Talk:IP code

message: Are we sure that the link Vilcus dactyloadapter – elegant example of an IP1X design is appropriate? It may be rather funny but it may be confusing to people who don’t understand that it is a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.199.115 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, the humor police in action again ... Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not having had physical access to of these when I added this link, I didn't want to make a tele-evaluation of what water ingress could do to this device, hence the X meaning "not rated". Given the device's description and purpose, I was very confident that it could be rated IP1X (and in fact serve as an elegant example of this class of devices :-). Markus Kuhn (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IP1X Link

message: i'm 99% sure that the requirement for normal wiring accessories here in the uk is IP 4X and sockets have shutters to achive this. what about other places? Plugwash 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The minimum is IP2X (finger proof) in the UK. I'm pretty sure this is in the IEE regs but I don't have a copy here to quote the clause number. While it is true the standard domestic socket has better protectoion than this other sockets are not forbidden and can still be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no generic requirement across all fields and product types for a minimum IP rating anywhere in UK legislation or British Standards (or in EU-wide equivalents), nor has there ever been. Such a requirement would be a severe restriction and hardly practical. For example, most domestic luminaires are only IP10 if the lamp is removed. There are lots of SELV halogen-lamp luminaires on the market which are IP 00 (!) even if the lamps are in place! The relevant standard (BS EN 60598-1:2004) merely says that luminaires must be IP tested and labeled, such that customers can easily chose products based on their preferred IP rating. Markus Kuhn 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you sure

message: MrCyber 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. In fact, I don't think "international protection" means anything.  I've only ever heard it called "ingress protection." --W0lfie 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly Zarboki 02:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  These articles are nearly the same! SirLamer 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Can someone expand this page to include the correct definition of IP69k as just one example.
Thanks JR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.55.135 (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Markus Kuhn 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IP69K

message: This may be a silly question (apologies if so), but why is this article called "IP Code" when the IEC standards define ratings, and have the word "ratings" in their titles? Perhaps this article was originally about one particular code, e.g. "IP56", but then evolved to be about all of them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.17.204 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the most common term, so per WP:COMMONNAME, as long as it doesn't do violence to the official name, that's preferred.  Also, in the absence of context, "Code" is a completely generic, uninformative term.  "Rating" at least implies that some sort of evaluation of capabilities is performed. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I prefer IP rating too, IP code gives associations to a regulation like Building code. This is a standard only, not a regulation. A regulation could use the definitions in the standard for making requirements for a specific enclosure. Ulfran (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "IP Rating"? 

message: There won't be a pressure rating for IPX7 as the depth is specified. 
Apart from some small variation due to impurities in the water specifying the depth specifies the pressure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.25.210 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure Vs Depth 

message: "Another example is the Sony Xperia Z Ultra, one of the first cellular phones to be IP-rated."
This line is very incorrect in my opinion, i'm no expert but I know that Siemens had a waterproof phone that was IP rated all the way back in 2004, the M65, and even before they had splashproof phones like the S10 Active and the M35/M35i
--85.191.27.236 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree on "IP rated phones" section 

message: > > Dear wiki:
> >  
Wikipedia's IP code description is different from the IP 
> > > standard IEC/EN 60529 , follows.
> > >   PLS Review the IP Code and make corrections.
     You have not understand the IP Code of IEC 60529. Your"effective 
> > against" out of the IP Code standard scope.
> >     For instance, IPX4 your " effective against " include Ants. It's 
> > a mistake that IP code exclude any vermin protection .
> > You could read the IP Code charter 1" scope and object". IP scope 
> > only for person ,solid objects ,water , which exclude co 
> > rrosion,fungus,vermin and so on.
> >     IP code  "effective against" Ant which will make disputes in 
> > word wide who use IPXX cabinet. And make business damage.
> >     So we need you to make corrections of the IP code page.
> >     Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.17.150 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP code make correction 

message: I think it used to be correct here but now IPXXA/IPXXB/IPXXC/IPXXD are missing
https://books.google.se/books?id=14KMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ipxxb+ipxxd+ipxxc&source=bl&ots=e42gKnXFUZ&sig=oCU3wi5KGGZcsurdgcssy4wXNzQ&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjajtD509TOAhUCBSwKHa-MCk4Q6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=ipxxb%20ipxxd%20ipxxc&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.101.51 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Additional letters" messed up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on IP Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DGYoRMwp?url=http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/bisenius.htm to http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/06/ARG/bisenius.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * The See Also reference to Water Resistant mark used to be "Water Resistant mark on wrist watches and eye bands". This term "eye bands" is not defined or used in the linked article, and seems not to be in common use for anything. I've removed it. 192.75.165.180 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also modified 

message: Does IP stand for International Protection, Ingress Protection or something else? There is a quite good small article on this question on the FAQ page of Finnish national committee of IEC (SESKO):
https://sesko.fi/yhteystiedot/usein-kysytyt-kysymykset/
I'll translate it here for you:
According to the corresponding standard (IEC 60529), the correct answer is International Protection. The final truth would require a historical study of the 1970s.
Everyone working in the electrical industry knows the enclosure class, or IP class, of electrical equipment, but where does the abbreviation come from? According to some sources, it means Ingress Protection (loosely translated in Finnish, protection from intrusion) and according to some, it means International Protection. Both are reasonable suggestions: after all, the IP class tells how well the product is protected against the ingress of water and foreign objects. On the other hand, the classification is international and it originated from the international IEC standard. But which is the "correct" answer?
According to the appropriate standard, the correct answer is International Protection. This can be found in the current standard (IEC 60529, last updated 2013) on page 12. Looking back at the versions of the standard, the same definition can be found in both the 1999 and 1989 versions.
Then things go complex: in the very first edition of the standard – from 1976 – the meaning of the letters is not explained in any way, but the letters are used as they are. The English text does mention the word "ingress" and the French one mentions "pénétration" (translator's note: the IEC standards are bilingual: English and French) - is the code perhaps a combination of these words? The people who participated in the preparation of the original standard are already retired or deceased, so it is difficult to clarify the issue clearly.
The most confusing thing is that, although according to the official IEC standard the correct answer is International Protection, on the IEC website it says (checked on 23.8.2021) Ingress Protection... 93.106.155.113 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the abbreviation (International Protection, Ingress Protection or Ingress, Pénétration)