This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles 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.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about
electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the
project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
The OED online (dictionary.oed.com) does not even have a listing for "adaptor". Instead, it has a definition for "adapter, -or". Also, Cambridge Dictionaries Online (dictionary.cambridge.org) has results for adapter: adapter noun DEVICE and adapter noun WRITER, but results for adaptor adaptor noun, at adapter (noun) DEVICE and adaptor noun, at adapter (noun) WRITER. These suggest that "adapter" is prefered in British English and "adaptor" is an acceptable variant.
However,
98.225.60.216 has just added from AskOxford.com "adaptor (also adapter)", and I notice that the url ends with "view=uk". I cannot change it to "view=us" without a subscription. Does anyone know what is going on? Is there a similar uk vs us setting for the OED and Cambridge that I don't know about?
Also, the third definition that OED provides for "adopter" is:
3. Chem. A tube connecting two pieces of apparatus; esp. one which connects the retort and receiver in apparatus for distillation. Also called ADAPTER.
so perhaps this variant should also be mentioned in the lede.
This article seems to deal mostly with adapters in electronics & electrics, so
§ High pressure adapters seems very out of place. @
RexxS: I would have thought high-pressure adapters were very relevant to
Piping and plumbing fittings – plumbing encompasses "any system that conveys fluids", and high pressure adapters for diving and other purposes definitely fit under that category, and they fit better there than in this article. Is there any legitimate reason to keep that section here rather than move it to
Piping and plumbing fitting, which now has an
§ Adapter section?
Andrew Lorimer (
talk)
05:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I completely disagree that adaptors which connect different fittings for scuba equipment have any commonality with either piping or plumbing. In practical terms, nobody who was looking for an A-clamp to DIN adaptor would think of looking at an article entitled
Piping and plumbing fitting. However, they would certainly expect an article titled
Adapter to discuss it, as it is without any doubt a "device that converts attributes of one device or system to those of an otherwise incompatible device or system" as the opening sentence of this article defines it. The reason why this article seems to deal mostly with adaptors in electronics is probably that editors like yourself remove other types of adaptors, so that doesn't hold up well as an argument to remove scuba equipment adaptors. Unless you disagree, I don't see any argument that scuba adaptors are not adaptors, so that appears to me to be a legitimate reason to keep them here; whereas I reject completely your assertions that (1) scuba adaptors definitely fit in
Piping and plumbing fitting – they don't; and (2) they fit better there – they don't. --
RexxS (
talk)
13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay, I understand that scuba fittings are in a different category to most of the things discussed in
Piping and plumbing fittings, although I still think they can be considered plumbing components. However, there is a section devoted to scuba adaptors at
Diving cylinder § Adaptors, which handles the topic much better. The image is already there, and there is a link on the disambiguation page. I entirely agree that scuba adaptors are adaptors, but since there is a more appropriate page for this specific topic (and the section on this page does not add anything new), I suggest we rely on that rather than duplicating information here. How does that sound?
Andrew Lorimer (
talk)
06:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I think that's an eminently sensible view,
Andrew, and I withdraw my objection to removing the content here. My concern is always going to be that our readers can find what they are looking for; however, the hatnote here should allow them to find the relevant section in
Diving cylinder via the disambiguation page. If I search on Wikipedia for "scuba adaptor" or "scuba adapter", this article comes up first at present, with
Diving cylinder second. If we remove the information from here, we should check that searches like that still allow the reader to find the content easily. --
RexxS (
talk)
11:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply