Talk:Adapter

disambig

someone needs to split this up properly. aint got time --Username132 12:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Split

Since this seems like an obvious multi-stub page, I suggest that this page be split into the follow articles: Adapter (electrical), Adapter (rocketry), and Adapter (computing), keeping the link to Adapter (Genetics). If there are no disagreements, I will go ahead and do this. -- Natalya 01:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections, I will go ahead a split this into the aforementioned articles. -- Natalya 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The split has been taken care of. This article now refers to the electrical section of "Adapter", since that appears to be the primary topic. Adapter (rocketry) and Adapter (computing) were created, and Adapter (disambiguation) now links to those two articles, plus this one and Adapter (Genetics). I will take care of any misplaced links. -- Natalya 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adapter vs Adaptor vs Adopter

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.

Thanks to anyone that can help sort this out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of high pressure adapters

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have now removed the section, and searching for "scuba adapter" yields Diving cylinder as the first result. I think this is all resolved now. Andrew Lorimer (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)