Talk:UL (safety organization)

message: I disagree, it should be removed completely. 
It only acts as an advertisement for the UL company to sell their own standards and make a profit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "it" risk? If so, I agree. If you mean the logo, I think that's fine. Reminds us to avoid risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section titled 'UL Standards' and the link associated with it seems to ONLY list standards related to electrical Industrial Control Equipment... UL does a lot more than that, so I'd recommend Deletion of that very incomplete list. 
More appropriate links than the one provided might be: 
, or 
There are several standards in the list that are obsolete(e.g., 6500 and 60950), and 62368-1 will eventually obsolete 60065 (nee 6500) and 60950-1. Note that a UL standard has no 'standing' until published by ANSI, which is the National Body for the IEC. While UL does the yeoman's logistical work for setting up an STC, the actual membership is mostly members of various industry sectors and individual experts. The eventual aim, where there is not significant conflict with NEC, is to eventually harmonize all UL standards with IEC, as exhibiting by many listed in the article. An accepted standards list is published on the U.S. OHSA's NRTL site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.207.146 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim, directly above this comment, that "standing" requires ANSI publication/approval is false. There are a number of organizations that use UL tests, methods, and standards. Most of my work with UL Standards had *nothing* to do with electricity. Turns out, who knew, that UL publishes more than electrical standards. (Who knew? Anyone who has bothered to look at their complete catalog, that's who.) If anyone doubts the egregious blunder by the above comment, just navigate to the UL site (shopulstandards.com/Catalog...) and make sure to look at the complete catalog! (Standards usually have the word "Standard" in their title (they all do, as far as I know). Just as a 'for instance', the first standard listed is UL-1 Standard for flexible metal conduit. Please note that this is NOT present in Wikipedia article's list along with a multitude of others. I don't understand why such an egregiously incomplete list has persisted for literally decades here. I recommend that either the list be removed (mostly because it is so incomplete) or if not removed then include all current standards. Please note that it is simply not accurate to consider its Standards as the only or even major product category it provides. It provides many test methods, and quality standards in addition to the product standards mentioned. This article is pretty bad, imho. (It provides other documents some most practical some sorta "researchy" (i.e. academic), btw.) Note: I am not familiar with their recent split into 3 organizations, but previously I have personally dealt with a lot of their test methods and product standards, and I have been in Chicago at one of their test sites and have coordinated the certification of my company's test site by UL.98.21.208.178 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  UL Standards 

message: Agree with the above comment about how this looks like UL PR....having a list of presidents is one part of that.  I see no need for this info, and it's really never used in analogous articles.  So I'm deleting the list.  If someone sees a really good reason to keep it, please discuss it here.  Thanks! NuclearWinner 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrjomo added back the list of presidents at "the request of content provider".  Not sure who the content provider is - maybe UL? - but I really don't think this list is needed.  It smacks of corporate PR rather than neutral and encyclopedic info.  I might compare it to a hallway filled with portraits of past presidents - that's of great meaning to the corporation, but minimal or no interest to anyone else except in HIGHLY unusual situations involving charismatic CEOs, extremely well-known companies, etc.  No offense to UL but none of these exceptions apply.  If you want to have this list here, please DISCUSS it on this talk page and give your reasons why this content IS of encyclopedic relevance.  Please be advised that there is no third party, and certainly not UL, who has any special privilege in deciding what will be in this article, so the preferences of the "content provider" carry no weight.NuclearWinner 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for list of presidents 

message: Hello Cathy - UL mark has no legal weight and is not required for anything.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would someone need UL 

message: Hi guys, I'm new to editing Wikipedia.
I just found UL's news release saying that they are creating a for profit subsidiary to do all their testing, and thought it would be worth putting on the article, but I am unsure about etiquette, or how to cite the article, so I'm posting here.
the link to the news release is...
...
I might work on adding it to the article later, but I'm currently doing research on UL and don't have the time.  2008UFgrad (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing Section going "For profit" 

message: I added two redirect pages that go to the main article. I was unsure which spelling would be more correct.
Read the comment on the talk pages there.
Talk:UL ratings and Talk:UL rating redirects
Wisepiglet (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'UL ratings' and 'UL rating' redirects 

message: Good job silencing and removing Kevin Ryan's page on wiki. I guess the admins used the "notability" fraud again.
Pretending he was not the first to gain notoriety and massive media (internet) coverage. 
I suppose you think you'll manage to get away with it? You sick shills. We'll remember who you were.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.37.78 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Ryan 

message: Are they allowed to use wiki to promote a business?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.140.9 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising Business 

message: It seems to me that UL certification mainly is required for insurance reasons, as insurance companies regularly demand it. Given the name und origin of the company I wonder if a connection of sorts leading to conflicts of interest may still lurk in the background. I also don't like this article, because it seems to hide that ultimately UL is simply a corporation, which is clouded here by the term "Organization". Anyone with any information?
Wassermensch 10:0, 27 October 2011 (CET)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections to insurance companies? 

message: Hello, I work for UL and would like to update the logo shown on this page - we created a new logo about a year ago. Out of respect for Wikipedia neutrality, I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for me to do so myself. I am new to Wikipedia, can someone advise on the best way to get the logo updated? I would be happy to provide a file. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.89.121 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The new logo should come from a publicly accessible place (UL's website) so that other people can easily verify where it came from and that it is genuine. Other than that you can upload it over top of the existing image, or upload it as a new image. Either way I don't think there will be a problem. I (and most all WikipediAns) appreciate your caution and desire to "play by the rules" 76.117.247.55 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Logo 

message: Good day,
I work for a Central Station in the Caribbean and we are seeking to have our Station UL certified. Can I get some guidance as to how to get this done. 
We are also looking at getting CSAA(Central Station Alarm Association)certification for our operators and Monitoring room.
Thanks in advance.
Raymond.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.93.226 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UL certificattion for Central Stations 

message: I've seen things marked with a logo like an italic LR joined to make UL, possibly mirror-reversed left-to-right. Was that a former logo for UL ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Logo ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on UL (safety organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121224031804/http://www.ul.com:80/global/documents/corporate/newsroom/ulfactsheet2012.pdf to http://www.ul.com/global/documents/corporate/newsroom/ulfactsheet2012.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 108.84.20.17 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grenfell fire consequences in US 

message: I've removed some POV material and tagged unsourced articles. We need more RS. Autarch (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up