Talk:Mains electricity by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

orfography check

I added info about russian electric standart, but not sure in in spelling, please check it. BTW, up to begin of 1980-s many of soviet home-technik was produced as dual-standart - 127/220. I don't now about other xUSSR countries, but in Russia this standart using now in some isolated peripherial electric nets, just an example in some siberian villages. This standart uses same GOST plug as 220V.

China Outlet

I took a picture of a China outlet during my last trip. I can email to anyone would like to post it in this section.

Formatting help

There is a formatting problem with List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages & frequencies.

It displays fine on Xp, but not on all other systems according to User:Darrien (my Linux machine is screwed, so I can't check this at the moment). The fix he proposes (align="left") breaks the display on everything except Internet Explorer. Any clues as to how to fix this for all? Chameleon 13:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't proposed my change as a fix, only as a workaround until someone can make it readable in all browsers.

Darrien 13:23, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

What does it work around? The page already displays correctly in all browsers on Windows. Only fix it for your favourite operating system if you don't break it for Windows. Chameleon 13:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would help if a) you could explain the nature of the problem. I see the page reverting between working fine for me (Firefox on XP), and having the table beneath all the images. and b) if you'd cool down / keep cool and continue to discuss. All browsers on windows is not good enough if it fails on a *NIX browser. Equally an RV war will get you nowhere. Could I suggest the remainder of this dicussion be taken to the article's talk page. --Tagishsimon

The problem is that, with Chameleon's version (before he moved the pictures to the bottom) viewing the page with larger fonts caused the pictures to occlude the table, making it unreadable.

I changed it so that the pictures were shown at the top of the page, before the table (which according to Chameleon's comments, rendered differently in IE) so it would be readable, albeit somewhat ugly, pending a permanant solution.

Darrien 13:46, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

There are not enough people viewing the talk page. I need several people running different systems to work out a solution. I too would like the page to look right on Linux etc, but not if it breaks it for Windows (used by the vast majority of people). What you see in Firefox is what I see in Mozilla. Opera is different but also can't display it right with align="left". I would explain the nature of the problem, but unfortunately I can't actually see any problem. Non-Windows users such as Darrien need to enlighten us on that (instead of breaking the display). Chameleon 13:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem with Opera? Looks good with Opera 7.5 (and 7.6 preview) on Win2k (better than on MSIE actually, since the fugly borders collapse as they should). [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 13:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know. When I looked before, the original version was fine in Opera, but Darrien's fix made the text run over the images. Now it appears both display the same thing. Chameleon 14:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me; I agree there are not enough people looking at the discussion page ... so we leave this notice here, but continue the remainder of the discussion on the talk page; else we end up taking over the Pump. Ideally, we would now refactor this discussion into a single line, inviting those who read it to follow the link to the talk page. Would you accept me doing that (or even do it yourself?) --Tagishsimon

I agree - let's find out exactly what you both are seeing. Form the sound of it, both solutions break in some browsers - there should be a way of ensuring that it works for you both. Let's talk about this -- sannse (talk) 13:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duh. That's why I posted on the Pump. Chameleon 13:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More information: I am using IE6. With a large text size, Chameleon's version has the problem of the images covering the table, Darrien's version has the problem of the table covering the images. The version with the images below the table works fine (although is not so aesthetically pleasing once the text size is reduced) -- sannse (talk) 13:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For me, Darrien's versions don't display properly in Firefox (the table shows further down page AFTER the images on right), and are minus some useful line breaks (before/after table) in Internet Explorer. OS is Win2K. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With small window width, Darriens the table occludes the pictures in IE, Chameleon's the pictures occude the table. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It appears browser/platform is a red herring or straw man or somesuch device, the real problem is the current arrangement being too wide for low-res or small width browser windows... zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems Darrien neglected to mention that the page displays fine normally, but screws up if you pump the fonts up. So, we are now looking for a solution to font size problems. I think the only thing we can do is to put the images underneath the table, as I have done (but tidying them up). Chameleon 14:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chameleon, your solution works. The images are not in order with the table anyways (it's only alphabetic). Also the solution is required as it affects those with limited horizontal width/resolution at normal font sizes. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 14:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps reducing the width of the comments on the table would be helpful? -- sannse (talk) 14:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On my browser, 120% is fine. You have to pump it up to 150% to make the unimportant comments hard to read, and a massive 200% to obscure the frequencies too (at that size, no Wikipedia page fits on the screen). If we want to make everything nice for people with that bad vision, we have to give up on putting the images along the side. The solution was to move them down, not to break the display at normal text size. Chameleon 14:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the spurious vertical bars at the beginning of each row. Although the column of pictures down the side looks nice (and displays fine for me - MS XP/Netscape 7.1), it seems that the safest solution is to have them grouped at the bottom. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 14:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does the version with the images in a <th>-cell look? -- User:Docu

The picture column has a dark gray background that extends to Nicaragua, and there seems to be too much padding between the pictures and the table. Other than that, it looks good to me.

Darrien 16:12, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Nicaragua is where the rowspan=150 runs out in the version of 15:43 13 Sep 2004.. This should not happen with the way I used nested tables in the version of 16:35 13 Sep 2004. —AlanBarrett 16:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine now. If everyone else agrees, I would suggest removing the {{attention}} tag.

Darrien 17:18, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

This page looks fine in my browser (Firefox 1.5.0.7) but it doesn't print properly! Three pages print: the top, the table and the bottom. i.e. the whole table tries to print on one page with the result that only the top-left corner can be seen. Putting the pictures at the right hand side is silly - I didn't realize they were there for about five minutes! Why not just put them in a separate table above or below the list of countries. Then it also ought to be easy to format the list of countries so it prints properly.

Dave Howorth 2006-10-13

Australian voltage

The domestic mains voltage in Australia is now nominally 230 volts plus or minus 15%, conforming to IEC 60038. However most Australians would be unaware of this change, and refer to it as "240 volt", which it may well be... that's consistent with the spec!

I wonder whether there should be a footnote on the page about this? Andrewa 13:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what IEC 60038 says is the allowable tolerance for a 230 V system but Australian Standard 60038 (which judging from the use of the same number is probably a direct copy) states 230 V +10% -6% .... I put a note of it where required Anthrass 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the UK was 240 volts myself, that's what everyone here usually say so does what you say above also apply to the UK?Smoothy 19:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The uk is now officially 230V +10% -6% however the previous standard was 240V +-6% and on all occasions where i have measured it has been between 240 and 250. Plugwash 05:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are officially 230v to comply with some European directive or other, but in reality we are - and have always been - 240v. I agree that situations such as this should be noted on the page. David Johnson [T|C] 19:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for Ireland. I've never measured it personally, but it's supposed to be 230V much like the UK, but could still be 240V in certain areas or possibly everywhere. I hear people say it is actually 230V now but I don't know for sure. Old stuff using the older D/M plugs all seem to be rated for 250V too, here. --Zilog Jones 03:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The rating of the plugs is always higher than the nominal voltage. Schuko plugs are rated for 250 V, too. -- Sloyment 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried measuring it here in Ireland (Limerick, near Ardnacrusha), and it was 230V. --Zilog Jones 16:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

While the spec may be 230V seems 240V is still the norm. According to the Western Power website (the company that provides power in Western Australia) states that they provide 240V +/-6%. Read "What To Do If You are Having Problems With Quality" Reliability v Quality. --202.72.188.124 10:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That page is now a dead link... Note that 240 V ±6% is almost completely contained within 230 V - 6%/+10% anyway so is really only a paperwork change... Note too that all documentation, tables and calculation formulae in Australia are now published assuming 230 V as the mains voltage, not 240 V... As i've said elsewhere, the lowest point of supply mains voltage I've found in my area is 225 V and the highest 252 V (both within either standard) Anthrass 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada

I like in Canada myself. The regular plugs are 110 to 120v... but qwhat i'm wondering is, why doesn't this have anythnig about the other plugs? For example, stoves or ovens use different plugs, im not sure what voltage they are, 220v or 240v. Is this page only about usual voltage, or should something about that be added as well? SECProto 19:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

right now those are at Industrial & multiphase power plugs & sockets. This page is basically bursting at the seams there isn't really any space to add much new stuff here (guideline is that articles should stay below 32k). maybe that page is badly titled but im not really sure how best to titile is ("other ac power plugs and sockets" sounds a bit lame to me) ideas and more content for that page would be welcome. Plugwash 21:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that high powered devices in North America are powered across two opposite phases of the AC supply (ie. two phases are 180° apart)... So high powered devices (stoves or ovens etc.) will be powered by double whatever the single phase supply happens to be - so if the singe-phase supply is 110V then the plug is at 220V and if 120V then it's 240V etc. (any thoughts?)... So the page only shows the single-phase nominal AC supply voltage/frequency... Where I live in Australia, high powered devices (some air conditioners for example) are 3-phase wye (except we call it 'star') connected at a nominal 400 volts (the nominal single phase voltage being 230V)... Anthrass 11:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not two phases,it's a single-phase supply, center-tapped ( see split phase. The nominal rating of the system is 120/240 V at the supply end. Utilization equipment will carry a 115/230 V name plate, indicating that the design of the apparatus allows for some voltage drop between source of supply and point of use. System nominal voltages are always (or ought always) to be given in terms of supply voltage - if we can be pedantic about "kibibytes" we can surely get this straight. You would only find two phases of a three-phase system in North America in a residence if it was two legs of a 120/208 system Voltages over 120 V to ground are not allowed in residential applications governed by the US and Canadian electrical codes - in fact the US code seems not to permit 240 V on the terminals of any wiring device in a circuit less than 1440 VA. --Wtshymanski 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool... Thanks for clearing that up for me - I knew that it was something of that effect - I didn't know it came from a centre-tapped transformer though... The effect is the similar though.. Centre tapped transformers are only used here in remote areas where single-wire earth systems are used... Anthrass 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quebec: Please note that Quebec uses 60Hz, not 50Hz as mentioned. Regards! 216.66.206.156 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Denis216.66.206.156 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Type A plug

There is no picture of a type A plug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.145.112 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Type A is the 2-pin version of Type B. Slowmover (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

I'm pretty sure the 120/240 info for Mexico is incorrect. I have read from numerous sources that 220Y/127 is the standard. When I was in Mexico, I noticed numerous fluorescent ballasts labeled 127V or 130V. Also, everywhere I went (in the towns, anyway), I saw large polemount transformers supplying a wye output to the neighborhood. Yak99 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)yak99

Bit o' cleanup

Came to skip a redirect, noted and fixed multiple spelling errors in the intro, and some grammatical awkwardness. Linked the 'Industrial' article under the somewhat broad descriptor 'Heavy-duty,' so at least visitors know of it. Also linked the AC article, as it has a nice description of AC frequency. Oddly, it has a list of countries and their respective AC frequency choices, overlapping much of the information here. Deleted the nonsense about "might not mate" because if they're in the same lettered photo, they ARE guaranteed to mate, as that is the whole idea of standard plugs and matching receptacles. Still wondering about the "bit ambiguous" comment. Can someone point out an example where the table is ambiguous? Maybe those cases need footnotes? The Electrical wiring article is linked because it might make a good jumping-off point for a techie. Considered also Power cord because of the country-specific references to power in that article as well. Lupinelawyer 21:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

with regards the ambiguity the issues are with types A B C and F. With A and B the japaneese variant will fit the american sockets but the american variant won't fit the japaneese sockets because it has the wider pin for polarisation. With C there is a higher current variant (CEE 7/17) which has 4.8mm pins rather than the 4mm pins of the more common low current europlug. With F there is a russian variant which has 4mm pins which will fit the german sockets but the german version won't fit the russian sockets. Plugwash 11:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There's also a rub with the Japanese plugs; and it also applies to the American-market ones. The polarization issue was more of a problem with older sockets and especially multi-plug "cube taps", which frequently were NOT polarized. Most of the modern stuff is polarized, especially the sockets installed in the wall (from what I've observed in the short time I was in Japan). However you can still get the non-polarized taps over there (and occasionally here in the USA). Stephanie Weil 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland/Saudi

The same comment about "shaver sockets" in bathrooms for UK plugs should be here too. Type 'D' and 'M' plugs also used to be standard here. Though I'm not sure when the 'G' ones were officially introduced here - though the British Standard for the new plugs was published in 1962, my grandparents' house built in 1965 was originally fitted with type 'M' plugs (I think there's still a few there!).

Also, on every stage I've seen in the UK and Ireland where I have noticed the light fittings, they all use 'M' plugs for large lights (probably dimmer-controlled), and occasionally 'D' ones for smaller lights/circuits. I've also noticed 'D' plugs in some other light ciruits in pubs, restaurants, and whatnot.

And on the subject of Saudi Arabia - I used to live there during the early 90's, and things were very weird. In the Dhahran/Dammam/Al Khobar region, it appears that American sockets were most common in households, and I think we used 127V with those kinds of sockets. However, in the house I lived in, there was a 'G' type socket for the dishwasher. I don't know what voltage it ran on. I never saw what plugs the other large kitchen appliances used (fridge, washing machine, etc.), but they were all American-style Hotpoint appliances. I lived in a compound for British Aerospace employees, though, so things may have been different elsewhere. I definately remember seeing American 2 and 3-pin plugs elsewhere there, like in my school. I also remember we had a good few adapters for 2-pin Europlugs. --Zilog Jones 04:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here in the uk (and presumabblly also ireland) M type (15A BS546) plugs are used in the UK for stage lighting and occasionally for kitchen appliances. The main reason for using them is that whilst fused plugs are a great idea for normal domestic equipment they are not so good for connections that are awkward to get at.

D type (5A BS546) and sometimes also the 2A BS546 (which we don't have a letter for here) are often used when it is desired to connect lamps to the lighting cuircuit (to allow thier control by lightswitches) So that people can't go connecting high power appliances and taking out the fuse/breaker. Plugwash 13:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hong Kong G, while D & M are used in old installations.

What's M? Thanks, --Abdull 12:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry someone grouped M under the D entry on mains power plug and in the list here (its the 15A BS546) and for some reason in the list here. I'm putting the list here back to list it in the place you'd expect to find M. Plugwash 17:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

IEC 60038

I have heard that according to IEC 60038 all member countries with 50 Hz have switched to a nominal voltage of 230 V.

1. Can somebody with access to this standard confirm this?
2. What does the standard say about the other countries?

-- Sloyment 14:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't half of japan still 50hz/100V? Plugwash 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have measured my mains supply in Ireland on several occasions in the past year with a digital multimeter - and I always get 230V with a variation of about ±3V. --213.202.177.40 22:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that was me! --Zilog Jones 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This would be very interesting. I hope that someone expert can confirm this.

I read that the goal of the IEC is to achieve a standard throughout member countries of 230V for 50Hz systems. As an example Australia agreed sometime in the early 1980's (I think 1984) but it took untill the year 2000 to actually alter the standard. Other member countries could be in different stages of progress. Anthrass 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Please add references as to where the information in this article is obtained. You may need to do some major work for that, but then it can easily become a featured list candidate.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

to properly reference this article would be an insane task and i doubt there is anyone here prepared to take it on especially as some of the poorer countries probablly don't have enforced standards like the west does. Plugwash 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Plugwash, I agree with you, but don't you think that this article only having 1 (one!) reference is a little incomplete? At least I expected to have references for all western countries... --Lgrave 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thailand

Seems to have its own 3 pin standard (http://www.leoni-electrical-appliances.com/Plugs.6775.0.html?&L=1&cHash=29a5cfda7a&mode=DETAILS&cpid=2082&uid=237) but I'm not clear whether these are a new standard or how common they are. Any further information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Interconnection

If you connect a simple device designed for 240 V/ 50 Hz (like a British hairdryer) with an adapter to 110 V / 60 Hz (like America), will it work? Will the higher frequency damage it? 57.66.51.165 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Higher frequency will not normally do damage to an item like a hairdryer, but the low voltage will prevent it from getting very hot, so it may not be satisfactory. In fact, most items designed for 50Hz will work just fine on 60Hz -- the voltage is more typically the issue in either case. Equipment designed for 60Hz, especially motors and large transformers (> 500 watt), may overheat on 50Hz even with the correct voltage due to the lower back-emf (slower speed) and higher magnetic saturation. Alan 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian Two-Pin Plug

An unearthed two-pin plug is often used in Australia - like the one shown for Germany. Should this not be noted on the page as another plug type? --217.238.60.194 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Plug lettering system

I am researching the origin of the plug lettering system? This article specifies a “US government document”. Dose anyone know which government department developed the document and how I could get a copy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.61.10 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Scan through the archived chat and if nessacery the early page history of domestic AC power plugs and sockets i belive there is a mention somewhere. Plugwash 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From reading the archived talk it seems its http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf don't take the information in it as gospel though as some of it is plain wrong! Plugwash 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chile

Text and map are inconsistent - map says 50 Hz, text says 60 Hz. Some searching makes me think that 50 Hz is correct - namely, I couldn't find any reference which said Chile is 60 Hz. --Ethelred 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This website (in Spanish) says it's 220 volts/50 hertz: http://www.gochile.cl/Info_s/Hbook/datosutiles.asp . I know for certain that Chile uses the same plugs as in Italy. 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

wanted: someone who can read danish

according to the article http://www.sik.dk/global/Presse/Pressemeddelelser/tvungen_hpfi_afrbydere.html claims that french plugs will be introduced in denmark from 2008. Can someone have a read of the source (which i'm guessing is in danish) and clarify if it says anything about how thier introduction will be handled (in particular if and how they will stop unsafe use of french plugs in existing danish sockets)

Reply: Right now almost no one in Denmark uses ground in their private homes. This is because electrical equipment is normally shipped with the E+F hybrid plug, and almost never with the Danish K (which only exist in newer homes).

From the article:

Indførsel af HPFI-afbrydere i alle installationer øger altså sikkerheden, og derfor kan det danske marked efter 1. juli 2008 åbnes for stikkontakter produceret efter fransk/belgisk standard. Sikkerhedsstyrelsen har valgt at tillade de fransk/belgiske blandt andet fordi, de giver bedre mulighed for jordbeskyttelse ved brug af importerede elektriske apparater med hybridstikpropper.

--130.225.51.45 10:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that from 1 July 2008, it will become possible to use the "Franco-Belgian" standard on the Danish market, in order to increase competition on the power plug market. With the additional safety gained for people using imported appliances with these sockets. The article does not mention anything about converting existing installations, but mentions that the Danish Safety Technology Authority (SIL) will continue to work for an international harmonization of power plugs. The specification for the non-grounded Danish plug will likewise be amended to minimize any problems for users combining the two systems. The article describes the introduction of the Franco-Belgian standard as a result of a new compulsory upgrade to "HPFI" ground fault circuit interrupters in all installations. The HPFI is an upgraded version of the old HFI interrupter, and electricians have effectively been upgrading to the new standard for more than 10 years. In some cases, e.g. when installing a washing machine, replacing the old HFI interrupter was compulsory.

For those unfamiliar with the Danish market for electrical appliances; One company, Lauritz Knudsen (= "LK"), has (close to) a complete monopoly on power plugs and wall sockets in Denmark. This situation has led to pretty high prices, and it looks like this is the reason behind this announcement which directly mentions that the Authority expects more competition on the market resulting in lower prices. For consumers, the Danish situation is a bit of a mess, since sellers of imported electrical goods often ship these products with a Schuko plug, meaning that consumers have to chose. Naturally, the safe solution is to cut off the plug, and replace it with a Danish grounded version. However, some vendors use this as a way of depriving customers of the product's legal warrenty, since the seller can now claim that the product has been modified. It is very common for consumers simply to use the original plug, which fits nicely into the round version of the non-grounded socket - ignoring that the appliance should have been grounded. Even more so as the requirement to install grounded sockets in private homes is a relatively new standard. Interestingly, this announcement seems to have been completely ignored in Danish media, and the Danish Safety Technology Authority has officially been working for international harmonization for more than 20 years. But AFAIK, this is the first time that a non-Danish standard is allowed on the Danish market. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What i'd like to why the hell the government was allowing sale of appliances with incompatible earthing arrangements in the first place?! Plugwash 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No arguing there (my dad is an electrician as you might have guessed by now). Unfortunately, a demand that appliances sold in Denmark should also use Danish sockets would be a trade restriction not allowed under EU law. Denmark is such a small market that such niceties are often simply ignored by importers. If an electrical appliance is legal to sell in Germany, it is also legal to sell it in any other part of the EU, Denmark included. The situation described applies mostly to consumer electronics, e.g. televisions and computers. When it comes to "heavy duty" machinery - like a washing machine using 380 Volts - a certified electrician will normally install it, and he will naturally use the correct 380 V socket which is completely incompatible with the 230 V sockets. I can't remember if it is a legal requirement that such appliances must be installed by a certified electrician, but I'm 99% sure that it is. When it comes to the 230 V system, any action modifying the house's fixed wiring, hidden or not, must be made by a certified electrician. Ordinary people are allowed to exchange an old 230 V wall socket with a new one in the same location, but that's about it. Some people naturally ignore this law, but this is a bad idea since doing so will make your fire insurance void. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Unfortunately, a demand that appliances sold in Denmark should also use Danish sockets would be a trade restriction not allowed under EU law" is not entirely correct. A country can make a "general good" case for restricting trade if there is a valid national interest at stake. So UK and Ireland (and possibly other countries) only permit appliances to be sold with a G type plug on safety grounds; appliances with, say a French type plug cannot be sold. The Danish authorities could have adopted a similar approach but (for whatever reason) have chosen not to.

Domestic sockets in other Scendinavian countries, although not compatible with Denmark's, are usually not earthed other than in kitchens and bathrooms. Maybe this is why the Danish authorities have not acted sooner to resolve the issue of widespread use of plugs with incompatible earthing devices in Danish sockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia discrepancy

The map indicates that Ethiopia uses the C, E, and F type connectors, and based on my recollection, I am quite sure this is correct - though I'm not absolutely positive. The text, on the other hand, lists the D, J and L connectors and those just don't look familiar. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan

What does Kurdistan in the list of countries and territories stand for? With all due respect to the Kurdish people and their aspirations, AFAIK there's no legal entity which could be called Kurdistan. I'll remove Kurdistan entry from the table unless somebody presents a good reason for it to stay. I'd like to say once again, I don't have anything against the Kurds, but Wikipedia's List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages and frequencies doesn't seem to be the right place to wage war for national liberation, does it? Paluszak 11:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberia mains frequency (60 or 50 hertz)

Can someone point me to a source that mentions Liberia also using 50 hertz current? Considering that this country used the American standards (120 volts/60 hertz) for electricty, why would they be making such a massive change to something non-standard like 120V/50 Hz? Stephanie Weil 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just going by what is/was written in the article, but apparently all electricity in Liberia is generated by private firms that don't pay heed to any regulations. All Liberia's neigbours use 230 V 50 Hz, so any electrical goods brought over from those countries would be unsuitable for use in Liberia. However, if your electricity comes from your own generator or one belonging to a neighbourhood entrepreneur (which I'm guessing is what's meant by privately generated), it makes sense to change the generator and take advantage of products readily available on the regional market.--GagHalfrunt 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Although everything I've read about electricity in various tourist information websites for Liberia says that the voltage is 120V at 60 hertz with American plugs. That's what has me confused. Maybe someone from the country can report? Stephanie Weil 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The tourist information is based on pre-1990 war information. Since approximately 2001 Liberia has switched to 50Hz -- first unofficially, now officially. This Wikipedia article is correct (I corrected it -- or at least I had corrected it once; as recent as version 11572605. I have corrected it once again, with a link to this talk page entry).

I grew up in Liberia, left in 1990 just before the major part of the war began, visited again in December 2004, and will be returning at the end of July to work on an electrical power project at one of the private generation plants.

During the war almost the entire electrical infrastructure was cannibalized for scrap: HV lines and wires in buildings (see [1] and [2]) -- people had to find some way to eat, and there was no power in the wires anyway. It was reported that merchants were paying US$1 per pound for scrap copper in the early 1990s, and that at one point some 15 shipping containers of scrap copper were seized as being illegal (not clear if they were 20ft or 40ft; but either way it was a lot).

Additionally, the main source of power for the Monrovia area, a hydroelectric plant at Mt Coffee on the St Paul River, was destroyed by flooding. When the fighting closed in on the Mt Coffee Dam in July 1990, the technicians fled and were unable to return in time to open the flood gates on the reservoir before the summer rains arrived (which were late that year). In a normal rainy season all but one or two of the flood gates are opened to keep the reservoir from overflowing the coffer dam. However, in 1990 only four of the spillway floodgates remained open [3]] and the reservoir overflowed the coffer dam and completely eroded it down to bedrock [4]]. The powerhouse appears to remain, but it is doubtful that it can be rehabilitated any time soon. (Anecdotes from my father, Jon Shea, who was the SIM West Africa Area Director and in Liberia at the time and in the years following.)

Given that both the infrastructure and the generation equipment has been destroyed, it makes no sense to remain an island of 60Hz in a sea of 50Hz -- even though it may be one or two decades before the grid is extended to neighboring countries. But especially in light of several aid projects consisting of 50Hz equipment from African[5] and EU countries. (Ghana supplied generators for the street light project in Monrovia.)

Most electrical equipment available in Monrovia today is 50Hz or 50/60Hz and either 110v or 220v. Virtually every generator sold is 50Hz, but allows 115/230v connections. Enough of the 110v infrastructure remains that it will probably continue to be an option in most places, albeit at 50Hz! Eventually the private grids (Firestone, ELWA, among others) will have to convert to 50Hz in order to connect to the main grid -- when it arrives. The private grids are operating with generators installed either before the war (Firestone's hydro plant dates to the mid 1960s(?) and also supplies power to the nearby Roberts International Airport), or in the early 1990s, before the change was official.

Alan 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Alan. It's pretty interesting, and yeah, I agree it doesn't make sense to remain a 60 hertz country surrounded by 50 hertz. It seems to be the same way with South Korea (220 volts at 60 hertz). I wonder if after reunification, will the entire country adopt 50 hertz at 220 volts, or will the northern part of the country remain 50 and the south 60, just like Japan. Part of methinks that North Korea would eventually adapt to the standards of its significantly wealthier southern neighbor. Stephanie Weil 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would a Japanese appliance run on American 120v 60hz?".

A friend of mine is interested in importing a Japanese 360 and is curious if any adapters or special precautions are necessary to prevent damage to the house or the console itself. Any help would be appreciated. 208.104.87.97 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be any problem at all. Japan uses 100v/60Hz, and that's close enough for many things. A 360 (as most computers) uses a switch-mode power supply, which can handle large variations in input voltage without any problem. Alan 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Mains electricity

There was a small amount of content here that overlapped with Mains electricity - I've put it there and left the main list here. --Wtshymanski 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The voltage in Hong Kong

The voltage used in Hong Kong was 200V [6] before 1990s. It is not before 1997 where all power substations in Hong Kong were converted to 220V. --✉ Hello World! 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Japan

In Japan,200V supplies for personal with 100V. I use induction cooker that works by 200V. In Japan home appliances whose 200V uses is spreading.

200V used by high-powered air conditioner ,induction cooker ,Electlic water heater,and more for Personal. So ordinary appliances uses 100V. PCs aren't exception,it uses 100V.

Please excuse me for my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.214.182.30 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are essentially adopting the US system of using split phase in homes with the higher power appliances placed accross both lives? Do you use the same connectors as the americans for the higher voltage appliances as well? Plugwash 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[7](Japanese wikipedia 単相3線式) This article describe how to taking out 200V. Maybe,electric whose supplies my home is 100V, and convert to 200V at home.

Just for reference [8](Japanese wikipedia plugs and sockets) 220.214.183.189 09:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) =220.214.182.30

While I can't read the text the diagram in your first link looks identical to the american system (apart from the slightly lower voltage). the "エアコン設置箇所等に用いられる大容量コンセント(JIS C 8303 2極接地極付コンセント 20A125V)" socket in the second article you link also looks very similar to the nema 6-20T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Type E

These French connectors looks bisexual to me. =s

88.105.93.41 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Type A image missing?!

please add - get it from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:A_plug.jpg Regards Bumbulski 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The entries for Australia and the United Kingdom are a bit Gobbledygook

The entries for Australia and the United Kingdom are a bit Gobbledygook and miss-leading. See: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/index.htm

The supply voltage in Australia and UK was -- is -- & will be -- still the same old 240 volts. Put you Fluke, AVO, or two-wet-fingers across the terminals and you will see nothing has changed! The spec. has however, been re-defined. Ie., for Australia it is 240 ± 6% (supply =240 volts) and for the UK it is 230 + 10% -6% [ or +4% above the nominal Datum ] ergo (supply = 240 volts). Ref: http://www.lif.co.uk/dbimages/doc/techstatements/15TECH.doc

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file11548.pdf

And, as always, for the doubting Thomas'es, I recommend the two wet finger test. After all: When the world changed from Liverpool to Falmouth datum for mean sea level, no one said “Ah the diameter of World has just expanded four foot !!!”. Therefore these entries needs re-phrasing so they make logical sense to the lay reader.Aspro (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I recall, the UK (240V, 50Hz) supply is still defined by an act of parliament passed pre EU. As such it still has to stay that way, and the table should be updated to say 240. The 230V +- % was just the usual EU fudge/compromise in order to define a standard'.

Diasan (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as we go here in Australia I suggest you read the relevant Australian Standard... 230V +10/-6% is the current figure with 240V +/-6% being superseded long ago... In Australia, all tables regarding maximum line lengths, fault loop impedences and the like assume 230V as the mains voltage, not 240V... If the mains voltage is not 230V (and it very often isn't), then conversion factors must be used. Anthrass (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are so many getting hung up on the nominal rated voltage used as a datum for specifying equipment and cables _ The table in the article list 'nominal system' voltages in rms.

Quote:

Voltages in this article are the nominal supply voltages and equipment used on these systems will carry slightly lower nameplate voltages.

This is not so much a technical issue as one of English comprehension.--Aspro (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"A" plug image?

There used to be an image for the "A" plug referenced in the article. It was right above the "B" plug on the right-hand side. Can that be put back in? I don't know how! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.144.154 (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has a list of "regions", not "countries", which side-steps the issue; for the purposes of this articlea "region" could probably be defined as the geographically contiguous largest political unit with a uniform system of electrical plugs and power. Over-refining this definition, for this article anyway, doesn't seem to me to be a good use of human effort. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not trying to force anything on any article where it is more appropriate to use something else. Pfainuk talk 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it's often very useful to think about what a definition will be used for, before getting too worked up about definitions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tahiti

All the tourist Web sites and "Electricity Abroad" says Tahiti is 60 Hz - you'd expect a French colony to be 50 Hz, but seems to be not the case. Anyone changing this, should have a good reference handy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the old 220v 50Hz French system is probable the official voltage system. This however may have been a local service around the main French administration town only . The GDP and annul earnings per capita and very small population -would I think- have made the building of a 'grid' as such, totally uneconomic (see the population growth figures for Tahiti#Historical_population). So what I think may have happened, is that as tourism took off, the major hotels chains found themselves free to create their own private (and more dependable) power systems, using what ever standard, their target clientèle would find the most familiar. The thought came to me that people who make money from selling adaptor might be the best informed. So, I found this adaptor supplierhttp://www.international-electrical-supplies.com/tahiti-plug-adapters.html According to them, some plug types are missing from the WP Tahiti entry.

For the above reasons I don't think a WP suitable reference(s) will ever be forth coming. Maybe we should just say that the 220 50Hz is the standard supply -with tourist resorts having their own private systems of 110 or 120 @ 60hz or 240v @ 50Hz.--Aspro (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense...there's got to be a tourist guide or something printed. I wonder if the Tahiti electrical supply company has a Web site. My high-school French might be just enough to puzzle it out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has zoned Haiti as 110v @ 60Hz plug type A & 1..http://www.iec.ch/zone/plugsocket/ps_america.htmSo that looks like the official voltage class now.--Aspro (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But Tahiti is on the other side of the earth - there's no listing on that page for Tahiti. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Now [9] says 220 volts and 60 (sixty!) Hz, as does the Google Books snapshot at [10]

And [11] says 220 Volts but doesn't give frequency. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the [Electrictie de Tahiti Web site] says 60 Hz. My rudimentary French lets me think their history of 60 Hz generation goes back to WWII, when they imported a lot of US-spec equipment, even though they had a hydro plant in 1911. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Saudia Arabia

I got few devices from saudia arabia configured on 110V (i burnt them using 220)

(they had only 2 options 110V or 220V) that is why i think they use 110V there

الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

possiblly i think in a lot of places it depends on who built/owns the place you are living in. BTW 220 and 240 are close enough that it is almost never a problem to use a 220V device on a 240V system or a 240V device on a 220V system.

When I was in Saudi recently I saw 110V and 230V and measured both 50Hz and 60Hz on 230V lines. Not surprisingly one piece of 110V equipment had been blown by a customer plugging it in to 230V. The electrics were pretty frightening in the hotels too! 83.231.208.161 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this article be moved to mains electricity systems ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.188.21 (talk)

Doesn't need to be, since it's mostly an international table of standards that can stand on it's own rather than make the other article look more larger (it's already wikilinked to it anyways). Also the other article is name Mains electricity... minus the systems (unless you meant the sub-topic there). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Title/Links Limitations

Being from Canada, where the word 'mains' is not in general usage, I had a lot of trouble finding this article which includes the list I was looking for. My first search was 'electrical systems' which gave me nothing (though I have since noted that 'electrical system' (sans 's') redirects to 'electricity' - an article that I don't believe has a link to this one. I noticed that the first External Link listed here includes the phrase 'electrical systems'. I will be bold and try to set up a redirect for 'electrical systems' to this page and maybe add a link in the electricity page if it's not there. I notice that in the 'Lists of Countries' entry that redirects here also includes 'mains'. I am not suggesting that the word should be changed but wonder if anyone has suggestions on making the titles more globally accessible. I like the phrase used in the first line of this article - 'list of countries and territories, with the plugs, voltages and frequencies' --Yickbob (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes but now wonder if the redirect of 'electrical systems' to this page, while great for non-experts like me, would be deemed scientifically incorrect. I know there is an area of study called 'electrical systems' as well. Any feedback? --Yickbob (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's better?

What's better? 50 Hertz or 60 Hertz, 110 Volts or 220 Volts? --Abdull 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

60Hz makes better use of the core material of transformers and motors compared to 50Hz so theorectically can be made smaller for the same kVA or kW rating - AC on aircraft (where weight is a priority) is 400Hz for this reason... On the other hand the higher 60Hz frequency will lead to slightly higher reactive loss on long cable runs compared to 50Hz... Much of a muchness really... With transformers being in the high 90's percentage efficiency-wise voltage isn't really the issue but more likely the current in household or industrial wiring... For a given power rating, lower voltage goes with higher current and so wiring has to be a thicker gauge = more copper = more cost... The difference isn't a lot though in a typical situation.. Anthrass 11:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the US had better silicon steel for transformers, that worked well up to 60Hz, when Europe (at the time) had transformer steel that worked better at 50Hz. Otherwise, it requires less core material for a given transformer rating at higher frequency. Gah4 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

230 Volts is overall better than 110 Volts because when using an apliance with a certain power consumption (say 100 Watts), the Amperage on a 230 Volts line wil be lower than on a 110 Volts line (as P(Watt) = U(Volts) * I(Ampère)). And Amps are lost over longer cable lengths, that's the reason why backbone power lines use 400.000 Volts with a relatively low Amperage. Also, the lower the Voltage, the thicker the cable needs to be (with the same power consumtion (Watt)). That's why modern cars run on 12V (old cars ran at 6V) and trucks on 24V (cables are longer there and Amps get lost over cable length). Rick2910 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, amperes are conserved in a wire; voltage drops.

In places with 220 V mains, the electrical supply is much more likely to burn or electrocute you if you get across it, so they tend to have more elaborate safety measures on their plugs. The higher voltage uses wiring more efficiently, but makes it harder to make a good low-wattage incandescent bulb. Neither is better, the just have different properties. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Any voltage above 42V is potentially deadly. Rick2910 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually 24 volts AC - not 42!

Higher voltage is more efficient for transformers. As an example computer power supplies tend to be around 2% more efficient at 230V than 110V. 83.231.208.161 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The usual computer power supply converts either 120VAC or 240VAC to 300VDC, then through a switch transistor at about 20kHz and into a ferrite core transformer. The higher voltage is probably a little more efficient due to not needing the voltage doubler, but it isn't because of the transformer. In many cases 220VAC does allow for more efficient systems, especially for fluorescent lamps. For industrial use, 277VAC is common for lamps, phase to ground off a 480VAC three phase system. Lower voltages often work better for incandescent lamps, though. Gah4 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The 120 volt system is more inefficient than 240 in transmission, due to greater voltage drop with distance. America actually adopted a 240-volt distribution system in the 1960s, having eventually faced-up to the fact that they'ed got it wrong with 120-volts, but couldn't afford the cost of correcting the issue fully. 120-volts also are more dangerous to use, because for a given load the current is greater, and in these ranges higher current is more dangerous that higher voltage. 120 volts as a standard was inflicted by the thief and fraudster Edison, that wanted to sell his inferior grade of incandescent lighting; he did his utmost to discredit the work of Tesla, many of whose ideas he stole - plus those of other scientists as well; he patented their ideas, then marketed them! Later, a spin-off of Edison - AEG in Deutschland - naively inflicted 220 volts and 50 hertz on Continental Europe, as these were alleged to be 'nicer metric numbers'. Note also that EEC publications that claim that the voltage standard for all Europe is 230 volts, are complete and utter tripe, since Britain is committed by law to supply 240-volts +/- 10% and is legally liable for damage caused by supplies falling outside of those limits; supplies falling below 210 volts could burn-out motors in certain refrigerator and freezer plant; there are similar issues regarding the 220 standard in Continental Europe. Regarding frequency, 50 hertz was an inappropriate value to use, since 50-hertz transformers have to be constructed to a higher specification than those that run at 60 hertz, so are considerably more expensive to make; also, if a 60-hertz transformer is connected at 50 hertz (when travelling in certain countries where the 'non-standard' voltage and frequency combination allow such to occur) it is likely to emit an audible buzzing sound and RF emissions that would upset audio equipment, and may even induce headaches and nausea in (at least) humans if inflicted for long periods.

Type I socket (Australia/New Zealand)

The illustration of a type I socket has a very unusual indentation around the pin apertures... that socket doesn't comply with the current standards. New photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.186.239 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The indentation you see around the earth pin is just a cosmetic design. Some manufacturers make receptacles with flat faces. Others add slight indentations around the pin holes in order to help locate them when fumbling around in the dark. The same issue applies to USA type (A & B) receptacles. Stephanie Weil (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

United States

The current US standard is 120v but older books often quote 117, 115 or even 110v) when/why did the US standardise on 120 volts. What was the situation prior to this (various standards in different states ???) and dd the change to 120v cause difficulties for those using older equipment ? 86.112.87.162 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Corfu (Kerkyra) is not a country - remove from table

I cannot edit the page directly because it is protected. Somebody please remove Corfu (Kerkyra) from the Table of mains voltages and frequencies. This island is just a part of Greece and the table entry for Greece applies to it as well. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.60.48 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done. See "new discussion" above. The list is of countries and "territories" precisely so we can preempt the endless wikiwrangling about who is legally allowed to collect taxes on which plot of dirt. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Y Valid point above, thus removed from own list & noted within Greece section. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads up on discussions at AC power plugs and sockets

Anyone interested in the future of this article should probablly read the discussion at Talk:AC_power_plugs_and_sockets which discusses the very shaky foundation that our articles on this subject have been based on (which affects this article FAR worse than it affects that article). Plugwash (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Type G

Guys, where is type G? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ver (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

All over the place. Listed in a dozen different countries and regions in addition to the UK. (Really should be called BS 1363 but we have AC power plugs and sockets that explains the national standard names for plugs and sockets.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vector maps

Since the switch to the vector maps was recently undone by an anonymous user without comments I want to give reasons for their use here.

Both, the map showing the plug types in use and the map showing the mains frequencies and voltages have been created to exceed not only the visual quality of the old raster maps, but also to better do their actual job, i.e. presenting the respective pieces of information in a sensible way. This includes the following:

• Recreation using information from the most recent tables from the German and the English Wikipedia articles
• Disambiguation concerning incompatible plug/socket standards the old map used a single color for, so e.g.
  • French and German plugs/sockets (mechanically incompatible)
  • French and Russian plugs/sockets (see above)
  • German and Russian plugs/sockets (partially incompatible due to different pin width)
  • Marking C-only-countries (missing grounding → electrically incompatible)
  • Correctly naming the Russian standard (GOST 7396)
  • Distinguish between type A and type B sockets (B plugs won't fit into an A socket)
  • including the IEC 60906 plugs/sockets being introduced in Brazil

Voltage/Frequency map:

• Different shades of the colors for slightly differing voltages (approx. 220, 230, 240 volts or 110, 120 or 127 volts)

I hope any further removal of these maps in favor of the old ones includes equally good reasons. (By the way, in case you find mistakes in one of the maps you can always use my discussion page.) SomnusDe (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the standard (at least in practice) in Russia and its post-Soviet neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine is the same. Essentially it is type C so no need for special color for Soviet GOST.--MathFacts (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Important question: What is the pin-diameter? 4,8mm or 4,0mm? If it is 4,8mm most European plugs will fit, if not, possibly only the flat europlug will fit. And is there any grounding? PS: If you (or anyone else) come(s) from one of the mentioned countries, please let us all know. Statements from inhabitants always have some special weight. --SomnusDe (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally (since Soviet times) 4 mm without grounding (i.e. type C with socket essentially the same as Europlug). Now there can occur different variants to accommodate Schuko-style European plugs.--MathFacts (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ГОСТ 7396.1-89Tucvbif (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The vector map is wrong in that it treats Japan as a single region while it is two (50 vs 60 Hz.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.173.237 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it? Do you have a cite for that, otherwise it isn't going to change. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary type

Would it be better to put in another column to have primary and then rename the other one as other in use to simplify it as for example Malaysia's primary type is G but as also a small amount of appliances use C sorting the table will give C first even though nearly all things use G.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Poland

Frequency in Poland is 50 Hz , not 60 Hz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cafeattica (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Using absolute rather than relative dates

When adding new data it would be great if absolute dates were used. Most of the rows in the table list absolute dates such as "As of 2000, the mains supply voltage..." That's helpful as it means the wording will still be valid in the year 2020 and beyond.

The notes for a few countries use relative dates such as:

• France - Type C wall sockets have been prohibited in new installations for more than 10 years. (when was the switch made or is someone editing this article once a year to change the "9" into a "10" and a year later into an "11?")
• Liberia - "Previously 60 Hz, now officially 50 Hz." When was the switch made?
• Luxembourg - "Formerly 220 V." when was the switch made?
• Madeira - "Although its 'Officially' 230v now." When was the switch made from 240v?
• Morocco - "Conversion to 220 V only underway." When did this start? This wording has been used since the 28 July 2004‎ version of this article. The edit comment says "Transferring content from over-long article" but did not say what article it came meaning this conversion may well have started decades ago. I did a check on Google news archives but found nothing about this. Some travel info pages for Morocco only report "220v" implying the conversion has been completed and others report 127/220 with no mention of a conversion.

As much of the data on the Internet is copy/paste without verification I know this one will not be easy to clean up. Thus my comment is more about new information being added to the article. I suspect an insistence on reliable sources for any changes would cut down on some of the problems. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I e-mailed someone who grew up in Morocco. He replied "In the 80's it was common where a house or building that's been renovated, you'd find some outlets running the old 110-130V, and 220 where there is new installation. Not so much these days. Caution, a surge protector is a must have in Morocco if you want to protect your expensive electronics - I think it spikes to 280 and higher." Obviously not a WP:RS. I've updated the article to say that Morocco was initially built for 127v and converted to 220v in the 1980s. That's somewhat of a guess until someone can find decent source for the history of electricity in Morocco. The sources will likely be in Berber or Arabic. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Uzbeksitan

The type I plugs are only used in old Soviet air conditioners thus the information is obsolete. The vast majority of appliances have the type C plug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.126.86 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Standardization

I think it's notable that I can draw a 3000 km radius around my home city and be highly confident that for any hotel I stay at within that radius, my appliances will fit the wall plug - and it's been that way for my lifetime. Is there any other (populated) region on Earth that can make that claim? If you draw a 3000 km radius around, oh, say, Amsterdam, how many different sockets will you encounter in that radius? (Shucks, even a 3000 km radius around the South Pole will give you different plugs at the American base, the Norwegian base, the Russian base, the Australian base, the New Zealand base...etc.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's so much of a problem to carry a $5, 2-ounce multi-adaptor with you? IE what Brits like myself have to any time they go abroad?

Actually, generally taking both a rattly old multi-adaptor, and an even simpler fixed-pin Shucko-to-UK adaptor ($2, 1 ounce) away with me... I've only ever used the Shucko pins on the multi adaptor (except the one time its edison screw-to-slot-pin light fitting sub-adaptor was needed!), and haven't been anywhere the fixed-pin won't fit... through France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Greece and Turkey, staying in hotels, hostels, rented private homes, campsites with semi permanently erected tents that had extension sockets running to them... So there is actually a pretty good level of standardisation. Even in my Turkish hotel room, there was one strange-looking local socket, and one standard Shucko "Europlug" next to it. It doesn't cost a great deal to buy, build and wire in a continent-wide-compatibility socket, either. Wouldn't be too surprised to see a hotel in a cosmopolitan area of the UK with one on the wall in fact. The voltage and frequency is almost totally guaranteed to be well within tolerance from Dingle to Vladivostok. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Same plugs and sockets, same Holiday Inns, same TV repeats, same McDonald's, same hire cars, etc., etc., etc. Kind of takes all the fun out of going somewhere different. Both notable and boring. Might as well stayed at home and painted the fence.--Aspro (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the "while standardized in North America" remark. There are other areas that are standardized as well, like most of mainland Europe. There is nothing special about the situation in North America, it's only two countries that happen to use the same wall plug. Yes, geographically it's a large area, but it's quite sparsely populated compared to e.g. Europe.

About this: "300,000,000 consumers don't have to pack adapters when they travel, unlike most parts of the world...sure it counts". That depends of course where you travel to! I don't have to pack adapters most of the time, unless for a few specific countries like the UK (or the US). You have to pack an adapter for any country you travel to except for Canada or the United States. --FrederikVds (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's sweet that the Europeans can all agree on using the same currency and *still* can't agree on a wall plug. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing wall plugs is harder than changing currency. Currency isn't fixed to the walls of your house. Anyway, most of the European Union (and a lot of other European and Asian countries as well) has standardized on the C/E/F type. The only difference among those is the presence and location of the grounding connection, but they are compatible. So only two kinds of plugs, the C type for appliances that don't need a ground, and the E+F type for all others, are sold in Europe. No travel connector required.

Please, before reverting my edit again, provide evidence for your claim that the North American situation is exceptional or noteworthy. Maybe you could move it to a different section with all standardisation efforts around the world mentioned. But the current claim, that "voltage, frequency, and wall socket type, while standardized in North America, vary widely in the rest of the world", focuses on one example of standardisation, while there are many.--FrederikVds (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See above. Draw a 3000 km radius circle centered on any city and count the number of different receptacles used within that radius. North America is unique in the world. We're talking about wall plugs, voltage and frequency here. European seem to somewhat agree on frequency, have varying opinions on voltage, and can't travel 1000 km without changing plugs. It's different. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

All of Europe uses the same frequency (exactly the same, of course, or we wouldn't be able to transfer power between countries). All of the European Union uses the same nominal voltage. And I just checked, and all electrical equipment I can find in my house uses either C or E+F plugs, so I can take it to eastern Russia, a few hundred kilometres from western Canada, or to Iceland, almost the other side of the Northern hemisphere, and almost all places in between. So your claim that I can't travel 1000 km without changing plugs is just incorrect.

As to your thought exercise, let's take Canberra. In a 3000 km radius, only one kind of wall plug. But even if North America was unique in that regard, every country is unique under some arbitrary criterion. Find a standard agreed to by more than 20 countries. Find a geographically contiguous region where more than 500 million people use compatible equipment.

Canada is just a smaller country (in terms of population) that uses the same standard as the neighbouring larger country. You can see the same thing happening all over the world. I don't think it's noteworthy just because of an arbitrary criterion of size.--FrederikVds (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being so insistent about this, by the way. It's just that I read that sentence and expected that maybe North America followed some international standard that others ignored. But, as far as I know, that's not the case. It really confused me, and will probably confuse others as well.--FrederikVds (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, this is how the encyclopedia grows. According to our table, Australia (and NZ and PNG) uses type I. Indonesia uses C,F, G. (Not much of Indonesia within the 3000 km radius, but Merauke probably has some outlets). New Calendonia uses type E (and a New Zealand travel Web site [12] warns Kiwis to pack an adapter). Not as much a problem for someone who's already facing a long flight, but in North America we can can be more carefree in our cross-border jaunts.) And all three countries within the 3000 km radius of my home are members of IEC and other international standards organizations. Bully for European colonialism. Your serve. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I forgot about some islands that are just inside the 3000 km radius. And I don't know where you live, so I can't check, but Saint Pierre and Miquelon must at least be very close to 3000 km away. And about Australia being "uninhabited": of all other continents, only Antarctica is less populous than North America. (Depending on your definition of a continent, North America may include Mexico and Central America. Then South America has a smaller population, but of course North America isn't standardised any more.)

That's not the point, though. The 3000 km radius thing is still completely arbitrary. You would have to prove that a radius of 3000 km is more noteworthy than other criteria (like a large population using the same standard). Saying "standardized in North America" implies that there is much more to it than just two or three countries that use the same standard. Even if those countries are quite big.--FrederikVds (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please stop reverting the article before responding here, like you just did again.--FrederikVds (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you respond? You have reverted my change to the main article since my last comment here. If you don't respond within a few hours, I'm reverting it to my version again. I don't want this to become an edit war, but it seems like you only ever respond after a change to the main article.--FrederikVds (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to my version, as there still is no explanation for your last revert...--FrederikVds (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My response was in the edit comment - not having anything new to say, I referred to the discussion above. 3000 km radius is in not in the article and so doesn't need a citation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Even I have things to do other than edit Wikipedia. Ultimatums are un-necessary. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I refuted your points. If you think I didn't, you should specify why. If you have "nothing new to say", that means there is no reason for the article to stay as you want it to be.

I'm not asking for a citation, but the whole reason why you want this to be in the article is because you "think it's notable that I can draw a 3000 km radius around my home city and be highly confident that for any hotel I stay at within that radius, my appliances will fit the wall plug". Why is that notable? It's not directly applicable here, but just because something is true, doesn't mean it's notable. I can travel to dozens of countries and my plugs will fit. You can't just say that is less notable because they don't completely fill a circle with 3000 km radius. There just isn't any reason to say that the US or Canada is any less or more standardised than any other country.

I'm going to make the (hopefully final) change to the article. Please don't just revert it again without an actual argumentation. Wikipedia is built on civil discussion and consensus, not edit warring.--FrederikVds (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And ultimatums are sometimes necessary. You reverted my edit without giving any reason on the talk page or the edit summary. I'm not going to wait indefinitely until you have time to respond. If you don't have time to respond immediately, just leave the article as it is until you do!--FrederikVds (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see the discussion above? Excuse me for having something more important in my life than editing Wikipedia. "Final" change to the article only applies to articles that you own. I think it's interesting and notable that no-where else on Earth could I cover so much contiguous space and not ahve to pack plug adapters. This evidently makes some Europeans anxious and they try to suppress this harmless observation. While it makes me sad to see such insecurity affecting the encyclopedia, it's not really my problem. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I did see the discussion above. I don't agree with your points, I refuted them. You think it's notable, I told you why it's not. You can't just say "I think A, and A implies B, therefore B must be included in the encyclopaedia".--FrederikVds (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

""Final" change to the article only applies to articles that you own". You can't own an article. While I respect the work you put into this article, there is no such thing as ownership of an article, and nobody has the final word over what happens to it. If you're not willing to defend your changes to the article, you should not use "ownership" as a means of settling the discussion in your favour.--FrederikVds (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

200 Volts?

This is listed on the voltage / frequency map and gets its own particular colour of dark blue (which looks remarkably like that used for the apparently-220v Russian federation), but it doesn't appear anywhere on the text table.

Does anywhere use it, and if so, where?

If not, can it be removed from the map? (I haven't got an SVG editor): 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

References

It would be a lot easier to protect this article from vandalism if people would provide references. Granted, English-language references for historical Greek wall plugs (for example) are going to be *rare* but nobody ever cites a reference for anything in this article! --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Rough Guide" series looks promising. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The first reference it gives is no more. The correct link is http://trade.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf instead of http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf , can somebody fix that -- Shirishag75 (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom

@ Mautby. What do you want to discuss?--Aspro (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edit to reinsert an obsolete reference which has been withdrawn by the publisher! See comment in "Misinterpretation of Europe wide 230 volt systems." section above. Mautby (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I'm still confused about Saudi Arabia. I've never been there, so I don't have any first-hand experience, but all the websites I've found about Saudi Arabia say that both 127 and 220 volts are used. But they don't say why both voltages are used. I mean, is it like half of the country uses 127 volts and the other half of the country uses 220 volts, or is the whole country in a transition period from 127 to 220 volts? Also, about the plugs and outlets there, for 127 volts, everything I've read so far say that it's usually A but sometimes B. But for 220 volts, some websites say it's F but other websites say that it's G, and some websites say that it's both F and G. Which is correct?

Marknagel 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The split voltages are partly so that they can run both US and European appliances. The plugs vary from building to building. I saw pretty much everything there and in some public buildings the sockets are all labelled so you've got some idea what might come out of them. Interestingly there were quite a lot of UK plugs used for important appliances so that weaker circuits couldn't be overloaded. 83.231.208.161 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They might use three-phase electric power. Phase to phase is 220 volts and phase to earth 127 volts.--Scribist (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

North Korea

It is said that it is unclear wether they have 50 or 60 Hz. In this film they talk about electrical systems, frequenzies and so on, unfortunately I'm not able to understand Korean. --Scribist (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Europe wide 230 volt systems.

The table gives us many mainland European countries as being 230 volts (formerly 220 volts). The table also gives the United Kingdom as 230 volt (formerly 240 volts). Actually neither is correct. Indeed the notes column does point out that the UK remains centered on 240 volts (though fails to mention similar for other European countries). The reality is that mainland Europe always has been, still is and is intended to be for the forseeable future, 220 volts. Similarly, the UK is 240 volts and there is no intention of changing this. What has changed, is that all of Europe is now nominally 230 volts with the tolerances widened to encompass the individual countries' voltages. The nominal voltage is (since 2008) 230 volts ±10% (i.e. more or less 207 volts to 253 volts). Both mainland 220 volts and UK 240 volts fall within this tolerance.

The actual voltage and tolerance sepecified for the individual countries reflects this. For example the standard UK voltage is specified as 240 volts -14% +6% and mainland Europe is specified as 220 volts -6% +15%. The actual voltage is further betrayed by the fact that filament lamps (the few that are left!) sold in the UK are rated at 240 volts, and those sold in mainland Europe are 220 volt. The intended effect of the change is that nearly all appliances (except voltage sensitive items such as filament lamps) shall be capable of operating over the full 207 to 253 volt range. There are a few areas of the UK that are actually 250 volts (mainly some suburbs of some principal cities) but fortunately these fall within the tolerance band even though the upper tolerance is quite tight at just 1%. There are also still a few genuine 230 volt areas that have hung around since AC systems were first installed (including some that are a 115-0-115 volt split systems) but they couldn't possibly have known about the EU harmonisation when they were installed. 86.182.103.115 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The confusion appears to come about from confusing the electrical standards with the voltage supplied in different countries. Having the same standard across Europe obviously has the advantage in that equipment data sheets can be standardised. Also, equipment manufactured to this new standard can be more easily traded across boarders. What might help is to add a new column that states the name of the voltage standard for supply and 'declared nominal' and the existing column for the real centre or average rms voltage . Even 110 systems comply to different standards in different countries – although they are quickly coming into line with each other. Comment: A 250 v readings will usually only mean that one is very close to the substation. I've only ever seen split voltage systems (UK) in places such as milking parlours and abattoirs, were one wants to reduce the chance of lethal electric shock on wet floors. --Aspro (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that clears up my concern that the 245-250v I was measuring from my own sockets was indicative of some kind of wiring fault at least! (I drive past the local substation almost immediately after turning out from the driveway of my little low-rise estate...) ... too bad that means there's nothing that can be done about having it brought down to 230v and reaping some small benefit on the monthly bill from reduced overall power consumption and wastage... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I measure, I get voltages between 227 and 234 Volts (North Rhine-Westphalia/Germany). According to your argumentation it should still be around 220V. So what?--SomnusDe (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes get around 230 volts on the end of my wires (UK). But then another day, I may get 245 volts. But then measuring one's own is original research. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

From official UK Government website: "At present in the UK, domestic supply must be within the voltage range of 216-253 volts, which is +10/-6% of 230 volts. This is set to change, once agreement between all stakeholders is agreed, to 230 Volts +/- 10%, as this will further support voltage standardisation across the rest of Europe."Mautby (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the position for the UK, the best source is the Government website referenced above. The reference that I removed from the article was to a very outdated publication from a trade association which has been withdrawn. The actual voltage available at a socket will vary across the country and with time, but must be within the standard as quoted. Mautby (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Split voltage systems in the UK, though rare, do exist. I am aware of a couple in the Feltham and Hayes districts of West London - it would seem that these areas were developed for housing around the same time and electricity was installed as part of the housing build. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That guy sure hasn't seen much of Europe. News for you: yes, much of Europe is 230 V, not just nominally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.173.237 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This guy has seen much of Europe. And most of Europe is still 220 volt. Do you seriously believe that the whole of Europe replaced or adjusted all their distribution transformers as soon as the nominally 230 volt harmonisation was announced? The real give away is that those mains voltage filament bulbs that are still available in Europe are rated at 220 volts. I have never seen a 230 volt filament bulb anywhere, and purchasers of 220 volt bulbs would be complaining about the short life if the supply really was 230 volt. Most of Europe's supply is specified as 220 volts -6% +15% just as most of the UK's is specified as 240 volts -14% +6%. I dare say that there are probably areas of Europe where historically different systems exist just like there are in the UK. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I work in the electrical distribution industry here in Australia and can conform that we are in the process of dropping the voltage from 240V to 230V.. Yes, the change from 240 +/- 6% to 230 +10/-6% was only a paper change but we are in the process of physically changing transformer tap settings to alter the voltage... The driver of this is that with the current 240V nominal system there are issues with voltages rising to problem levels as more and more solar cell installations are installed... While I cannot speak for Europe they seem to be having the same issues as well (do a search for 'voltage rise with PV' to see what I mean)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthrass (talk • contribs) 10:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Map colors

The shades of color on the maps are too subtle; I just misread both the voltage and plug type for the UK and Ireland. -- Beland (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of Type A and or B in 220 - 250V territories

I am concerned that claims are made for Type A and Type B plugs being used in territories which have only 220 - 250 V supplies. Today India was added to that list which already included Antigua, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Guyana, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Maldives, Montserrat, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, St Vincent & Grenadines.

Am I right in believing that Type A and B plugs are never rated above 125V? If I am wrong, what standard specifies type A/B for 250V?

Are the entries which claim that Type A and B plugs are used in territories which have only 220 - 250 V supplies true?

I know that China manufacturers some very nasty multi-standard sockets which are sometimes used in hotels etc in that country, but having a socket supplying 220v and inserting into it a plug and cable rated at only 125 volts is not a safe option, is it supported by any Chinese regulation?

Should claims here that Type A and Type B plugs being used in territories which have only 220 - 250 V supplies require always to be supported by reference to official sources? Deucharman (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This does seem very odd, I think all claims that Type A/B plugs are in use where all voltages are > 200V should be deleted. SSHamilton (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen a US type A or B power cord which is rated above 125V, you can be sure that if they are being used in 220V systems they are outside their rating and therefore it is dangerous. I think that WP articles should not promote dangerous activity, although if it were officially sanctioned, and that could be proved, than it should be mentioned, otherwise not. Mautby (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to SSHamilton for doing the clean-up. Deucharman (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should a Type A plug not to be used for more than 125 volts? Technically there is no problem. They are probably only rated 125 Volts in the US, because there are used different types for higher voltages to avoid mix-ups and damages. In China for example Type A was the old plug type and was used with 110 and 220 Volts as well. Here in Germany old Type C was used in the past with 110, 127, 150, 220 and 220 Volts until about 1960s. DC and AC as well and you couldn't see what was provided. --Scribist (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

By definition, the rating of a plug and socket is the maximum at which it may be used, using it at higher voltages constitutes misuse which is dangerous. Both the American NEMA and the international IEC 60906-2 standard for type B specify it as 125 V. The American NEMA standard for type A is also rated at 125 V. If anyone knows of an alternative standard which allows a higher rating, please share! Deucharman (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Type A and B plugs are used in territories at higher voltages (200-240 volts). The sockets and plugs though obviously to type A and B design are not usually made to conform to the US NEMA specifications. For example, in Thailand, type A and B sockets are used on a 240 volt supply. They are required to conform to TIS166-2549 which, although I have not checked, very probably specifies operation at 240+ volts. The point about US travellers using 125 volt appliance plugs and cords is very relevant though. Consumer law is much laxer in Thailand than elsewhere and although it is quite possible to buy appliances with type A plugs marked '125 volts', (particularly 'grey' imports) most are marked with the Thai conformance symbol and marked '250 volts'. It perhaps should also be noted that appliance cords to US standards are vastly under-rated for their capabilities and the same may well be true of their plugs and sockets. I have never encountered problems using a 125 volt rated plug and cord in Thailand, though the cord is more than twice as thick as its 250 volt counterpart rated to European standards. Not all of this is down to the increased current capability. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First, let's be clear, personal experience with using a plug and/or cable at higher than its rated voltage is completely irrelevant to a WP article. Secondly, whilst it is true that there are two versions of the TIS 166-2549 socket (rated at 250 V, 16 A), one of which also accepts type A or B plugs, that does not make it safe to use standard 125V rated type A or B plugs in the socket. Thirdly, according to the Thai submission to IEC 60083, the only plugs specified in TIS 166-2549 are the Thai round pin earthed plug, and a 16 A type C plug, no mention of a 250 V type A or B. Finally, it is worth asking - What is the point of this article? I would suggest that it is not for the purposes of informing the inhabitants of a territory what type of plugs they use, but rather to inform travelers what they might expect. To wish to encourage people to believe that it would be safe to use their North American plugs and power cords in 230 V territories would be to provide a reckless disservice. Other websites may do this, but WP editors should strive to do better. Deucharman (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said Deucharman, please let us have no more of this dangerous nonsense! SSHamilton (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

True - technically, one should not encourage anyone to use any electrical plug, socket or cable above it rated voltage. However, the rated voltage is more often derived from the voltage of the system the connector is used with rather than from any feature of its construction. Years ago, I had a piece of equipment that used connectors rated at just 30 volts as 240 volt mains connectors - without any problem. I would almost guarantee that if you used a US specified (125 volt) type B plug and socket with a 1000 volt supply, it would operate without any breakdown whatsoever.

The whole point here is that nobody is encouraging the use of 125 volt rated type A and B plugs or sockets at above their rated voltage. The problem is that it seems to be that there are those that are refusing to admit that Type A and B plugs and sockets exist that are specified to operate at higher voltages. The fact remains that the type A and type B plugs and sockets used in Thailand are manufactured to a Thai specification that requires them to be rated at 250 volts. Although I have not taken one off the wall, I would be willing to wager, that most of the older ones are of US manufacture and are identical to US (NEMA specified) parts, except the moulding has been altered to show a rating of 250 volts instead of 125 volts. They certainly look fairly similar to US installed sockets. Perhaps I might have a look next time I am in Bangkok. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ERRATUM: The Thai specification that covers the round pin plugs that also accepts the Thai variant of the type A and B plug is TIS 166-2547. Apologies. It is rated at 250 volts. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So, the anonymous editor now appears to accept that he was basing his claims on a short-lived and obsolete version of the Thai standard. However, more to the point, there is no reasonable justification for the continued edit warring the anonymous editor is undertaking. I note that no one has actually deleted the information for Thailand, but the anonymous editor seems fixated on deleting the sound and common sense advice that editors should not add further claims for Type A and Type B being used at greater than 125 V. SSHamilton has correctly pointed out that WP editors should not promote dangerous practice, and I note that no valid standard has been cited for claims of Type A and Type B plugs (PLUGS - not sockets) operating at greater than 125 V. Clearly WP editors can do nothing about the peculiar state of affairs in Thailand, which is not even supported by Thai standards, but they can stop attempting to undermine good practice by removing such warnings as the one in contention. We should also acknowledge the point made by Deucharman that personal experience with using a plug and/or cable at higher than its rated voltage is completely irrelevant to a WP article. Such claims constitute OR and/or PoV. Mautby (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that warn travellers that their cord sets will burst into flames if they plug a "125" volt cord set into a "240" volt outlet with some travel adapter? If not, then WP should shut up about this and stop making up stuff. Looking at the fine print on my laptop cord, (which spent 2 months plugged into a 220 volt system in Ghana), I see UL rates the cable for 300 volts. True, the plug says 125 V, but I bet the dielectric test for UL or CSA certification goes a long way past 125, 220,or even 240 volts.

Do you know how plugs are approved? Do you know what dielectric test voltage levels are used? Are you qualified to interpret the different levels as representing a consumer safety concern? Then I wold like to shake your hand and I wonder why you're wasting your time on Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet more ignorant comments! If a device is rated at 125 V then it should not be used above that voltage. This is not debatable and editors should stop trying to claim that they have a better understanding of the subject than the authorities responsible for assigning maximum ratings. Let us please hear no more of this nonsense. Deucharman (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not abuse other editors (WP:CIVILITY). That is edit block territory. From what I have observed of many of his edits, I would say he is more qualified than you. Even a quick search of his apparently odd user name reveals that he is a professional electrical engineer with good credentials.

However: to the point. Type A and B style plugs and sockets are very common throughout the middle east, as is 220 volt and (I believe) 240 volt mains supplies. If the editors who keep reinserting the claims that type A and B type plugs and sockets only exist in ratings of 125 volts, then that claim requires to be backed by a reliable source supporting that claim (see WP:RS). Otherwise it is an uncited claim and can be freely reverted as such. It is for the claimants to prove the claim not the disputants (see WP:BURDEN). The widespread use on (nominally) 230 volt mains supplies in the middle east strongly suggests the existence of standards that rate these plugs and sockets at (presumably) 250 volts.

Although I grant that the type A and type B plugs encountered in America manufactured to the NEMA standards which specify a rating of 125 volts, there is no legal or physical law that requires all plugs and sockets that are of the type A and B design to be made to the NEMA standards or be rated at 125 volts. Indeed there is no feature of the flat bladed type A or B plug or socket that I can see that would necessitate that the overall design has to be limited to 125 volts. For those plugs and sockets that are manufactured to standards that specify a rating of 125 volts, then good electrical engineering practice (not to mention common sense) dictates that they should not be used at voltages greater than this. But if plugs and sockets of similar design are manufactured to a standard that specifies a higher rated voltage, then those same criteria dictate that it should be perfectly safe and proper to use them at that higher voltage.

However, Wtshymanski (I do apologise for spelling your name wrong the last time I referred to you) is thinking along the right lines with his comment above. Although my area of expertise does not lay with domestic plugs and sockets, the given rating for any specified electrical part is esentially a function of the testing that is required to be carried out to ensure conformance to the standard rather than the actual design. That level of testing in turn is usually a function of the stresses to which the part will be subject. In the case of a NEMA specified plug, as used (in America) at 120 volts. The testing is thus framed around a higher voltage (in this case 125 volts) and written accordingly. The result is that the plug is rated at 125 volts, even if the physical design suggests that it would be quite capable of operating at much higher voltages. For the 240 volt case, the higher voltage of 250 volts is usually the starting point and a more stringent test results with a final 250 volt rating. The big point is that either the original connector will be redesigned for the higher stress (usually only if required), or the same plug design will be subject to the greater stress and if they pass the testing, they gain the higher rating (usually the case). That a plug can gain a higher rating when subject to the more stringent testing, does not mean that all plugs of the same design can be considered to have the higher rating. For items produced in the quantity normal for domestic plugs and sockets, testing is usually conducted on a sample of each production batch. Test results from one batch do not apply to any other batch. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The first question is: What are Type A and Type B? They are actually informal shorthand descriptions which are not defined in any precise way, but are used by the IEC to provide a simple way of distinguishing between the many plugs in use around the world, and note, that is PLUGS, not sockets! The IEC web page referenced in the article provides a description of the various types.

Type A is illustrated by a picture of a NEMA 1-15P non polarized plug which NEMA defines as a 125 Volt, 15 Amp 2 pole, 2 wire plug (There is also a polarized version of this plug which has a wider neutral blade). The Japanese standard JIS C 8303 includes a similar plug with the same rating.

Type B is illustrated by a picture of a NEMA 5-15P plug which NEMA defines as a 125 Volt, 15 Amp 2 pole, 3 wire grounding plug. Again, the Japanese standard JIS C 8303 includes a similar plug with the same rating. This plug is also defined in IEC standard 60906-2 Plugs and socket-outlets 15 A 125 V a.c. and 20 A 125 V a.c. (the 20 A plug in that standard is the equivalent of the NEMA 5-20P 125 Volt, 15 Amp 2 pole, 3 wire grounding plug).

It should be noted that both the NEMA and Japanese standards includes a variety of plugs which are rated at 250 Volt, but the 250 V versions are deliberately made to be physically incompatible with the 125 V versions, and cannot be described as Type A or Type B.

It is quite clear that to refer to a Type A or a Type B plug is a reference to one of these 125 volt rated plugs, and as others have said, a plug (or a cord set fitted with such a plug) should not be used at higher voltages than the rating. The supporting reference for such claims is clearly one of the standards mentioned, to suggest that the claims are not referenced is, indeed, utter nonsense.

LiveRail's assertion that a reference is needed to prove the negative (that there is no standard which defines a 250 V Type A/B) is a logical impossibility, I could publish my own standard which would apply only within my own back yard, no one else would know about it! Clearly, therefore, it is impossible for there to be any definitive reference to show that no such standard exists. Those who point out that Type A/B plugs are rated at 125 V only have to refer to the applicable standards which define them, it would be for those who disagree with this premise to prove otherwise by citing a standard which references the same physical configuration with a 250 V rating. So far we have had one attempt to do that, subsequently withdrawn when it turned out to be invalid. If such a standard were found to exist, then it would still not be possible to simply refer to plugs conforming with it as Type A or type B, it would be necessary to define the particular standard at every reference to avoid confusion with the real Type A/B plugs.

Claims that individuals have personal experience with using plugs beyond their rating have no place in Wikipedia, they should not be made. Similarly, inferences drawn from the possibility that plugs will work satisfactorily at higher voltages have no significance, the possibility cannot prove anything beyond the established rating.

Finally, LiveRail is throwing stones from within a glasshouse when he warns others about infringing WP rules, and immediately goes on to attempt to identify a real person from a user name! That is a very serious infringement. FF-UK (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You might care to acquaint yourself with the relevant policy at WP:OUTING before hurling unwarranted accusations at other editors. The policy states quite clearly that 'revealing' the identity of an editor from his user name is not an infringement of that policy where the editor in question has already openly revealed himself. In addition Wtshymanski has confirmed in numerous talk page discussions that he uses his own name when contributing to Wikipedia and has also stated that he disapproves of editors hiding behind a made up name (especially IP Addresses). Further: Wtshymanski has also uploaded several illustrations where the exif metadata attached to the photograph identifies the photographer as one W.T.Shymanski. Even if LiveRail was unaware of that, a quick check of what he actually said shows that he did not identify anyone, but merely did what anybody else could just as easily have done. Wtshymanski has made no attempt to hide his true identity. Just googling 'Wtshymanski' turns up almost his entire C.V. I B Wright (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(Arbitrary edit point)

Wtshymanski has again taken it upon himself to ignore the views of others and attempt to take control of an article with claims that are unsupported by any references. It is quite unacceptable to edit out the statement that plugs and power cords which are rated at 125 V should not be used at higher voltages and if he believes that there are Type A and Type B plugs rated at 250 V then he should provide a reference for the relevant standard. If he can do that then it would justify adding some further text to indicate that such devices exist and may be safely used, but it will still be necessary to make it clear that NEMA Type A and Type B plugs, which are definitely NOT rated at 250 V, must not be used at voltages higher than 125 V. It is maybe necessary to point out in the article that NEMA have ensured that Type A and Type B plugs are NOT compatible with 250 V socket standards. SSHamilton (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The deleted text is not valid. Wikipedia does not (or should not) give editorial directions in-line with text. Fibbing in an edit comment is poor form. The badly-capitalized subsection asserts a peril to travels based on no citations at all. The UL standard tests line cords to 1000 volts, UL and CSA approved line cords are rated 300 volts, and the difference between 120 V and 240 v is trivial when line cords have to pass dielectric tests at 1000+ volts., as seen even in the digest for UL 817. ( It's like those UL and CSA guys *knew* that people would travel with their appliances! Uncanny!) The IEC Web site, which is a lot more authoritative than this collection of factoids and rumors, lists several countries using A shaped and B shaped pulgs with only 230ish volt power supplies shown. Note that A and B are arbitrary convenient designations for a shape of a plug and not a reference to any technical standard, therefore there's no voltage rating for a "Type A" because there's no technical standard that calls a plug with parallel flat blades "Type A", as described above. But go ahead. Maybe we should mention that travellers to the Phillipines should get their yellow fever immunization certficates; it's about as relevant as all the other traveller's advices, myths, and legends, being appended to the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that the plugs in question are rated at 125 Volt maximum and must not be used at higher voltages. Do not confuse test voltage with rated voltage. SSHamilton (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reinforce SSHamilton's point, the tests which Wtshymanski mentions do NOT determine the rating of a plug. Taking a comparable UK example, BS 1363 plugs are rated for voltages not to exceed 250 V AC, but they are required to be tested at 2,000 V AC to ensure that no breakdown between terminals occurs . For moulded plugs a further test is required to ensure that they can withstand 6,000 V AC between all conductors and the outer surface of the plug. Of course plugs and power cords are tested to much higher voltages than their rating, but for Wtshymanski to imply that NEMA 1-15P and NEMA 5-15P plugs are safe at greater than 125 V is baseless (and reckless) speculation which has no place in WP. Deucharman (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Both editorial viewpoints are correct to some degree. SSHamilton is quite correct that plugs (or indeed any electrical device) rated at 125 volts should not be used at voltages that exceed this value. However, that is not the real issue here. Although Deucharman and others refer to the voltage ratings for the NEMA specified plugs that match the IEC type A nad B plugs, that is a commplete side issue. The article refers only to the plugs by their IEC type designation which addresses only the pin size, shape and layout. The NEMA standards will rarely apply, if at all, in counties other than the US. The IEC document in question does not mention any voltage at which the particular shaped plug has to be rated. Type A and B plugs are produced to specifications other than the NEMA specifications particularly in the Middle East where these plugs are still used with 220 to 240 volt mains supplies. I have no doubt that the spec to which they are made is based on those higher voltage requirements.

But on one point, though it pains me to say it, I have to agree with Wtshymanski. The article should not contain an 'instruction to editors' at the top of the article - such material belongs on this discussion page. Also, I believe, that the material on the misuse of 125 volt rated plugs on 250 volt systems as written falls into the category of 'how-to' advice rather than encyclopeadic content. Although it should be common sense that 125 volt rated plugs should not be used on 250 volt systems from a safety point of view, the material has been included without any citation to support it. Even if reworded to make it encyclopeadic rather than a 'how-to', it still requires a suitable citation to support it, because encyclopeadias are not based on common sense. It is for those that keep reverting the material into the article to provide the citation supporting it (see WP:BURDEN), not for the editors removing it to prove anything. Any editor (including Wtshymanski) who removes the material because it is uncited is entirely within their rights to do so. Editors reverting it back are in the wrong because they have failed to provide that all important citation. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt makes some good points, but in doing so draws attention to the fact that very little in this article is actually supported by proper references. It is actually very difficult to make a case for the existence of the article at all in its present state! The Wall sockets section acknowledges the point by its references to the very ambiguous nature of the IEC article, it is not itself an authoritative source. There are no genuine references for most of the territories listed, so to demand a reference for the warning about using plugs at the wrong voltage, while technically correct, is not really relevant in this situation. As long as this article exists with so little to support its claims, then the warning should remain. If other editors wish to exercise their rights to remove uncited material, then I shall follow that logic and remove all entries for territories which are not supported by citations from official sources, copying data from the very dubious IEC page does not count, the article could simply refer to that page and no more if that were the case, it does not need to repeat the information. At present, the article is no better than the many other self published, and usually inaccurate, lists of voltages and plugs based on travellers' anecdotes. FF-UK (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wtshymanski states above that "A and B are arbitrary convenient designations for a shape of a plug and not a reference to any technical standard" and DieSwartzPunkt says that "the article refers only to the plugs by their IEC type designation which addresses only the pin size, shape and layout", but both of these claims ignore the fact that the WP article does indeed define the letter codes in terms of actual standards! It illustrates each type with a picture and states what the standard is. Mautby (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

With regard to DieSwartzPunkt's speculation that 'the spec to which they are made is based on those higher voltage requirements', I believe no one has yet identified such a spec, is there really one? I suspect, but do not know, that the usage of Type A and B only occurs in situations of electrical anarchy, after all, as devices intended to work at 230V do not primarily originate from countries that are standardized on 120V, what would lead a higher voltage country to adopt a plug and socket system intended for lower voltages? One of the few advantages of the type A and B plugs, compared to any of the plugs designed for 230V systems, is that they do NOT fit into the sockets which would normally provide the higher voltage, thus offering some degree of protection. (And let us remember, American 230V sockets - of which there are a number - are deliberately designed to not accept Type A and B plugs). Why would anyone define a 250 V standard for Type A and Type B? Just wondering. Deucharman (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your logic here is incorrect. That a plug of type A and B is defined in a national standard is not evidence that that standard is the sole place where a plug of that design is specified. The illustrations refered to are just examples of plugs of that design and no more. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that completely misses the point that no one has been able to provide a reference to a standard which specifies a type A or B rated at 230V, so the idea that such a standard exists is purely speculative. If the illustrations in the article are, as DieSwartzPunkt claims, just examples, then that needs to be made clear, at present they appear to be definitions of the terms. Deucharman (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"...that such a standard exist is purely speculative." Looking down the table of countries, would stongly suggest that it is more than mere speculation. There seems to be no shortage of territories that are using type A and type B style plugs on 200-240 volt electrical systems. Are you suggesting than none of these countries have produced standards specifying their electrical fitments? I would regard a statement that there are no such standards as far more speculative than a claim than none of these countries have published any electrical standard of their own (which is effectively what you are claiming). I grant that few of the table entries are referenced, but that type A and type B connectors are used in such circumstances would not seem to be in doubt. I have not travelled widely in the Middle East, but I have encountered US style flat bladded plugs on 220 and 240 volt electrical systems (Philipines and Thailand respectively). Unfortunately, not forseeing this discussion, I did not have the presence of mind to check the plugs in the various hotels for voltage rating or standards markings. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, if you check above you will find there has already been mention of the Thai standard, which is TIS 166-2549. This standard defines the Thai plug, which is described in AC power plugs and sockets and also the Thai socket which also accepts Type A and B plugs. TIS 166-2549 does NOT define 250V versions of Type A and B plugs. (Although that was done in the short-lived, standard TIS 166-2547 which it replaced, presumably because the Thai authorities realized that they could not sensibly specify such a thing in contravention of the IEC standard which defines the 125V plug and socket, IEC standard 60906-2 Plugs and socket-outlets 15 A 125 V a.c. and 20 A 125 V a.c..) It turns out that there is a Philippine National Standard, PNS 1572-1997 which refers to an old version of IEC 60083, IEC 83:1975. The Philippine standard amounts to quoting the NEMA pages of the IEC Standard, with a variation of the diagram in that standard which depicts the various NEMA types, this shows the NEMA 1-15P and NEMA 5-15P plugs in a row labeled "250V". However, bear in mind that IEC 83:1975 was a catalogue of national standards, not a specification (although it includes the salient points of the national standard specifications) so PNS 1572-1997 really amounts to nothing at all, it is not a specification, more a statement that they regard NEMA 1-15P and NEMA 5-15P as being rated at 250V, but that is clearly not the case. Deucharman (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A parallel blade non-polarized non-grounding (non-earthing) plug, IEC Type A, similar in shape and dimensions to the NEMA 1-15 plug but bearing a 10 Amp 250 volt rating and a CCC safety mark.

Wtshymanski has chosen to publish (without comment) a photograph here of a type A plug claiming to be rated at 250 V, but as he well knows this proves absolutely nothing and cannot be used to support his argument that there is a genuine specification for type A plugs rated at 250 V. Here is a link to an article published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology which shows a number of counterfeit Chinese made plugs etc which do not meet any standard, and yet claim otherwise by the marks which they display, the article references a previous article describing the scale of Chinese electrical counterfeiting. In any case, the wording in the article which Wtshymanski objects to is: Plugs and power cords intended to operate at voltages up to 250 V may be safely used at lower voltages, however plugs and power cords which are rated at 125 V should not be used at higher voltages. This includes the 125 V rated Type A (NEMA 1–15 U.S. 2 pin) and Type B (NEMA 5–15 U.S. 3 pin) plugs, and power cords which include those plugs. This is indisputably true and it is very difficult to understand why Wtshymanski claims otherwise, but it does conform to his reputation. Deucharman (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

GB standard 2099.1 Plugs and socket-outlets for household and similar purposes, Part 1: General requirements (2008) is available on archive.org. (It's got a nice cover page - the Chinese government releases their standards for noncommercial redistribution.) I can't read Chinese. But 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. These guys [13] offer a number of different GB 2099.1 cord sets.

Althogh I checked out the hongyan.com.cn Web site listed on the sticker on the plug in the photo, and although they have an English-language version of their site, I was unable to retrieve a listing of this particular model of plug from their site.

One doesn't make counterfeits of $23 bills; why would someone counterfeit a non-existant plug?

It appears certain, to me at least, that parallel-blade plugs dimensionally interchangeable with a NEMA 1-15 exist and are used with 240 V systems. On my next trip to China I shall have to stop at a hardware store and pick up some souvenir plugs and sockets.

Is there even one reference documenting a problem with using a 125 V cord set on a 250 volt travel adapter? Seems unlikely, since as I mentioned before UL and CSA standards require the plug to withstand 1250 volts during high-pot testing, and SPT-2 cords are rated 300 V anyway. Spooky...it's like the people who write electical standards actually *thought* about this issue! Weird, eh?

Surely Hewlett-Packard would have warned me not to use this cord set with a 250 volt travel adapter, lest my estate sue them for my perishing in a firey ball of exploding cord set fragments? Many international airports and luggage stores sell travel adapters that allow one to use a parallel blade plug with any number of foreign sockets - I've never seena warning that the *cord set* would fail. Surely if this were a problem existing outside this article we'd have read some incidents on this? We shouldn't be giving travel advice on Wikipedia, especially if its wrong.

The putative reference WD-6 doesn't actually say what happens if a NEMA 1-15 or 2-15 is used on a 250 volt adapter and cannot be used to support the alarming Wikilegend we're trying to start here. The dimensional standard is just that, and doesn't give the insulation test requirements that must be passed to make a CSA or UL approved product. --Wtshymanski (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese standard has no relevance whatsoever as it is not the standard to which NEMA 1–15 and 5–15 plugs supplied in North America or Japan are made. The NEMA standard clearly states that 1–15 and 5–15 plugs are rated at 125 Volts. If you look carefully at the safety information provided with your HP laptop (most people discard it with the packaging) you will see that it tells you that when using it in another country, you should use a power cord approved for that country. The existence of 250 volt rated plugs similar to the 1–15 and 5–15 plugs, if they exist, is also not relevant as they are not the plugs supplied with equipment sold in north America. Deucharman (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to that believed by most Americans, there are other countries in the world. Plugs produced to NEMA standards are but one source of plugs that broadly conform to the IEC type A design. They are made to other standards which would seem to include the Chinese standard refered to above. Since the segment of the article under discussion is totally unsourced and (from the above discussion) there seems to be little concensus on its content, it might be better deleted completely. 86.171.44.21 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Travelers from North America and Japan etc. should note that they will need power cords rated at 250 V when using their appliances in countries where the mains voltage is higher than 125 V." Lets start with that statement, it is pretty self explanatory and I cannot see how anyone could challenge its validity. If you are going to connect something to a voltage higher than 125 volts then that something, including the plug, had better be rated at 125 volts. "Travelers from North America and Japan etc." will find that their standard power cords, fitted to equipment purchased in their home countries, have plugs which conform to the standards of their home countries (that is the way standards work), that means that they will be rated above 125 volts. Is that controversial? There has been no evidence provided to verify that the Chinese standard quoted has a type A and/or type B plug rated at 250 volts, only that it refers to some 250 volt rated two pole plugs which could, on the face of it, just as easily be the Chinese form of 2 pin plug, or a European Type C. In any case, as Deucharman has pointed out, the existence of a differently rated version is irrelevant if that is not the version the traveler is using. As FF-UK has pointed out above, there are zero references provided for most of the countries listed, so this article does not meet the the normal standards of WP and it would be a reasonable proposal to call for its deletion, but if we are going to keep it on the basis that it is assembled primarily by inputs from local editors who tell things as they see them, with no references, then we should certainly not be quibbling about a lack of a reference for something as obvious as the idea that devices should not be used at voltages higher than those for which they are rated! Are we in WPland or, as some editors seem to think, with Alice in Wonderland? SSHamilton (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Travelers from North America and Japan etc. should note that they will need power cords rated at 250 V when using their appliances in countries where the mains voltage is higher than 125 V.". Wikipedia does not work on what is self explanatory or obvious. If this claim is to remain in the article then it must be backed by a reliable and verifiable reference that specifically states point claimed. Deucharman was the last person to restore this paragraph to the article and thus the burden of providing the reference to support it lies with him. If such a reference is not provided then the claim can be legitimately be deleted by anyone in accordance with Wikipedia policy towards unreferenced claims. There is enough of a discussion above to make the claim contentious regardless of how correct you, I or anyone else believes it to be. Restoration of uncited and contentious material without providing the required reference is edit warring, pure and simple.

Similarly, the part of the article, "Plugs and power cords intended to operate at voltages up to 250 V may be safely used at lower voltages, however plugs and power cords which are rated at 125 V should not be used at higher voltages. This includes the 125 V rated Type A (NEMA 1–15 U.S. 2 pin) and Type B (NEMA 5–15 U.S. 3 pin) plugs, and power cords which include those plugs." also requires a valid refence that specifically makes the point regardless of how obvious it appears to be. The provided reference does not specifically claim the point and has therefore failed verification. Incidentally, the provided reference is also a non permitted reference as registration is required to access it (see WP:ELNO). 86.171.44.21 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The anonymous IP takes us further into the realms of Wonderland with his/her insistence on abiding strictly to policy in contravention of common sense. I note that their reference to WP:ELNO conveniently ignores the note there that states This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles. (Unlike many standards, NEMA WD6 is available for free online viewing, providing you register with them.) What really amuses me is the hypocrisy demonstrated in an edit on a different topic which they made a few minutes after the above contribution, in which a completely unsourced claim is made regarding the use of a clock connector. They obviously hold others to different standards of editing than they impose on themselves. SSHamilton (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The IEC Type A is not a NEMA WD=6 1-15 nor is it a GB2099.1 parallel blade plug either. It's a general shape and size equivalence for reference by travellers. Page 94 of the GB2099.1 standard I found above shows a parallel blade plug similar to the one I photographed, which goes to the claim that there is no standard for a parallel-blade plug rated 250 volts. Maybe NEMA rated UL or CSA approved wiring devices aren't meant to be used on 240 volt systems, but China seems to have lots of parallel-blade sockets that take a IEC World Plugs "Type A" shaped plug. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's unpick Wtshymanski's latest contribution.

"The IEC Type A is not a NEMA WD=6 1-15 nor is it a GB2099.1 parallel blade plug either." Agreed, but no one as far as I can tell has disputed this, so why bother to point it out?

"Page 94 of the GB2099.1 standard I found above shows a parallel blade plug similar to the one I photographed, which goes to the claim that there is no standard for a parallel-blade plug rated 250 volts." I think that we must accept this, but I am not sure that there has been any categorical denial of that, just a big question-mark which Wtshymanski has removed for the type A, but is still in place for the Type B.

"China seems to have lots of parallel-blade sockets that take a IEC World Plugs "Type A" shaped plug." I do not believe that anyone has questioned that, but it does not address the disputed statement in the article that "Plugs and power cords intended to operate at voltages up to 250 V may be safely used at lower voltages, however plugs and power cords which are rated at 125 V should not be used at higher voltages. This includes the 125 V rated Type A (NEMA 1–15 U.S. 2 pin) and Type B (NEMA 5–15 U.S. 3 pin) plugs, and power cords which include those plugs. Travelers from North America and Japan etc. should note that they will need power cords rated at 250 V when using their appliances in countries where the mains voltage is higher than 125" I have reordered the words in the middle sentence to read "This includes the 125 V rated NEMA 1–15 U.S. 2 pin (Type A) and NEMA 5–15 U.S. 3 pin (Type B) plugs, and power cords which include those plugs." which I believe makes the message clearer. SSHamilton (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of material edited into it without references. Much of it goes unchallenged and remains in articles (effectively accepted by concensus). 86.171.44.21 has challenged the statements that he tagged as requiring references, as he is perfectly entitled to do. Though reading the above, it would seem that he is not the first to do so, and it is quie possible that the tags were triggered by the discussion. 86.171.44.21 is perfectly entitled to edit in unreferenced material which may pass unchallenged. In the case of the subject edit, another editor did challenge it, as they are perfectly entitled to do. However, I may have a possible supporting reference. I B Wright (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete, inaccurate and obsolete reference

If the reference at the foot of the table, is incomplete and inaccurate and inadequate to support all those 'citation needed' tags, why bother to retain it in the article at all? I have attempted to delete it, but my attempts fail as attempting to save the resultant edit is causing the Wikipedia server to crash. All I can recover is either the unedited edit page or an unaltered article. Can someone else oblige? 109.152.145.19 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Shortcomings of existing letter designations

It is quite clear that some editors are determined to synthesize meanings to the established plug letter designations that cannot be supported by references (eg, the ongoing claims of one editor that there is a socket designated Type C). As we have been discussing for sometime, there appears to be no definitive standard for the letter codes, the one used by the US Government appears to be a subset of the one used by the IEC, but neither is complete. There seems to be little dispute over the voltage and frequency information, so with regard to connectors a question worth asking is: should this article be about plugs (the traveler probably wants to know what plugs they can use rather than what socket they will go into) or plugs and sockets?

There are many lists of plugs and voltages available to travelers, The IEC World Plugs pages are probably as close to official as they get, but do not have the status of a standard. Many suppliers of power cords and adaptors provide their own lists, some may be original, others copies. There are many blog pages providing the same sort of information, probably as a means of generating advertising revenue. An example of the latter would be this site which has even designated an additional letter type ('O').

One possibility for WP would be to eliminate the letter codes from the article (a less dramatic option than eliminating the article), however that might be seen as unhelpful. Another possibility could be that, where letter codes have not been allocated by the IEC, WP could use its own table of additional abbreviated codes, possible W1, W2 etc so that the plug types currently not covered could be accommodated? SSHamilton (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching the developments on this article and talk page for a couple of weeks. Although I am an electrical engineer, my field is railway traction and not domestic installations. Permit me, therefore, to (attemp to) provide a neutral, and I hope balanced view and a suggestion for a way forward. As I understand it, the sole source of material for most of the article comes from single IEC guide, "World Plugs", though some of the individual country entries are supported by national standards. If I have this right: it is the material derived from "World Plugs" that is the main source of controversy. I would not regard a guide of this type as a reliable source, but this has been acknowledged in the article, and AIUI, there is nothing better, so I guess we have to stick with it and that being so, we have to go by what it says. Blog pages can never acceptable as references.

First, it is fair to say that all the contributors to both the article and this talk page are not completely correct. It is also fair to say that they are not completely wrong either. Reality lies somewhere in between the various interpretations of the IEC guide (don't ask me where).

• (In no particular order of importance), there is SSHamilton who reverts back into the article a claim that the Europlug is a plug without a dedicated socket. AFAICT, the IEC guide does not state that there is no corresponding or dedicated socket. Indeed, an illustration was added as a reference by I B Wright which from its very design accepts a Europlug and nothing else, so that sells the dedicated socket idea to me.

• I B Wright has continued to insist that the Europlug is a subset of a wider type C design covering (AIUI) ungrounded two pin plugs in general. The IEC guide does not say so, but what it does say is quite specific that the type only covers the Europlug. Without any other evidence, that has to be the accepted position.

• Mautby has continued to insist that because the IEC guide does not mention type C sockets, that there are no type C sockets. I have no idea whether there are or are not (but as already said, the photo of the Euro socket mentioned above is a powerful persuader). Whether there are or are not is beside the point, the IEC guide does not say that there are no such sockets (it just doesn't mention them). We cannot even speculate as to why they are not mentioned, so we cannot make the assertion as to why in the article.

Each editor has clearly applied their own interpretation to what the IEC guide says (and does not say) and is doggedly going to stick to it. On past performance, this will continue to go nowhere.

I had typed this off-line before logging in to add it. I had written a paragraph that stated that the best way of resolving this was to remove any and all contentious material from the article and confine it to what the IEC guide really covers - PLUGS. However, SSHamilton beat me to the punch. He has suggested above (among other approaches) that the article does just that and confine itself to plugs. This is an excellent idea for no better reason than I thought of it as well! And after all, it is probably what someone visiting the page is actually interested in and at the same time removing the area that seems to be contentious - SOCKETS. As for letter codes: the shortcomings only appear to be in the socket department. Apart from a few omissions, the plug types are fairly extensively covered. I suggest that we stick with the IEC guide codes for no better reason than they seem to be well established (the last thing that we need is another plug identification code). Plug types not allocated a letter code can be addressed in the way that has already been demonstrated at the entry for Thailand, the column is amply wide enough. That's my analysis for what it is worth. -–LiveRail < Talk > 18:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The IEC World Plugs guide does state at the top that it describes 'plugs and sockets'. However, its coverage of actual sockets is fairly minimal and there is as much omission as actual material (and most mentions are largely in passing). I agree, that as the socket side of the business has minimal coverage, that the article be confined to voltage, frequency and plugs, for which the IEC coverage is reasonably comprehensive. I B Wright (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst it is clearly not practical or desirable to eliminate all mention of sockets in this article, I have reworded several passages and changed some headings to concentrate on plugs and avoid specific socket references. SSHamilton (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Status of references

This article uses as the main reference source the IEC World Plugs web microsite, as clearly stated in the text. Where specific official references to national voltage or plug usage have been identified then it is reasonable to assume that these should take precedence over the information provided by the IEC, and such sources are indicated in the normal manner.

There is a continuing tendency for editors to change information without providing any source, and often with no explanation. This is clearly unacceptable and changes which are not in accordance with the main reference should always have properly cited sources. I would suggest that travel guidebooks do not constitute a source which should take precedence over the IEC reference!

It must be remembered that there is a process of voltage harmonization in Europe, so that the nominal voltage in most European countries is 230 V. There is a tendency for many other countries to adopt the same 230 V nominal voltage. The actual measured voltage in a particular location at a particular time may be higher or lower than the nominal voltage, and this may be consistently the case over a prolonged period, but it is usual that such voltages comply with the tolerance on the nominal voltage as indicated in the relevant national standard, it is that nominal voltage which should always be stated in this article. SSHamilton (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this (possibly slightly modified) should be put in a box at the top of the talk page. Jeh (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeh, I would be grateful if you would do that in the form that you think best. Thank you, Sarah. SSHamilton (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)