Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC power plugs and sockets

AC power plugs and sockets

 * (Note: This article was named Mains power plug at the time.) Steel1943  (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I think this is a good example of an international article. I've put a lot of research into it, obtained permission for images and text from various websites, taken photos myself, and crafted the prose. You can't get all this info together anywhere else. &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Try Peer review first. TOC is overwhelming and there is no lead section . Basic requirements for FA. --mav 17:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Click on "hide"! I thought the lead section was best kept short.  &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've always been a little concerned about "TOC is overwhelming" objections; the TOC is generated automatically from the article structure, and can be hidden if overwhelming (the "hide" link) or turned off entirely depending on user preference. If the structure of the article is poor, then that's fair enough, but if it's a good structure, we shouldn't have to refactor articles just to optimise the TOC feature. &mdash; Matt 04:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO WIKI DEVELOPERS. Can TOC depth be made a user preference?  It seems objections are always generated whenever the number of levels is 3 or greater. A. Shetsen 20:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of extra lines and to the lead section, moved one of the photos up into it, and shortened some section headings in order to make the ToC box narrower. I can't do more than that without ruining the article.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've fixed this problem. While it makes sense having a heading for each plug type category (A-M), the subheadings for each individual plug type were unnecessary subdivision. I've left the titles as bolded oneliners (linebreak before relevant following paras). TOC is necessary - but there is now a reduced usable one, at, I hope, no cost to the article's cohesiveness or wiki-technical correctness. IANAA, so I hope there's no policy problem with creating "un-headinged" titles. Zoney 00:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT. Neutral/weak objection . How about the plugs used for bigger appliances, such as electric stoves, washing machines, etc., that take up to 30 A current (I think...)?   Not sure if they should be given a separate article or included in this one.  I note your title is Mains power plug.  Is that term specific to "ordinary" plugs, or does it also encompass the bigger ones? Article should give an answer one way or the other. Excellent content in other respects. A. Shetsen 03:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Mains refers to domestic power, and the first numbered section of my article has a short note saying the article will concentrate on normal domestic use. In most countries, even large domestic appliances use the plugs described.  The article is already huge as it is; there's imply no space for industrial connectors, and I think people would be less interested in them anyway.  I created the article in response to people on the Reference Desk who were asking about the British mains plug.  I may write an article about industrial connectors one day, and link to it from this article, but it would take a lot of research.  I think people mainly want to know how to deal with plugs and sockets they might encounter whilst travelling.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Will support fully if (a) you make that distinction clear in the header, and (b) When referring to the post-Soviet territory, don't use the word Soviet.  That's all dead history now. A. Shetsen 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) NOTE: I've taken the liberty of replacing "mains electricity" with "mains (domestic) electricity" for the Americans, and "Soviet Republics" to "countries of the CIS" in the first reference under the appropriate plug type.  "Soviet plug", etc., remains.  With that, full support if partial self-nom. A. Shetsen 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT. Slight objection (I did enjoy skimming through the article). It's a LOT of information. Overload really. I'd like to see the maps near top of page, and perhaps each type of plug having a shorter description (more of a summary), linking to the article on that plug type for more info. Should the less used types like Italian, Israeli really have an image on the page detailing all plug types? Anyways. It is far too much to be hit with when you go onto the page, IMO. Zoney 11:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The sections seem clearer or in a better order now, plus removing table/extra content was good. The table of contents, if turned on is VERY nasty. A TOC with just the major headings would be nice! I do say, the article is nice too for its comprehensive nature, and international flavour. Zoney 00:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure I like what you've done to it there, adding fake headings with bold text. I can't link to individual standards now.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 00:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a good way to link - what if someone makes even a minor edit to the standard name (yes, they may all seem correct now, but "what if" there's a change to be made). Zoney 00:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I, too, object, for the same reasons as Zoney. Support. I always wondered why there are so many kinds of plugs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There is only a short paragraph on most of the types. If it were any shorter, it would start to be just a list.  That would be fine for people wanting to find out about a single plug, but I like the way it's possible to browse through all of them and get an overview of what plugs exist.  Someone wanting to identify an unknown plug or socket can also browse through the photos on one page.  If it were broken down into individual articles, a lot of them would be stubby.  I prefer to let the article not be featured rather than dismember it.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree that every plug type needs to be in a separate article. Perhaps you could bring it all out into one sub article that is referenced in the article, but for that part I don't fell its critical. Many large topics in wikipedia are structured like that because there is a lot of information to cover. However, the list of "Plugs, voltages & frequency by location" absolutely needs to come out into a separate article.  A list that long terribly detracts from the flow of the article and having it in a separate list in no means detracts from its usefulness.  By the way, where in the world did you find that much information on power plugs?! - Taxman 19:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now moved that list to a separate article. I have removed spacing between sections to make it all tighter.  I have removed the default boxes around those thumbnails that don't require a caption (to save space).  I have removed one image each from the UK and Italian sections.  I have trimmed unnecessary text.  I've inserted  to turn off the table of contents, so that you won't be overwhelmed (I intend to turn it back on though).  I've moved the maps up to the top.
 * I got the information to write the article from various sources. I started by obtaining permission to use http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm.  I then corrected and expanded it by cross checking with many other sources online.  I used my personal experience as a traveller to add further information.  I took photographs of plugs I own.  I requested photos from a camera-wielding Wikipedian in the UK.  I proofread and wikified it.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I found it quite an interesting read (yep, I'm a geek) but I think the article needs to be expanded before it can be considered feature worthy. There's really only a small amount of information on each plug.  --Zerbey 19:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded? They're saying it's too long.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work. With the current and frequency list moved out and the TOC condensed like it is, the article is much better. Zerbey, just how long do you want the article to be? It's not like we need 2 paragraphs on each plug type. Much more on each would make this article unwieldy. - Taxman 12:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's only so much to say about each plug.
 * So, then. It seems there are no more objections.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. With the list of voltage/AC frequencies moved out and the maps moved to the top, it is starting to look better balanced. Perhaps not the best prose, but great articles shouldn't stand on prose alone. This collection of diagrams and images is more informative and useful than many articles.
 * Still a slight reservation on the TOC, not because of length, but because the list of Type A,B,C isn't very informative. Would it be an idea to modify the headings to give a little more direction, eg. Type A - American, Type B - American grounded, Type C - Europlug etc. Although this still wouldn't help much if you were looking for the Chilean plug. -- Solipsist 14:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's one objection I'd have to the removal of the sub-sections &mdash; they are no longer visible in the ToC, leaving just the uninformative "types".   &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've improved the headings.   &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Is it too late to say I prefer 'pin' to 'prong', or is that as US/UK English language issue. -- Solipsist 19:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * "Pin" sounds great to me, and it's shorter. I'll change it.    &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I still object. The lead section needs to be expanded and the TOC is still a bit too long. I really don't see a reason to have a TOC entry for each type. You could fill the whitespace left of the TOC with a table or an image or two. --mav 06:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. There are headings for each type because that is the logical structure of the page content.  The ToC is generated automatically.  Already, subheadings have been hacked out purely to make the ToC less "overwhelming".  To further butcher the page just the make the table prettier to certain people would be absurd.  The length of it is now totally appropriate for an article of this length.  The lead paragraph is perfectly long enough and says everything that needs to be said.  The main content is where it should be: in the sections.  &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's a version with a table on the side: User:Chameleon/Sandpit2. &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:03, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The table does help. If it is added to the article and the annoying "All images are thumbnails" message is taken out, then I'll withdraw my objection. But for the reasons I already noted, I will still not add my support. FYI use a semi-colon instead;
 * like this
 * --mav 08:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Table added. Semi-colons used for sub-sub-headings.  Lead section modified.  If you feel specific info is missing from the lead section, be bold and add it.  There are no more objections.  &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)