Talk:CE marking

message: May I suggest to you that this entire article requires a rewrite.  In my opinion, the quality of the writing and the gramatical style is quite poor.--94.194.125.249 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and rewrite it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested rewrite 

message: This list is not up to date:
example it is missing Construction Products  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_Products_Directive
The list is not consistent. A number of the listed items such as "Electromagnetic compatibility", "Low voltage", and "Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment RoHS 2" are not "product groups" Simonbr (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Product groups requiring CE marking 

message: "The letters "CE" are not enough." CE_mark#Dimensions -- 06.03.2012 08:36 
If that is so, what has to be written next to "CE" ? As already said above, a rewrite would probably raise the quality of this article. Killalord1 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions Information is missing 

message: I don’t think there is an issue with changing the article title (suggested at /Archive 1#Change "CE Mark" to "CE marking"), but it was done with a cut-and-paste move.
* In January 2004 the page under CE marking was created
* In December 2004 this page under CE mark as created as a stub
* In January 2005 CE marking was merged into CE mark
* Now (2012) we want to rename the article CE mark → CE marking
To preserve the history of the current article, as well as the history of CE marking from 2005, I suggest moving
* CE marking → Talk:CE mark/CE marking (2005 history)
* CE mark → CE marking, including the talk page and subpages
However I cannot do the second move, despite expecting to be able to. I have asked for the temporary redirect at CE marking to be deleted. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  “CE marking” move and history 

message: Just a small request to whoever has the easy tools to edit the CE logo graphic.  At each thumbnail and scaling level the edges of the image are trimmed by a varying number of pixels or whatever and this causes the parts of the logo that are touching the edges to become flattened or cropped.  It would be an improvement if there was some whitespace around the image (in the amount of say half the stroke width) to prevent this from happening.
Idyllic press (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo fix requested 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CE marking. 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/20130425235856/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/faq/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/faq/index_en.htm#09012624859cd715
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 17:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although comprehensively discussed above, זור987 wants to insert a user-generated drawing that זור987 says is an illustration of this purported China Export mark. It is not. Even the file description says that it is not. In an edit note,  זור987 says that they have seen products with this mark, but has not provided any actual evidence. China Export is an urban myth, it doesn't exist and never has existed, the Commission spent a lot of time searching for evidence of it and found none. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case it is the reason for the misunderstanding, it is entirely legitimate for products from China to bear a CE mark (and an FCC mark and bunch of other marks) provided only that the manufacturer has met the criteria needed to allow it to use the mark.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture I put in the article, is a comparison between the real EU CE mark and the "China Export" mark and not the entire mark. And yes: I've seen Chinese products with the fake CE mark with the smaller space between C and E in a lot of products that are imported to Israel from China. זור987 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that this counts as WP:OR. If you read the Commission response carefully, they say that (a) they searched for any evidence of any recognised "China Export" mark and found none: it doesn't exist; (b) they are aware of misuse of the mark on products that don't meet the required standards (same as there are fake 'designer bags', forged €100 banknote etc). It is up to national customs authorities to check good for compliance, even if they have CE, FCC, EAC, CCC, GS, UL and every other mark all perfectly formed. So if you found a product that had a small kerning error in the mark, then you found a product with a small kerning error in the mark, nothing more. It would be no defence in law to say that it isn't exactly the same (see passing off). To jump from a malformed mark to "China Export" is Trump logic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my picture of a label with the "China Export" logo. In this case, the label is of a Chinese LED street light. זור987 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not a "China Export" logo, it is a (slightly off) CE mark. It also has an FCC mark, is that secret code for From Chinese Company? What you have got there is a cheaply produced label, where the manufacturer decided that the lettering is good enough, which it is: it wouldn't satisfy a typographer but it only needs to satisfy a customs officer and wholesale buyer. It gives no support to the China Export myth.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

text: When I said above that you haven't produced any evidence, this is still not that evidence. The evidence we need is that a "China Export" mark actually exists. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it the time to remove the section about "China Export" logo from the article? זור987 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately no, because the myth has actually gained 'legs'. It is out there so it is reasonable for Wikipedia to report it. So actually you have helped improve the article because you raised questions that weren't properly answered before now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Export myth again 

message: According to that article, to get CE marking, one needs a certification from EOTA  or an affiliated body. The fact that this organization was not mentioned here (until I added it to see also) suggests our article is quite confusing/incomplete (or that article on EOTA is...). Or both. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is unclear but I wonder if you have misunderstood? My reading is that EOTA designs and writes ETA specifications. Period. They don't do any testing or certification. When a vendor / manufacturer has a product that is subject to a conformity requirement, the use the relevant ETA produced by EOTA or its predecessors. NB that this is theoretical from reading the articles as I have no practical experience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @John Maynard Friedman I think you are right, and I am not an expert either. Still, isn't a CE marked product one that meets ETA specifications (by EOTA)? I.e. can we have a CE marked product that has not been certified to meet ETA specs?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If (big if!) I understand it correctly, the job of EOTA is to write specifications but the specs have to be given statutory force through EU Regulations, which is a Commission task. So, by attaching a CE mark, a vendor is affirming that it meets the EC regulation, which coincidentally happens to have begun as an EOTA spec. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) 

message: Better replace the picture with one that is compliant.
As per EMCD an LVD the postal address should be marked on the device. Esthetic reasons cannot be used not to place it. The have room to place the vanity mark (Designed by Aplle), so the address could be placed instead. Furtermore, the WEEE wheeled bin logo should have a bar underneath. Unless this is a really old device.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:4B02:D900:AAC4:6D2D:CBCE:C9E1 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This reddit user claims older CE marks do not bear the same dimensions as the latest marks and thus bear more resemblance to the China Export mark commonly seen on many Chinese products. https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/s/rdmEZzFWsc
Would it be advisable to add known historical dimensions of the mark to this page? 97.113.208.131 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This reddit user is either gullible or a troll. The so-called "China Export mark" is a hoax: it doesn't exist, it has never existed. See CE marking#"China_Export". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE mark historic dimensions?