoroughly, the Swiss SEV1011, does clearly this. Just have look at this picture: [5]. ... In other words, where in this WP article can I find the answer to the question in country X, how can I attach my appliances - do I need an adapter, a converter, transformer, or just nothing? - IMHO this was the original purpose of this article, besides the overview. But in some very quirky way it still tries to explain this question (e.g. by mentioning Plug Types, Voltage, and Frequency), but at the same time this article claims not to speak about sockets!???

For example there is a good reason why the Schoko is not compatible with the Swiss sockets, but the Europlug is nevertheless! And of course not in order that somebody can produce and sell more of its own plugs, but to achieve the best security aka compliance with the domestic power supply system.

ZH8000 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way: The physical shapes of plugs and sockets (shape of the isolation head/socket shape, shapes of the pins/socket holes, arrangement of the pins/holes) is nothing else than the (eventually insufficent) codification of the domestic abstract electrical requirements (Voltage, Frequency, Earthing, Phasing, Tolerances, etc.)!

ZH8000 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the completness: "A type C plug fits perfectly into a type J socket." [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZH8000 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And why socket types DO matter, and why the Europlug is/was not the only Type C plug

And I may cite this: "Whereas type C plugs are very commonly used, this is not the case for type C sockets. This kind of socket is the older and ungrounded variant of socket types E, F, J, K and N. Nowadays most countries demand grounded sockets to be installed in new buildings. Since type C sockets are ungrounded, they have become illegal almost everywhere and they are being replaced by type E, F, J, K or N (depending on the country). So as to leave no doubt: only the sockets have become illegal, the plugs remain in use of course. A type C plug fits perfectly into a type E, F, J, K or N socket." [7]

Type E, F (e.g. in Germany and Fance) and Type K (e.g. in Danmark) sockets have holes with a diameter of 4.8-5mm. In Denmark "A type C plug fits perfectly into a type K socket." [8] In Brazil (current: Type N) "had been using as many as 10 (!) different types of plugs and sockets, including the frequently used type C. ... The original IEC 60906-1 standard only has one single pin diameter of 4.5 mm and a maximum current of 16 A". [9]

BTW: "There are 15 types of electrical outlet plugs in use today, each of which has been assigned a letter by the U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration (ITA), starting with A and moving through the alphabet. These letters are completely arbitrary: they don’t actually mandate anything." [10]

A few Examples where Type C sockets are still in use: Angola, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, North Korea, Mauritania, Paraguay, Somalia, Somaliland, Togo.

And at least in Angola, the holes of the Type C sockets have a diameter of 4.8-5mm, since they accept both, the Schuko (4.8mm) and the Europlug (4mm)!!!

1. Type C sockets have (and used to have in some parts of the world, such as Europe) two holes of 4.8-5mm and are 19mm apart, and are never recessed.
2. In older days before Schuko-times and especially before the Europlug there were other two-pin (Type C) plugs with pins of 4.8-5mm diameter and a distance of 17.5-19mm (also in Switzerland! ... I remember to have seen them in very old houses)
3. The Europlug was intentionally designed to fit several of the intermediately newly (after Type C socket period) developed national standards in several countries of Europe. Therefore, the Europlug has two 4 mm (according SEV1011) round pins, measuring 19 mm in length on centres spaced 18.6 mm apart at the base and 17.5 mm apart at the tip (clamping effect) in order not to fall off from sockets with larger holes (4.8-5mm)!

-- qed -- ZH8000 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ZH8000 does not seem to understand that there is no standardized definition for the informal system of letter designations used for plugs. In this article it is clearly stated that the main source for the article is the IEC microsite "World Plugs", and, as has been discussed previously, this defines Type C as the Europlug, which is the subject of European Standard EN 50075, a standard which, contrary to the false claims made by ZH8000, is for a plug only. There is no corresponding socket standard, rather the plug defined by EN 50075 is intended to fit into a wide range of sockets defined by other standards, all of which sockets have a corresponding specific plug - and none of those specific plugs is identical to the EN 50075 plug. As has been made clear in previous discussion on this page, there are many plugs having pin centres spaced 19 mm apart with various diameters. Some of these plugs have letter designations, others do not. Some of those plugs are the subject of standards, some are purely proprietary. Some of those plugs are in current use, some are obsolescent, and others are obsolete. None of that changes the fact that the designation of Type C as defined by the IEC is the Europlug, not any of those other plugs which ZH8000 claims to be Type C.

ZH8000's claim that There are 15 types of electrical outlet plugs in use today is simply nonsense, there are 45 non-locking types of mains plug in use in the USA alone, and that excludes the locking types. Only two of those American plugs have letter designations, A and B - the other 43 non-locking and all of the locking types have no letter designation. Other examples would be the the BS 4573 (UK shaver plug) and 2 Amp size of the BS 546 plug (used in dedicated domestic lighting circuits) - both of these are in current use and neither have letter designations. Similarly there are a number of two-pin European plugs which do not meet either the Europlug definition, or one of the current national standards, most have no letter designation and they are not to be confused with type C plugs.

It is to be noted that the only source that ZH8000 cites in support of these wild claims is a very dubious and error filled website which appears to be a combination of vanity site and ad server. It is certainly not a WP Reliable Source! Mautby (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to endorse Mautby's comments, and SSHamilton's original action in deleting the superfluous comment added to the Swiss entry.

It seems to me that ZH8000 neither understands the subject in question, nor how to edit WP (eg, repeatedly failing to sign comments, and adding no fewer than three new headings instead of adding comments to the original section dealing with the type C issue, thanks to Mautby for condensing the three new sections into one). I also see that ZH8000 started out by claiming that not all Type Cs will fit into a Swiss socket, then later changes to stating the opposite and quoting a spurious reference to back this up. As for a traveller needing knowledge of sockets rather than what plugs are used, that is way off beam. An example: imagine a Japanese traveler (uses type A plugs) wanting to know what is used in the US, a listing of sockets would say Type B (Type A sockets being obsolete in the US and found only in old buildings), but as plugs are listed he finds both Type A and type B (because all Type B sockets accept Type A plugs) - and that is exactly what he needs to know! FF-UK (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

By country

Extended content

Should Right- and left-hand traffic be renamed Right- and left-hand traffic by country to match the format of the title of Mains electricity by country? Are there any other pages that should have the words "by country" added ? This might include some pages called List of ... ... ... ? There might also be a category "By country"  ? Tabletop (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This is an OT subject, not relevant to the improvement of this article. FF-UK (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Image plugs in the world

I've added an image about the different plugs in the world. With this image is possible to see where the different plugs are used and to see which are the most used plugs.--Unoi90 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is unusable. Not everyone recognizes every flag; I couldn't tell Naru from New Zealand without looking them up. It's an unrecognizable mosaic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Wtshymanski on this, it adds nothing to the usefulness of the page. It is also very misleading to claim that it is possible "to see which are the most used plugs" as there is no weighting for the size of each country, and no indication as to whether a plug is the primary standard in a country, or just an "also used" (the primary source does not give that information). It is simply visual clutter and should not be reinserted. FF-UK (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is an added value and it let's people see things that, from the single table, is not possible (most used plugs, which other country has same plugs as yours so you have to not worry when you are going there...). It is perfectly readable at full screen resolution (it is achieved by clicking on the image, BTW). It could be left there to allow people to use it (if they want) not removing the table (as I did), as an accompanying image for the page.--Unoi90 (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The quickest way to find out what plug is used in any country of interest is to go to that country in the table, not to enlarge this unwanted graphic and then, if you can, decipher the information from the flags. The latter demands the ability to understand what country each flag represents rather than simply the ability to read. It is just extraneous clutter. FF-UK (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with FF-UK and Wtshymanski. A text table presents the information in a far more readable form. Anybody who reads can read all of the country names in a table, even for countries with which they're unfamiliar. Very few people know the flags of all of the countries, or even all the countries in which they might travel. (I've visited over 35 countries and I doubt I would correctly identify the flags of more than maybe ten of them. Nor is "what's their flag?" something I bother to learn when going to a country for the first time.) Sorry you went to all that work, Unoi, but the "table of flags" approach would be better suited for a kids' book (The Big Book of AC Plugs) than for Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be saying what people "should" do

From WP:NOTADVICE:

"Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not"

The recently-added material regarding plugs and sockets rated 125V should be evaluated with this in mind. Jeh (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, not sure what you are getting at here. The recently added material provides sourcing for information which has been in the article since 2013. FF-UK (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

per NOTADVICE, anything that is along the lines of "safety advice to travelers" should be deleted or restated to avoid that aspect. We can say "using a cordset rated for 125 volts with a 230 volt supply may constitute a safety hazard." But we can't say what travlers "should" or "should not" do (even if sources say exactly that). Jeh (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Amended accordingly. FF-UK (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Jeh (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Plug-top charger"?

"Plug-top" is not a term familiar to many U.S. readers. From Google searches I gather it means what we commonly just call the "plug". So I gather "plug-top charger" is what we colloquially call a "wall-wart".

btw, I think the word "charger" is problematic also. Many devices that use these have no battery so there is obviously no "charging" going on. More generically, it's a power supply; less accurately, we often call it a "transformer".

I don't know what the best thing is here, but I do know that "plug-top charger" is begging for clarification. Jeh (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We've got AC adapter - we probably shouldn't get too hung up on the details in this article and expound at length there instead. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm. "AC adapter" does include the "line lump" or "power brick" sort. Jeh (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It does say "plug-top chargers and power supplies" but if "plug-top" is not meaningful in NA then it is the wrong expression, especially as it specifically refers to type A. How about: "...may be suitable for chargers and power supplies incorporating Type A pins, ...." BTW, I used to think that "plug top" was slang, or a misnomer, but it turns out that in the early days of plugs and sockets that a paired plug and socket was often called a "plug" with the two parts being a "plug base" and a "plug top". The term "plug top" occurs in some formal technical documents, including the deliberations of the committee working on the definition of BS 1363 in the 1940s. FF-UK (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Plug top" a very regional term in the UK for what everyone else calls a "plug". AFAIAA: it's use is largely confined to the Northern parts of England. In that same region, a "plug" is something that you plug a "plug top" into (i.e. a "socket"). "AC adapter" would be a far more region neutral term.31.48.73.38 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Whilst being in full agreement that "Plug top" is not the most appropriate term to use, Jeh has already pointed out that "AC adapter" covers more than we are referring to here, hence my suggestion above. FF-UK (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

31.48.73.38 "Plug top" is a British term, but I cannot agree that it is a regional term, its widespread use in technical literature suggests otherwise! This is probably off-topic, however here are some examples: Introduction to Electrical Installation Work Lighting Technology Basic Electrical Engineering Barry's Introduction to Construction of Buildings Electric Wiring: Domestic Robot Builder's Cookbook: Build and Design Your Own Robots Advanced Electrical Installation Work Electrical Safety: A Guide to the Causes and Prevention of Electrical Hazards Construction Technology: An Illustrated Introduction Fire Investigation Design of Electrical Services for Buildings Ethics in Engineering Design: SEED 2003 The Circuit Designer's Companion A Practical Guide to The Wiring Regulations Electric Wiring for Domestic Installers Workplace Law Handbook 2011 - Health and Safety, Premises and Environment Practical Guide to Inspection, Testing and Certification of Electrical ... Paraphernalia: The Curious Lives of Magical Things Electrical Safety and the Law New Scientist FCS Engineering Fabrication & Sheet Metalwork L3 Handbook of Electrical Installation Practice Handbook of Electrical Hazards and Accidents Electric Fuses Stage Lighting Handbook Guide to the IET Wiring Regulations: IET Wiring Regulations (BS 7671:2008 ... The Electrical Review, Volume 109 Electrical Times ..., Volume 46 Industrial safety handbook CZI Industrial Review Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing The Electrical Engineer, Volume 36 Electric Cooking, Heating, Cleaning, Etc

The use of "plug top" is not limited to the UK, but also to other countries in which British English is spoken. here are some examples from Australia, Australia again, New Zealand, New Zealand again, South Africa, South Africa again, India, Sri Lanka, and another Sri Lanka example. FF-UK (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the term isn't used. This barrage of references seems to me to be completely beside the point that the term needs clarification. Jeh (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, I agreed above that the existing term is inappropriate and made a suggestion - your comments on that would be appreciated. The references are in response to the IP who does not understand either the origins or the current usage. FF-UK (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have made the change. FF-UK (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine. (Sorry for not getting back sooner - busy times here.) A nicely economical change. :) Jeh (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Current/Power Rating

Maximum Current Power rating to be included in the Table. Presently only Voltage & Frequency is given. E.g. For India, Maximum Current Rating is 5A (Power = Volt*Amp = 230*5 = 1150 VA). Please correct the value if wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.137.88 (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary source for this article does not mention current ratings, which is probably the reason why such information is not included here. It is not clear where such information would be obtained from or to what it would apply. For example, India is listed as using type C, D and M plugs. Type C is the Europlug which is unequivocally rated at 2.5 A, Type D is generally rated at 5 A but the Indian version at 6 A (IS 1293), and Type M is generally rated at 15 A but the Indian version at 16 A (IS 1293). FF-UK (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The UK type G plug is referred to as a 13 A plug. However the maximum current rating of the infrastructure depends on other factors, a significant number of 13A plugs (which can be, and usually are, fused lower) would probably connect to a 2.5mm copper cable ring main, while cookers (domestic ovens) are fed by 6mm copper cable mains, which are basically rated at 32A. Conversely a domestic lighting ring main would generally run on 1.5mm copper cable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC).

Three phase

I added a note about three phase, nominally phase-to-phase 230V systems are at 400v, 220v systems are at 380v, and I believe 240V systems are rated 420V, though I have seen 415V and 440V. Someone with more knowledge (and better references) might like to improve what I wrote, and add the distinction between phase-neutral and phase-phase. Or maybe we should have a separate article on industrial electricity supply. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC).

The factor is the square root of three, so you can check any of those. The common ones in the US are 120/208 and 277/480, the latter often used for lighting in commercial applications. Other possibilities are 230/400, 220/380, and 240/415, rounded conveniently. Gah4 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both this article and its primary source are concerned with single phase domestic supplies, that is made clear in the voltages section. I have therefore removed the redundant additional note. FF-UK (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

FTR, this info goes on Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets. -- Beland (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)]

Serious

It looks to me that the products discussed in ref 8 Weekly overview report of RAPEX notifications Report 5 (Ref. 6 A12/0135/13), United Kingdom: European Commission are not considered serious safety risks doing what they are supposed to do, but because they do something else. They allow contact with live conductors, even when used properly. In that case, claiming that they are unsafe when used improperly (wrong voltage, current, or polarity) doesn't make appropriate use of this reference. Yes with current technology and devices it is easy to connect devices improperly, and allowing people to take devices across national borders can lead to problems. But place the blame where it belongs, on those using the devices. Gah4 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Gah, you do not seem to understand that the problem with universal sockets is that they cannot be designed to actually conform to any standard (there is no standard for such devices) and they are, by definition, a compromise. The compromises mean that it is not possible to conform to safe practice. If a socket is designed to accept both plugs intended for 230V and plugs intended for 115V, that is a fault of the design, not the user (it is also contrary to IEC 60884-1). If a socket is designed to accept plugs which have line and neutral connected in ways which are geometrically opposite, and is marked for the feed wires to be connected in the appropriate polarity for one, which means the incorrect polarity for the other, that is not the fault of the user!

Much has been published on the dangers of universal sockets, here are some of the relevant references:

http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100015221/Universal_Socket_Outlets.pdf

http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/mediafile/100016002/Switched-On-29.pdf page 14

http://www.beama.org.uk/resourceLibrary/universal-socket-outlets.html

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/beama-warns-universal-socket-outlets-could-put-convenience-over-safety

http://www.interpower.com/ic/designers/white-papers/universal-sockets-are-unsafe.html

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/universal-sockets-are-unsafe-solution-says-plugsafe

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/bbc-finally-responds-complaint-about-programme-illegal-universal-sockets

The BBC have upheld a complaint about their reporting on universal sockets in in their published findings accept that universal sockets are intrinsically dangerous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/auniversalplugsocket

http://www.spring.gov.sg/Building-Trust/Raising-Confidence/Safety-Tips-Alerts/Product-Safety-Alerts/Documents/SafetyAlert_Universal_Portable_Socket_Outlets.pdf

http://www.universalsocket.org.uk/index.html

Blitzenlight (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of these look much better than the current reference. The last one looks better than some of the others. But even here, there are a few things being considered all at once. One is the problem of actual unsafe (wrong) operation, where a person can contact live parts. Another is the possibility of connecting a wrong-voltage appliance. The latter is, I believe, impossible to solve, as so many appliances now have universal power supplies, and also adapter plugs are widely available. With adapter plugs, and universal power supplies, you depend on the user to know what to plug in where. Some problems can be solved with fuses or circuit breakers, which should be included in such outlets, but are probably too expensive for adapter plugs. Gah4 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Gah, what you describe as "unsafe operation" seems to me to be a direct consequence of bad design. A socket outlet should be designed to provide a safe means of powering a specific plug type. Universal sockets, and universal adaptors, simply go against that philosophy. One of the most obvious examples is that of German (Schuko) style and the French style grounded plugs, both of which use a method of grounding (side contacts for Schuko, a socket like contact in a French plug which mates with a ground pin in the French outlet) which is quite impossible to provide in a universal socket (doing so would prevent the insertion of any other plug type). The result is that when those plugs are inserted into a universal socket then the ground connection cannot be made! Taking another example, the recess in a Schuko outlet is what provides protection against touching live parts, a universal outlet or socket cannot, by definition, have a recess, thus the protection is no longer present. These problems are not caused by user error, they are caused by designer error. To be safe, travel adaptors should only ever be designed to provide a safe means of connecting a specific plug type to a specific outlet of a different kind, and should not employ compromises which result in unsafe connections. They should also come with dire warnnings of the consequences of not ensuring that the operating voltage range of the appliance is suitable for the supply available.

Domestic and light commercial electrical practice is based on country specific standards, which date from a time (over 100 years ago) when no one even considered the need to transport portable electrical equipment between countries. As a result, one of the practical benefits of having different plug types is to help ensure that safe connections between compatible appliances and supplies are made. It makes no sense to facilitate an easy connection between a 230V supply and a 115V hairdryer when the result may be combustion! At least, if an adaptor is used, the user may pause to ask themselves "is this safe?". Neither fuses or circuit breakers provide adequate protection against the issue of voltage mismatch. A circuit breaker in a universal outlet (if such a thing existed, which I believe it does not) could still allow destructive and dangerous excess current caused by overvoltage (but within the rating of the outlet) to flow within an appliance.

I understand that it is not the function of wikipedia to be a user manual, but the underlying problem is that the technically uneducated consumers wish for a simple and convenient solution, but such a thing is not possible without all countries coalescing on a single voltage and frequency standard and a single plug type. That is never going to happen for AC supplies!

As a neophyte on wikipedia, I do not know if it is a reasonable thing to add further references, but it would seem to me that the existing citing of an actual case of withdrawal from the market is a pretty solid and significant reference. Blitzenlight (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Current ratings?

I notice from earlier entries archived from this page that a lot of effort has been expended arguing over the voltage rating of certain connectors, with the result that there is now a rather silly warning that is repeated over and over again in the table of mains voltages and frequencies, wasting space where a simple asterisk and footnote would surely suffice, while hardly any mention is made of the current rating of the connectors. By that, I mean that the current rating is given for some of the IEC standard range of plugs but no mention at all is given for the sockets found in the table. This seems topsy-turvey to me because it's the current that is dangerous, not the voltage, as anyone with a grasp of basic physics will understand. Drawing 10 A from a socket rated for 5 A will invariably be a greater risk than using a 125 V rated power cord with a 220 V supply. It would be naive to hope that all supplies would be protected from over current by the appropriate fuses or circuit breakers, and it is not often possible to check for oneself. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockets do not accept plugs with current ratings higher than the socket, this is a fundamental of standards and is a condition of IEC 60884-1. By contrast, some countries use versions of Type A and/or B sockets on supplies greater than the 125 V for which they were originally designed, and have supposedly tested those sockets at higher voltage. As these sockets will also accept plugs rated at only 125 V (in contravention of IEC 60884-1, para 9.2) it is important to draw that to the attention of readers, an asterisk and footnote would tend to imply that the information is of only secondary importance, which is not correct. FF-UK (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's safety advice and therefore it is of secondary importance in an encyclopedia. Furthermore it is uncited and appears to be original research. 82.132.225.121 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "sockets do not accept plugs with current ratings higher than the socket" doesn't answer my point that the table contains no reference to socket current ratings. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The tables are about plugs and voltages, there is no specific information about sockets, therefore no mention of ratings. This may be because the primary reference source for this page is about plugs rather than sockets? It ought to be possible to add socket information where suitable references can be found, but there are currently only a few references to reliable sources other than the IEC World Plugs web pages, so this might be problematical?

I have added information about IEC 60884-1 to the article, with reference, and also an image of 125V rating markings on NEMA 5-15 plugs. I believe that 250V rated Type A and Type B plugs do exist (in contravention of IEC 60884-1) but have never seen any. FF-UK (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese standard GB 2099.1 Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes, Part 1: General requirements (2008) is available on archive.org. Google Translate says the table in section 6 is "ratings" and the Google translation says there are 2-pole plugs rated 250 volt. Also, the diagram on page 94 of the .PDF shows a parallel-blade plug of the Type A shape. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and although there appear to be many mentions of IEC 60884-1 in that document I can not find the required statement about the non-compliance on voltage rating. It does not say much about the value of Chinese standards! FF-UK (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is about mains electricity in different countries. Electricity is provided via a socket, therefore to be of relevance to the article the table should provide information about the sockets and the current rating is a very important factor. I agree that finding sources might be difficult. Regarding the comment about Type A and Type B plugs, I don't believe that the "Types" form any kind of standard but certainly flat-bladed plugs are used at voltages higher than the 125 V that those used in the USA are rated at. I have personal experience of mains sockets in the Philippines where this is the case. I wonder when the IEC 60884-1 standard was written? Does it pre-date usage like this? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The type letters used in the article are, as it clearly states, those defined by the IEC, but you are quite right that this is informal and does not constitute a standard, variations of the letter system exist and mentioned in the article. The original IEC 60884-1 standard was published in 1987. As an example of planned compliance, the 1984 revision of BS 1363 was aligned, where possible, with the (then) proposed new IEC standard. FF-UK (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why then does it come as a surprise that there exist 250 V rated flat bladed ("Type A" and "Type B") plugs "in contravention of IEC 60884-1" when that standard was only published as recently as 1987? The relevant countries (China, Philippines, Thailand, etc.) were using them before that date. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The usage and existence of such plugs rated at 250V does not come as a surprise. However, it is disturbing that both the Chinese and Philippine standards, current versions of which postdate IEC 60884-1, falsely claim compliance with it. The Philippine National Standard PNS 1572:1997 also states "This International Electrotechnical Commission Standard IEC 83:1975 has been adopted as Philippine National Standard by the Bureau of Product Standards through the recommendation of its Technical Committee on Wiring Devices (BPS/TC 10).

The Technical Committee approved the requirements of this standard particularly the dimensional requirements in Group A. However, a new configuration has been prepared to replace pages 22 and 23 of Group A to suit Philippine condition." As IEC 83 (now IEC 60083) is not a standard, but a technical report which includes descriptions of standards in use around the world, it seems a very inappropriate basis for a national standard!

The discrepancy remains a potentially dangerous situation for the unwary traveller. FF-UK (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes one should use plugs of appropriate rated voltage. Even so, it would be pretty difficult to design a plug that was safe at 120V and unsafe at 230V. (That is, that could hold off 120V but breakdown at 230V.) But the problem with using plugs or wiring that designed for less than 230V should be true for any 230V (more or less) country. It seems useless to note it on some. On the other hand, wire that is too small will easily overheat with too much current. This is more of a problem in 120V countries, as the required currents for many loads are higher. I vote for removing the notes, possibly adding a footnote. Gah4 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Speculation about whether plugs rated at 125V are really quite safe at higher voltages is not appropriate to this page. However, you may want to consider whether the authorities in those few countries which have decided to uprate the American type plug have a greater technical competence than the IEC, which quite clearly rates it at 125V (IEC 60906-2). Also, consider that in IEC 60884-1 (clause 9.2), it states clearly that: "It shall not be possible, within a given system, to engage a plug with a socket-outlet having a higher voltage rating or a lower current rating". The laxity of a few, arguably incompetent, bodies is itself a cause for concern, but not one which can be addressed here! FF-UK (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If speculation about plug ratings and safety aren't appropriate, can we remove all the notes about 120V plugs? Seems to me that they are speculation. Also, the NEMA 6-15 has the same inner spacing as the type A plug, is normally used on 208V or 240V circuits, and seems to be rated at 250V. The note about "within a given system" seems not to apply between systems, though it is fairly easy to take small devices to other countries. Gah4 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing speculative about stating that (in relation to a mains supply of 230V): Power cords with type A plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard. IEC 60884-1 clause 9.2 is not a "note", it is a requirement! And, all type A and B plugs and sockets are part of the same system of plugs and sockets. FF-UK (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So, it isn't speculating to say that they may present a safety hazard, but it is speculating to say that they might not? Maybe you should say which safety hazard you are sure will occur? I would trust a US made and sold 125V rated plug over a 250V Chinese market plug just about every day. No more comment about pin spacing? Gah4 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Gah4, I really do not see where you are coming from here. A plug cannot be considered safe when operated outside of its rating. That is NOT speculation. Suggesting that operation above the rated values MIGHT be safe is very clearly speculation, and has no place on WP.

I have withdrawn my comment about pin spacing as it is unimportant to the central issue. FF-UK (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but why is a plug only unsafe in certain countries? Isn't it just as unsafe in any country with more than rated voltage? Gah4 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, but if the plug is physically compatible with the socket there is a greater probability that the user will overlook the fact that the voltage in some countries is in excess of the rating of an American plug/cord (and appliance come to that). FF-UK (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Excess rating for an appliance is an important problem, but plug rating doesn't have much to do with that. From a legal point of view, you want to use an appropriately rated plug. (You could be sued for something unrelated to the plug failure.) The article notes that 120V rated plugs are tested to 250V. (I suppose 230V plugs are tested even higher.) Cords with old, worn, or cracked insulation are a very significant safety hazard, but not one that needs to be specified here. The packaging for adapter plugs commonly indicates that they don't change voltage, though people might not bring it along or just might forget it. (More and more devices have universal power supplies, so this is less a problem than it used to be.) Excess current and overheating wires are a significant hazard, not mentioned as much as it could be. Seems to me that a footnote would be enough for plug rating. Gah4 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is the standing argument that http://www.iec.ch/worldplugs/typeA.htm isn't sufficiently authoritative on the subject? I have to admit to be a touch confused on the whole thing since connectors tend to be rated by current and not voltage in most cases. Nazzy (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to my previous comment, the IEC page says the Japanese type A has a wider live pin while whatplug claims one pin is longer than the other. There's also worldstandards which agrees with the IEC page that there are plenty of places using 230V with type A and B plugs. Example: Bolivia... IEC and worldstandards.eu list it as types A and C at 220-230V only. This seems correct according to bolivianlife and voltageplugregion amongst others. It seems to me that the argument here is somewhat like that of RJ45 vs Unkeyed 8P8C... generic usage vs specific implementation. Nazzy (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion related to the comment: Power cords with type A plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard. on some, but not all, systems. The reference relates to universal outlets that allow plugs from just about any country to fit, and also can allow one to contact live power pins. Seems to me that the comment should either apply to all countries, or just as a comment once for the whole table. There are practically an infinite number of ways to go wrong, some more dangerous than others. Putting 125V plugs attached to 230V devices into 230V outlets is one of the least dangerous. (Many devices now have universal power supplies that can run off anything from 100V to 240V, and may even have 125V rated plugs. Gah4 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gah4 wrote "Power cords with type A plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard.' on some, but not all, systems. The reference relates to universal outlets that allow plugs from just about any country to fit". If you look again you will see that comment actually applies to those countries which use Type A and/or B outlets with 230V systems, whereas most Type A and B plugs and power cords are rated at only 125V. The Universal Socket problem is a separate issue. FF-UK (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be a separate issue, but unless changed now, the references were to problems with universal outlets. In addition, the existence of universal outlets in many countries, and especially in places like hotel rooms, means that any problems with such plugs exist in any country with above 120VAC line voltage. It seems to me, then, that the comment should be on all countries with above 120VAC outlets. With the popularity of adapter plugs, there could be problems with any outlet. But now, more and more devices have universal power supplies that can run between 100VAC and 240VAC. Gah4 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue of universal sockets is separate to the issue of socket outlets which were originally specified for use at a maximum of 125V being used at higher voltages. The article section titled Safety considerations deals with, amongst other things, the universal socket issue. In the interests of clarity I have added sub-headings to the safety consideration section. FF-UK (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Required

Plugs and power cords have a rated voltage (V) and rated current (A) assigned to them by the manufacturer, and these values are required to be marked on the plug. Who is it that requires this? I seem to have a large number that don't have a voltage or current rating. Not cheap no-name brand one from third world countries, but one that are from well known manufacturers. Seems that they don't know about this requirement. Gah4 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The overarching standard for "Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes" is IEC 60884-1. The section on marking is 8, and this includes:

8.1 Accessories shall be marked as follows:

– rated current in amperes;

– rated voltage in volts;

– symbol for nature of supply;

– manufacturer's or responsible vendor's name, trade mark or identification mark;

– type reference which may be a catalogue number;

The general requirements of this standard are normally adopted into the national standards of the country concerned. For instance:

(British) BS 1363 section 7

(French) NF C 61-314 section 8.1

(Australian) AS/NZS 3112 section 2.12

(Indian) IS 1293 section 8.1

(Chinese) GB.2099.1 section 8.1 (note, China is one of the countries which uses a version of NEMA 1-15 rated at 250V).

The US requirement is in UL standard 498, table 163.1 (plugs) and table 163.4 (receptacles). FF-UK (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Devices

I tried to make a change from Power cords with type A plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard. to Devices with type A plugs which are rated at only 125 V may present a safety hazard. but it was reverted. Note that this whole talk page is about this one note. First, none of the 120V appliances that I check have a voltage rating on their power cord. Not on lamps, extension cords, or anything else. I suspect that the actual case of using cords rated at 125V is low. Second, connecting appliances designed for 120V to 240V power sources is likely hazardous. A hair dryer will run at 4x the power, with the fan also running much faster. Hopefully the thermal sensor will go pretty fast. Devices with iron core transformers (less and less popular, but still many around) are usually not universal voltage. The rectifiers or capacitors are often not rated double, and will fail, likely catastrophically. And third, it seems to me that power cords are also devices (though not appliances) and so are not excluded by the change. And finally, I still have not seen a reliable reference for the original note. While it might seem obvious, as I understand it, it still needs a reference. Gah4 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No comments so far., so I decide to actually go read the NEC. As far as I can tell, the lowest rating for power cords in the US NEC is 300 volts. As this the for English readers, it seems that the primary audience for 120V countries is the US. Someone else can find it in the Canadian NEC. Of there are no 125V power cords, then we don't need this whole note. Japan uses 100V, and might have lower voltage cords. I can't read Japanese at all, so someone else will have to find that one, but most likely they will read the Japanese Wikipedia. If someone has a better refrence than the NEC, I would be happy to look at it. Gah4 (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Gah4, The NEC is concerned with the installation of electrical conductors and equipment in premises. It is NOT concerned with appliances or power cords for appliances. The relevant American Standard for plugs is NEMA WD 6-2016 which defines the plugs and outlets used in the USA and Canada. NEMA WD 6-2016 Figure 1-15 (Type A) and Figure 5-15 (Type B) both define the rating of those plugs as 125 V. The international standard for Type B is IEC 60906-2, "IEC system of plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes – Part 2: Plugs and socket-outlets 15 A 125 V a.c. and 20 A 125 V a.c."

Mains_electricity_by_country#Voltage_rating_of_plugs_and_power_cords includes an image of plugs which depicts photographically the two standard methods by which the voltage ratings for American plugs are indicated. Gah4, your own lack of familiarity with the way that American plug and power cord ratings are indicated is really of no significance. What is significant is what it says in the relevant standards, and the way the ratings are actually indicated. The article is about voltages and plugs, not appliances. The current wording is appropriate! FF-UK (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That is why I looked to see what the NEC says about it. I suppose they aren't relevant either. Note that most people are more interested in using actual appliances than just plugging in plugs. Gah4 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Gah4 Looks like you did not bother to read the part where I explain that the NEC is really NOT relevant! It covers only installations. FF-UK (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw it, but I didn't see the reference. Looks to me that once you plug it in, it counts as an installation, and the NEC applies. I suppose unplugged it doesn't, but most people find that things work better plugged in.

But mostly, I still don't see why you make a big thing out of something that likely isn't a problem, but try it ignore something that really could be a problem. People come here before they take appliances to other countries, not just plugs. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to remind people that things other than plugs could be a problem. Gah4 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point that the limiting factor is the part with the lowest rating. Per NEMA (as quoted above) there are no NEMA Type A or B plugs rated for anything above 125 volts. Jeh (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not say plugs then, as it seems that the NEC doesn't allow cords (wire) rated below 300V. Also, others could rate the safety of plugs, even if NEMA doesn't. Many devices have plugs with no cord, and are rated up to 240V. This comment suggests that those devices are unsafe. Do we have an actual reference to any actual unsafe type A plug attached to a 240V rated appliance? Even more, one that is unsafe at higher voltage, but safe at 125V? And with the popularity of adapter plugs, that device would be unsafe in any country with over 125V, even without type A outlets. The lack of this note on other countries seems to suggest that they are safe with adapter plugs in those countries. Gah4 (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

From NEMA Connector, The dimensions and configurations for NEMA connectors are given in ANSI/NEMA standard WD-6.[2] Underwriters Laboratories maintains UL Standard 498,[31] which specifies construction performance (e.g.: durability, electrical safety, and fire-resistance) for NEMA connectors. These additional requirements allow connectors to be manufactured to be compliant with the National Electrical Code. sounds like UL is responsible for the safety standard, and that all have to comply with NEC for safety. It does not suggest that plugs are unsafe at higher voltages. Certainly using NEMA 1 or NEMA 5 outlets at higher voltages can be confusing to users, and plugging in appliances not designed for that voltage can be dangerous, but I don't see any suggestion that NEMA 1 plugs on 100-240V appliances is a safety hazard. Anyone with a reliable source reference otherwise? Gah4 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that a plug certified at 125V is safe at higher voltage. Also, if there is no flexible cord, then, by definition, there is no plug! (plug = accessory having pins designed to engage with the contacts of a socket-outlet, also incorporating means for the electrical connection and mechanical retention of flexible cables or cords IEC Electropedia. A device with built in plug pins is a direct plug-in equipment (direct plug-in equipment = equipment in which the mains plug forms an integral part of the equipment enclosure so that the equipment is supported by the mains socket-outlet IEC Electropedia). There is no reason to disbelieve that a direct plug-in equipment certified for use up to 240V is unsafe at that voltage.

Gah4, please take another look at the NEC, section 90.2 "Scope" makes it perfectly clear that the NEC is concerned with installations. Neither a plug attached to a portable appliance, or a direct plug-in equipment can be described as an installation. The NEC has nothing to say about ratings of plugs, or the ratings of flexible appliance cords.

See NEC section 400, which covers flexible cables, and also 400.10 (A), (B), and 400.12, plugs for those cables. Gah4 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yawn, once again, please take note of the overriding section 90.2 which confirms the scope of the NEC - INSTALLATIONS. Only when flexible cords and plugs are used as part of an installation are they the subject of the NEC! 400.10 lists the way in which the use of flexible cords is permissible as part of an installation. FF-UK (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean like 400.10 (A)(3), including portable luminaries, portable and mobile signs or appliances? Appliances like some might take to other countries? And that they might plug in, in those countries? Gah4 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What part of the word "Scope" do you not understand? The Standards for appliance plugs and cords are determined by NEMA and UL, not the NEC! FF-UK (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mains_electricity_by_country#Voltage_rating_of_plugs_and_power_cords and Mains_electricity_by_country#Some_countries_use_Type_A_and_Type_B_sockets_at_greater_than_125_V do make the point about the importance of appliance rated voltage "Using an appliance, plug or power cord which is not appropriate for the territory (e.g. one rated for 125 V with a 230 V supply) may constitute a safety hazard" and "may be suitable for chargers and power supplies incorporating Type A pins, providing they have a suitable voltage rating". However, there is good reason to add the specific note for countries where a US type outlet (suggesting a 115V supply) is used at a higher voltage. FF-UK (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, but appliance, plug or power cord is a little long for the note, so I thought devices would include all of them. Can we put "appliance, plug or power cord" in the note? Does that make everyone happy? Gah4 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to change what is already there. FF-UK (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Addition of flag icons and bold and italic markup

this edit added flag icons to the country names and also added the use of bold and italic formatting to denote UN members vs non-UN members and etc.

These usages are not supported by MOS:FLAG, MOS:BOLD, or MOS:ITALIC.

I reverted these changes, citing MOS.

The editor [11] re-reverted with edit comment "Several non-UN states use the UN members plug type.", which does not seem to me to be relevant to the article at all (I don't see why we care here if a country or a state or even a jurisdiction is a UN member or not; we just need a place name and the voltages, plug type, etc. they use) and certainly doesn't address the MOS issues. We don't use flags that way, and we don't use boldface or italics to denote types of entries in an item list.

Please discuss. Jeh (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not need flags cluttering up this page! JimmiCheddar (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Objection, this could be difficult since some non-sovereign states have plug types and the flag issue is seen from this article List of countries and territories by population density for example. Palestine, which is an UN non-member observer state, uses H type plug as well because Israel occupied some Palestinian territories. 135.23.145.149 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There are two different issues here.

One: You have not made a case for how the flags help people find the territory, or state, or whatever they're in, in the table.

Two: You have not made a case for why UN membership is relevant. You find in the table the name of the place you're interested in, and the table tells you what plug they use. For the purposes of the table, the reason for the plug type is irrelevant, as is UN membership. You don't buy a different plug adapter if you're going to a UN-member state vs. a non-UN one. Jeh (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that it would be so helpful to someone looking up a plug or outlet. I suppose in some cases flags make it easier for someone to find their own country, but usually one uses this table for another country where they might be traveling. Gah4 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The flags do nothing to enhance the ease of use of this article, neither do they convey any relevant information. As there has been no support for adding them I will revert. FF-UK (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Three phase

Does anyone happen to know which countries normally distribute three phase to single family houses? Yes it probably doesn't need to go on this page, but I don't know where else to ask. Gah4 (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this topic is covered by Industrial and multiphase power plugs and sockets. -- Beland (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)]

Diagram or pictures?

I reverted the removal of a nice diagram. It is much easier, when someone wants to know which type of plug or socket they have, to look at the diagram. It might be nicer to have one that went horizontally across the page, maybe with each one a little bigger, but it isn't so bad the way it is. I vote for the diagram over the pictures, if the redundancy is too much. Some of them are similar enough that it is hard to tell from the pictures. Gah4 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have re-reverted! The diagram is superfluous, inaccurate, incomplete and not to a common scale. If the diagram were better it might be worth keeping. Some examples of errors: Some of the diagrams appear to be sockets and some plugs. Type A should depict a polarised plug. Type C is not that shape at all! Type D is not a round plug. That is not a Type H! That is not a Type K! Type I should be shown as a round plug. Type M and Type N are simply missing. FF-UK (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that diagram came from. Maybe someone can find a better one, that fits better on the page, and is closer to scale. From the article, it seems that omitting M and N isn't unusual. Gah4 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the diagram in principle. It is not critical for identification that type A depict a polarized plug (non-polarized variants do exist). Certainly having all the plugs to the same scale is not critical either. And it is completely unnecessary to show every last detail of a plug's shape. Jeh (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What should the convention be for denoting a male vs. a female contact? Filled-in vs. outline? This appears to be using filled-in = male contact, outline = female in the plug, opposite for the receptacle. Jeh (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as the convention goes, I believe that what Jeh says is correct for the pins, but this diagram is showing outlines which in some cases are plugs, and in others are sockets! (eg, the type I diagram is clearly copied from this socket: and that is just one particular manufacturer's implementation of a socket rather than any sort of acceptable generalisation. I start from the position that the existing illustrations are all that is required, there is no need for futher juvenile pictures. But, much worse than that, the quality of this diagram is so low that it must not be allowed here, no way, absolutely NO! JimmiCheddar (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I start from the position that the existing photographs are NOT all that is required. For one thing, scrolling down through the page checking a plug or socket against each picture is inefficient (one might as well argue "we don't need a table of contents when we have the section and subsection heads in-line in the article"). For another, the pictures show just one implementation instead of a generalization. ALso, I must add: your vehemence is noted, but is not compelling to agreement with your position. Rather the opposite. Jeh (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Even more, one of the comments about the diagrams is that they are not to scale. But the pictures aren't to scale, either. Even more, the pictures are from different angles. If all the pictures were head on and the same scale, and appropriately lit such that the slots were easily visible, then maybe no need for diagrams. But that is a lot more work than new diagrams. Gah4 (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like just to admit that this diagram is vector and may be easely edited and improved Yanpas (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that Yanpas modifies the diagram, taking into account the comments I have already made, and then advises on this talk page so that the discussion may continue relative to the improved diagram. Yanpas might also like to consider that, for completeness, the types in current use which are mentioned in the article, but do not have IEC type letters designated (eg, the Thai plug) might also be included? FF-UK (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I support FF-UK's suggestion. JimmiCheddar (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mains electricity by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204105521/http://www.nema.org/stds/wd6.cfm to http://www.nema.org/stds/wd6.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cem-macau.com/IMG/pdf/SupplyElec2009.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.st.gov.my/index.php/policies/standards/electrical-equipment/8-policies/155-plug-top-plug-15a-and-below.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://law.resource.org/pub/th/ibr/th.cs.166.e.2549.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)