Energy Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

for my bot to rename all files to ((LightSources)) - I want to make sure everyone is aware of that, I'll leave this here a few days before starting the job, it's on User:Tawkerbot if anyone wants to see the request. Tawker 08:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. My edit has made this unnecessary, assuming others approve of the change.--Srleffler 05:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on this, pending the discussion below.--Srleffler 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is not going to do anything until consensus has been reached -- Tawker 07:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template had become large, unwieldy, and ugly. Trying to encompass all possible sources of light in one template is just not going to work. I have tried to simplify and refocus the template to cover sources of illumination (lighting) only. (But the edit was later reverted. My version is here.)

Note that I have also removed specific illumination sources that are covered by a more general article, e.g. Mercury-vapor lamp, Metal halide lamp, and Sodium vapor lamp are all types of High-intensity discharge lamp, and are all linked in the introduction to the latter article. There is no need to list them all separately in the template. The template should still remain on those individual articles, though, even though they are not specifically listed in it.--Srleffler 05:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really let the discussion develop for a while before making that change, ehh? ;-)

In any case, I strongly disagree with your changes, so I reverted them. Let's let the discussion develop a bit further before taking such radical action, ehh?

Atlant 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I would just be bold and do it. I'm fine with your reversion, though. Let's discuss it. What are we trying to achieve with this template? It seemed fine at first, but it has become extremely large. It seems problematic and not very useful to incorporate such a large template into so many pages. I can see the point of a narrower template covering sources of illumination (in the sense of lighting), but I don't really see the value of a massive template that covers every possible device or process that can emit light. There are better ways of dealing with big lists of things, like list pages. Perhaps we could make a list page with a very small template that links to it?--Srleffler 01:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful infobox - for a topic that can be confusing. Please comment on this proposed design - to standardize the general categories of lamps or light sources: (maybe delete "fuel lamps")

V O I D   S e e - n e w - s a m p l e - b e l o w
Fluorescent	Compact FLuorescent (CFL) - Linear fluorescent
Incandescent	Halogen - A-lamp - Parabolic Aluminized Reflector (PAR) - Reflector lamp (R) - Bulged reflector lamp (BR)
Gas discharge	High-Intensity Discharge (HID) - Mercury-vapor lamp - Metal-halide - Sodium vapor - HMI
Arc lamp	Acetylene/Carbide lamp - HQI - Safety lamps - Xenon arc - Yablochkov candle
Fuel lamps:	Candle - Gas lighting - Kerosene lamp - Limelight - Oil lamp
Other types	Light-Emitting Diode (LED) (Solid state lighting) - Induction - Fiber optics - Neon - Plasma - Nernst lamp

-- [[User:Dogears|Dogears] (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks potentially useful, and is reasonably "clean", unlike the current version. You might also want to take a look at the version I did that got reverted. Both seem to me to be taking the template back to its original purpose: to summarize common forms of lighting. The problem with the current template is that it grew into a list of all possible sources of light, mixing together both devices and processes on equal footing. To prevent this from happening again, you might want to choose a more specific title for your template. I called my version "Sources of illumination", but perhaps a better title can be found.--Srleffler 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would keep "fuel lamps" by the way. Lighting by combustion has been extremely important, historically.--Srleffler 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should we switch over to this one? Is there a better title? "Artificial light sources", 85% width? (see change) -- Dogears (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this template needs reorganizing. I like the direction this is going, but I'm confused by the groupings. According to the articles themselves, neon and fluorescent bulbs are a kind gas discharge lighting. Induction lamps are a kind of fluorescent lighting. Fiber optics don't actually generate light themselves. Acetylene lamps use combustion. It seems as though the old groupings are more accurate. SDC 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your infobox is now smaller and seems more focused to "lighting". Some of the smaller lamp articles (which can be merged?) have been pulled out of the infobox, and it's a good idea that "The template should still remain on those individual articles, though, even though they are not specifically listed in it."
• Lighting catalogs list fluorescent as a separate type, so it gets a separate heading. I think the induction lamp is a way to deliver power, it's not really a fluorescent light fixture type (see: Talk:Electrodeless_lamp), and needs to be edited (and changed back to "Induction lamp"). There's also circleline" round fluorescents. Neon is in a class by itself, a specialty. Fiber optics can be found in a lighting catalog and are still used for lighting effects on cruise ships and Vegas. Different incandescent lamps are listed by the bulb shape, but the article(s) need to be started.
• Here's some small revisions to the proposed infobox, please make changes or comments:

-- Dogears (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L i g h t i n g   and   L a m p s
Incandescent:	Conventional - Halogen - Parabolic Aluminized Reflector (PAR) - Reflector lamp (R)
Fluorescent:	Compact Fluorescent (CFL) - Linear fluorescent
Gas discharge:	High-Intensity Discharge (HID) - Mercury-vapor - Metal-halide - Neon - Sodium vapor
Electric arc:	Arc lamp - HMI - Xenon arc - Yablochkov candle
Combustion:	Acetylene/Carbide - Candle - Gas lighting - Kerosene lamp - Limelight - Oil lamp
Other types:	Induction lamp - Light-Emitting Diode (LED) - Fiber optics - Plasma - Safety lamp

I swapped "Neon" from neon sign to the more general neon lamp and moved it under gas discharge. I removed some duplicate links to incandescent and fluorescent articles. I put "safety lamp" under "other" because the category includes both antique combustion lamps and modern electrical ones. I renamed "Light bulb" to "conventional" so it can appear first and still be alphabetical, and also because that is a better name when classed with "halogen" and "PAR", both of which are also "light bulbs". --Srleffler 23:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Would you prefer to use this one, which addresses the previous discussion, or the large template that was uploaded recently? The new one is more complete but I agree, that many items is better as a list. Some of the articles are much smaller than the infobox. -- Dogears (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should replace the template with this one, and make the old template contents into a List. I would then add a "see also" link to the list to every article that now has the template, and remove the template from articles that are not lighting-related. (It should stay on lighting-related articles even if they aren't included in the template, though.)--Srleffler 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are plasma lamps gas discharge lamps? "Gas discharge" is used in the article to describe them. Also, is the purpose of this article to list only those technologies used for illumination? I'm not sure plasma lamps are used as such. I also suggest that induction lamps be placed with the fluorescent category. As the term is used, it always refers to fluorescent tubes powered by induction coils. It's explained in the article on fluorescent lamps. I'd place sulfur lamp in the other category. I never really agreed with the idea of putting the two technologies in the same article. Induction lamps really are a special kind of fluorescent lamp. Also, why was the reference to Nernst lamp removed? SDC 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plasma lamps are gas discharge lamps. I would be OK with removing them. Nernst lamps were probably removed for the same reason as rushlights were. I presume both were removed as being historical types no longer in current use, and not commonly encountered. Whether this is a good idea is arguable, but I do think we need to keep this template trim. Restricting it to current and more important sources of illumination seems like the best way to do this.--Srleffler 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to figure out what to do with these problems:

1. 1. HMI and HQI are both metal-halides, specific to entertainment (v. expensive, v. high quality, v. short lives, relatively speaking)
   2. Sodium Vapour...LPS is not generally considered HID (it is a glow discharge (like fluorescents) instead of an arc discharge (like MH, Hg, etc.))
   3. Fluorescents...should they be separate (probably)
   4. HID, gas discharge, and Electric arc are all related. Electric arc is just atmospheric HID
   5. Fluorescent induction...and plasma...both are pretty much the same as their relatives (fluoro and HID/HPS), except for how the plasma is excited. probably plasma should be lumped with the HID/gas discharge

...This makes my life a little difficult the way it is set up right now, when I teach lighting (most students go to wiki first when there is any confusion), hopefully I/we can sort it out so it makes sense (seriously, half the people in industry can't agree what LPS even is...) Yamagawa10k (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the light sources are artificial. It seems useful to add on the few natural light sources for the purpose of completeness. I have reorganized the template to place incandescents, fluorescents and LEDs near the top. Students and others learning about light are best served by having all the links in one place. Please merge Template:ArtificialLightSources into Template:Lightsources and keep what is already good intact.Anthony717 16:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that the amount of content here is just too large to deal with in an "infobox" template. It's not an appropriate format for making a list of every possible source of light. This kind of material is much better dealt with on a "list" page.--Srleffler 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new page, List of light sources, to take over the content of both this template and ((Lightsources)). Take a look—all the content is there, and correctly organized and expanded. For those who want a comprehensive list of sources of light, this is the way to do it. Unlike a template infobox, a list page can contain a large amount of items and stay organized, and easy to edit and navigate. The ordering of items is mainly based on this template before Anthony717's edits, because I felt the previous organization suited the list format better. Also, while Anthony did a great job of improving the appearance and adding content, he had a few of the light sources categorized wrong, and there were other errors. I hope that I have fixed all the errors, and now correctly categorized each light source. Note that some of these categorizations are not obvious. Read carefully before shifting something to what seems like a more obvious category. Note that neither radium nor tritium is a light source. They are ingredients in self-powered lighting and radioluminescent paint, but do not themselves emit light.

The creation of ((Lightsources)) and List of light sources has rendered this template redundant as well as misnamed, so I will replace the content with the more trim infobox version 2.0 above. The disposition of ((Lightsources)) is a separate issue that can be debated on that article's talk page. I strongly advise against using that template, as it is much too large to tack on to the end of any article.--Srleffler 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lightsources has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Note: I am not proposing to delete ((ArtificialLightSources)).--Srleffler 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OLEDs are an important emerging light source. I think they should be included, unless we think that the LED entry covers them sufficiently. Pburka (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organization of the gas discharge lamps in this template doesn't make much sense. HID and Fluorescent lamps are both gas discharge lamps, as is the Sulfur lamp listed in 'other'. For that matter, Arc lamps are, as far as I know, just another name for high-intensity discharge lamps. So we don't need two three groups for them. Pburka (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of lamps in the template, such as Black light and Tanning lamp don't refer to a specific technology at all. Instead, these are specialty lamps which emit specific frequencies. In practice, a umber of different technologies can be used to produce such lamps. These either belong in a different section (Specialty lamps?) or should be removed completely. Pburka (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, what the hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.157.98 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a potential discussion on whether the template should be altered to remove the ability of transcluders to manually set the state to "expanded" or "collapse" if they do not wish it to autocollapse. This ability was WP:BOLDly removed recently, but does not currently have consensus. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]