AC power plugs and sockets is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 21, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 8, 2004 Peer review Reviewed October 6, 2004 Featured article review Kept October 23, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

Energy B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

These terms originate from an old US Department of State document (originally intended for diplomatic staff but seemingly slipped into widespread circulation via the interner) and are completly arbitrary with no official or formal basis. Their widespread use in this and other wikipedia articles may give the impression that these designations have some official basis when this is clearly not the case. Wikipedia exists to break down misconceptions not propagate them further. Some may find the terminology convenient but its use should be kept to a minimum. 89.242.207.184 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you if the origin of the Type A, B, C, etc. nomenclature is as you state. Can you point to some support for that assertion? If so, we can and should greatly reduce or perhaps eliminate that nomenclature from this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cite ""Electric Current Abroad" (PDF). US Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. 2002. http://www.ita.doc.gov/media/Publications/pdf/current2002FINAL.pdf." - that's where the magic letters come from. If we get rid of it, someone will have to type in the formal names of al the different types. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to it, then; looks to me as if these letter designators are arbitrary and not the industry standard terminology our article presently suggests they are. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to figure out the national standard names for each type. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just how do you go about alphabetizing a list of different standards using different names originating from different alphabets, using letters or symbols which don't even exist in English? How do you establish word-definition priority?

Englishified names and designations are completely acceptable since this article is written in English, and the A/B/C system while arbitrary is neither better or worse than any other global organization method.

If certain editors feel so strongly about wanting other names used by the country of origin, these editors are more than welcome to do that on the many other language articles that wikimedia provides. Go ahead, do a copy-paste of this into the japanese language wikipedia and change everything to use the Japanese language's methods for naming and ordering things.

(I'm still waiting for en-us.wikipedia and en-uk.wikipedia to be spun off and put an end to Colour / Color...) DMahalko (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, we know you're still waiting for Wikipedia policy to fall in line with your opinions and preferences; you've made that clear and been rebuked for your poor understanding of how things are (and aren't) done on Wikipedia. So far it doesn't look as if your point of view will gain much of any more traction here than it did over at Talk:Right- and left-hand traffic. The crisis of ordering criteria you're alarmed about gives every appearance of being without basis; I'm pretty sure this article will be just fine—better, actually—without inclusion of the unsupportably arbitrary letter designations. Suggest you find something more pressingly and realistically urgent to be alarmed about, please and thank you, such as "What if frogs had claws and teeth and lived in toilets?". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with this as well. I previously found myself questioning the emphasis on "Type X" as the main designation, but wasn't sure how difficult it would be to try to move more towards using the industry standard designations instead. We could also modify the table under #Comparison of sockets to use Socket standard as the first column and still keep Type as the rightmost column. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]