Talk:19-inch rack

message: Do not mix ETSI 500 mm wide rack (515 mm between mounting holes) with 23 inch rack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.21 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixing racks

message: I don't know why the article says
"The next innovation in rack design has been the square-hole rack. Square-hole racks allow boltless mounting, such that the rack-mount equipment only needs to insert through and hook down into the lip of the square hole. Installation and removal of hardware in a square hole rack is very easy and boltless, where the weight of the equipment and small retention clips are all that is necessary to hold the equipment in place."
In my experience captive rack nuts are not the standard and they are a pain in the ass to remove and install. Rack nuts are cheaper for the vendors so they can make more profit, they are not an innovation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.136.184 (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rack Nuts are not standard 

message: The article is too specific because it describes a certain size. Consider renaming it Rack server.Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of things besides servers that are rack mounted, so I'd say that's a bad idea.  (And 19" is the most common form factor after all.)  If there is a need for a more specific article about rack mounted servers then I'm all for creating it, but there should still be an article about the 19 inch standard.  -- magetoo 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would sound like a flat rack 19 inches across for a casual user. And it is TOO SPECIFIC!!! Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The article is only too specific in that it is oriented so much to computers when 19-inch racks were in use long before computer servers were conceived and are still used for many different industries. However, the 23-inch rack article is practically orphaned. Both should be a part of an "Electronic Equipment Rack" article describing the 19-inch and 23-inch rack standards, the history, styles, and (briefly) the various common uses. Interestingly this article was previously redirected from one called "Equipment Rack." -Tim D. (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. May change the template over there. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuation of Talk:23-inch rack. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too specific 

message: It is probably worth mentioning that computers are not the only items of kit that are rack mounted, perhaps one of the photos should be a radio studio or similar?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.43 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What just computers? 

message: The following comment was moved back from the archive page. jhawkinson (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged as dubious the assertion that "In all cases, especially with two-post racks, the rack must be secured to the floor or adjacent building structure so as to not fall over." on 20 May. 78.16.3.124  recently added a comment to say, "Presumably this refers only to the US so it's not "In all cases"", but even that is not true. It's certainlu not true in the US that racks must be secured. Though it's probably a good idea for two-post relay-racks. I'm moving his comment to this talk page (here), and removing it. jhawkinson (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The article says :
each hole is part of a horizontal pair with a center-to-center distance of 18.3 inches (464.82 mm)
This is almost certainly wrong :
according to someone who read EIA-310 (http://search.giraffe.com/ah/search/lookit.cgi?-v0206.44, replace the animal by "retrosynth"), the spec says 465 +/-1.6 mm,
according to http://www.schroff.co.jp/40_03_kikaku/pdf/Standards_Summary_Final_Version_160904.pdf, it's 465.1 mm.
My guess is that the original (pre-metric) spec was 18-5/16" = 18.3125" ≈ 465.1 mm
213.41.173.68 (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 310D says "465" mm and is toleranced at +/- 1.6 mm.  There was a loss of precision in many places in this spec when it was "soft converted" to metric units from 310C. I don't have a copy of 310C to check your 5/16 theory against, but that seems plausible. The current text of the main article is telling us that 18.3inches is 464.82mm, which is not inherently wrong, but makes an error of precision, since 3 significant figures in inches should give us 3 significant figures in metric units. I will change it now. jhawkinson (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal screw holes pitch 

message: Please stop aggressively archiving. We should not be repeating discussions that have taken place already in the archives. I've just moved some pertinent stuff back out. jhawkinson (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archving 

message: Can someone tell me if it is appropriate to place a URL in the article that links to a web page selling equipment?  It doesn't seem to offer any information to the reader.  Should it be removed? See: Overview and History section, URL . http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/racaac.html.  Mateck (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Advertising in Wikipedia is never acceptable. The raw inline link we currently have is terrible.  It should be removed.  —fudoreaper (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising web site in Wiki?

message: Advertising is not acceptable as per Wikipedia policy, yet 3 out of 4 photos illustrating the article show 19 inch systems from the same manufacturer, prominently displaying their logo on every single device (and the racks themselves), and even in the desktop wallpaper of the monitor shown. The author of all three is an employee of that company (which is again mentioned in the image credits). This is blatant advertising and makes it look like that manufacturer had a monopoly in this area. These photos should urgently be replaced with images showing not only the diversity of rack styles, but also the broad spectrum of typical 19-inch system usage (like telecommunications, sound recording studios, radio and television equipment, railway control systems etc. etc.)
82.251.72.57 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising images 

message: I'm usually a big proponent of the convert template but in this case, if EIA-310 gives metric values, I think we should use those exact values rather than a convert template. Otherwise we risk giving a number that is directly contradicted by our sources. Rees11 (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion template 

message: Alright, so someone has cleverly redirected subrack to this article, but the article contains no information how this is defined. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subrack 

message: What about 10 inch rack, or 12 inch rack?. Are any of them standard?. Do they have a technical name?. There's no mention of them anywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.134.175 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 inch rack 

message: All information from 23-inch rack has been merged into this article. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger complete 

message: The article says:
::"Holes so arranged can either be tapped (usually 1⁄4-inch UNC thread, more seldom metric 5 or 6 mm) or square. The square holes are meant for cage nuts. Tapped holes are more common in USA whereas square holes for cage nuts are common in Europe, especially in German cabinetry."
Although I do not qualify as a professional user, I have purchased a wide variety of racks and rack mount equipment, both new and used, over the last forty-five years and I have never seen a tapped hole 19" rack in the USA that did not have 10-32 UNF threads.   I have just put a caliper on ten different pieces of rack computer and audio equipment and the front panel holes in eight of the ten are less than 0.25" high, so could not accommodate a 1/4-20 mounting screw.
In support, I cite the Middle Atlantic Products catalog, which lists rack rail tapped 10-32 as well as half a dozen different styles of 10-32 screws.  They also sell one style each of 12-24 and 6mm screws and cage nuts in both 10-32 and 6mm, but nothing in 1/4-20.  . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  15:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tapped Hole Thread Size 

message: We are starting to see 47U racks pretty often. Article doesn't mention them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.49.109 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 47U racks

message: Came to the article hoping to get information on sizing, since I'm not familiar with racks.  Article isn't clear.  The rack that I'm looking at has the following:
* 17 3/4" inside edges
* 18 1/4" hole-to-hole
* 20 1/2" outside edges
Nowhere do I see 19".  :)  Not sure if this rack is non-standard size, or if the name "19 inch rack" is an approximation.  Would be nice if the article introduction mentioned where the "19 inch" is to be measured. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rack sizing 

message: On the Amp rack page, I have given notice that that page should be combined with this page.  If anyone would like to discuss this, please weigh in.
Furthermore, I propose to rename this page Equipment rack.  I note that the 24 inch rack information has already been merged here, making the title misleading.  I think "equipment rack" is rather more accurate, and is already a redirect to this page.  Both "19-inch rack" and "amp rack" would become redirects here.  I would like to note that there are almost certainly as many or more amp racks (audio equipment racks) as there are computer racks, so the article should serve both equally.  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger/Rename 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: rotary-dial telephone equipment 
in section "11-foot frame"
imho means rather rotary switch than Rotary dial.
See Strowger switch. I remember similar to Strowger rotary switches that can make full (360°) and never ending rotations with 3x10 (or 4x10?) used positions, still in use around 1993 in Graz, Austria.
--Helium4 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  rotary-dial ... 

message: In conjuction with , I have developed a new template:rackunit to make it easy to give the size of an nU element in terms familiar to non-technical readers. Synax like "This is a  rack-mounted server" produces "This is a  rack-mounted server". Feedback welcome. Enjoy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be working: Special:Diff/1052568136.  Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we make the U a link to rack unit? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of thinking of that myself, and am undecided.  There's a general rule that you only link a term the first time it's used in an article.  I guess we could have an optional parameter to control that, i.e. .  I also tend to not like linking single-letters, since they're hard to see.  But, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add the functionality and if somebody doesn't want to use it, they don't have to. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Conditional operation is quite complicated so maybe that is one to be "left as an exercise for the reader". I agree with you on single letter linking in any case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template: rackunit 

message: Hi,
this article tells us about all kind of racks, from old phone switching over typical 19 inch ones (as it is titled) over much more til ATA road case racks for music performances and souch.
So i would suggest renaming it just to "Rack" to keep the titel consistend with its contents...
regards - T 31.172.106.163 (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rack is ambiguous so that's not going to work. Equipment rack already redirects here and would work if a broader scope is intended. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe rename Article to "Rack"