Talk:Lockout–tagout

Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scuba diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Question on November 30 2018 re External links[edit]

Today I edited the page to include an external link, without realizing I had tried to do that before and it was removed. I am not sure why. Can someone help? Thanks TMorata (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) TMorata[reply]

Hi,

Does anyone know a good software which combines Asset Management/Computerised Maintenance Management System with Lock and tag system?

Thanks, Wendy Ng.

Yes, it is ISSoW system - Integrated Safe System of Work. Applied as a business standard n the Northern Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.147.29.125 (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Attended a Safety Conference and it would appear that in Canada, NFPE 70E standard will be replaced with CSA Z-462. There is also a new release for CAN / ULC S-801 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebraCD (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lock-in/Tag-in?[edit]

Most large circuit breakers of 50 amp capacity and greater tend to have locking holes not just for the OFF position but also for the ON position.

Are there any situations where lockout is used in reverse as a lock-in for essential equipment that absolutely should not be disconnected or shut down without the approval of multiple different authorities? A hospital life-support power circuit would be a possible example.

Usually the large current interrupting devices are designed so that they can trip in the event of an overload and correctly turn themselves off even if locked into the operating position. DMahalko (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EHS professionals,

I believe the citation requested is from the OSHA mandated NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace - 2009 edition. Specifically 120.2(C)(1) Procedures. The employer shall establish lockout/tagout procedures for the organization, provide training to employees, provide equipment necessary to execute the details of the procedure, audit execution of the procedures to ensure employee understanding/compliance, and audit the procedure for improvement opportunity and completeness.

Furthermore, the bit where the person applying their own lock or tag needs to state they must identify themselves on this lockout device. Specifically NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace - 2009 edition 120.2(E)(3)(b) The lockout device shall include a method of identifying the individual who installed the lockout device.

I leave it to those who are watching this definition to apply the citation if they feel it is warranted.

Regards in safety, Jeffrey Meade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Energy-isolation device" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Energy-isolation device. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockout-tagout → Lockout–tagout – This is not a compound like "semi-articulated" or "French-born", it's two independent terms being juxtaposed in a relationship (as in input–output model), and that's one of the main things en dashes are for. We also know this should use an en dash because it can also be written lock-out–tag-out, lock-out – tag-out, lockout/tagout, lock-out/tag-out, etc. Our standard practice is to move and redirect a foo/bar construction to foo–bar, e.g. Attorney/client privilege → Attorney–client privilege. (Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title is where we hunt them down. Only the ones that are proper names that pretty much mandatorily have "/" in them stay that way.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support—yes, quite right. Tony (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support an obvious improvement over the current title. Surachit (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? I'm a big fan of en dashes, but I'm not 100% sure about this one. In lockout/tagout, the two words aren't really being juxtaposed in a relationship; they're just two steps of a procedure. (It's not like "lockout versus tagout".) Is the en dash still appropriate in these cases? —Will ^(B) 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.