![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page was focused on by the Wikipedia spotlight collaboration drive between 31 May and 9 June. (comparison) |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2009. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
If anyone does care about this little stub, I'd like to point out that artificial lighting can be as powerful or moreso than natural. Take, for example, shining a flashlight into your eye in the midst of a sunny day. You'll notice that there's noticable squinting even though it's a miniscule incandesecnt bulb facing off against a suspended, million kilometer thermonuclear reaction ;D.
This article was prodded today. I removed the tag because it'll be Spotlighted in 2 weeks, and we have the opportunity to drastically improve it - the subject is notable and verifiable...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I'm typing this, it's already 3:30 am where I live, and so should better go to sleep. I've compiled a few useful links:
I'm planning to expand the article in next 10-12 hours, so I have provided the above links for the benefit of any one intending to expand the article themselves.
The major constraint I've encountered is lack of information available on types of lighting equipment used for "solar simulation".
All the best with expansion.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, I feel that the article is no more a stub, and might not be expanded/overhauled in a major way, so have removed the "expand stub" tag from the article page.
Other changes I made to the status of the article:
The article as of now requires attention from an expert in the field of lighting.
Hoping to see the article get into a better shape.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey all, I was asked by Sunderland on IRC if I'd review this. I did, so here are a few of my comments:
So, overall, I'd assess it as possibly a B-class, maybe only (very) high Start class. But, YMMV. I tried to chip in with a couple minor changes, and I may look back in with a few more later. Best regards, umrguy 42 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Support - given that simple google results prove that "Artificial light" ( 1,330,000 results) is a much more popular term than "Artificial sunlight" ( 32,000 results), and whereas an examination of the pages found relating to "Artificial light" suggest that "Artificial light" can be used interchangeably with "Artificial sunlight" (these article explain how "artificial light" can be used to grow plants when natural light isn't present [1] [2]), I propose we move this article to Artificial light - which is currently a redirect.-- daniel folsom 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
" (Redirected from [index.php?title=Artificial_light&redirect=no Artificial light])
Lighting includes both artificial light sources such as lamps and natural illumination of interiors from daylight."
That's how the destination ( Artificial light) article begins. It's a very generalized term, and also defines it in terms of just efficient use of "natural sunlight (daylight)", which of course is not the subject of the article, rather very much the opposite of it. Going by that definition, even a lit matchstick would qualify as a source of "artificial light", but not as "artificial sunlight". I'd have very much agreed if one would have liked to name the current article itself as " Solar simulator"—a page that does not exist. You can search for solar simulator on the net, and will realize that the artificial sunlight is almost based on "trying to simulate the properties of sunlight", of which illumination per se is a very insignificant component (i.e., full spectrum light). Other applications like testing of solar cells, use in photobiology don't simply use any light; dedicated attempts are made to make sure that the light source being used resembles sunlight in all aspects possible.
See, if the article would have been so close in its dealing of simply any artificial light, the section on light sources (for simulating the spectrum of sunlight) would not have been so short. It would have included all the light sources known that can illuminate the surroundings. But, of course that's not the case.
I'm afraid my points should not get lost in trying to go by a consensus. Regards. —KetanPanchal taLK 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is there's a reason that sections exist, not everything that's a section should be an article; and given the lack of information on this topic (as proved by both google results and the modicum of content in the article that is actually geared to just artificial sunlight - which is really just the applications section), i simply think it should just be a section, "Artificial light used to emulate sunlight"-- daniel folsom 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the opposition/irc discussion - the new proposition is to keep this as its own article, but, whereas Artificial sunlight is, as proved above, simply not a good term, it would be moved to "Artificial light used to emulate sunlight".-- daniel folsom 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The applications section lack space exploration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.173.79 ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page was focused on by the Wikipedia spotlight collaboration drive between 31 May and 9 June. (comparison) |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2009. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
If anyone does care about this little stub, I'd like to point out that artificial lighting can be as powerful or moreso than natural. Take, for example, shining a flashlight into your eye in the midst of a sunny day. You'll notice that there's noticable squinting even though it's a miniscule incandesecnt bulb facing off against a suspended, million kilometer thermonuclear reaction ;D.
This article was prodded today. I removed the tag because it'll be Spotlighted in 2 weeks, and we have the opportunity to drastically improve it - the subject is notable and verifiable...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I'm typing this, it's already 3:30 am where I live, and so should better go to sleep. I've compiled a few useful links:
I'm planning to expand the article in next 10-12 hours, so I have provided the above links for the benefit of any one intending to expand the article themselves.
The major constraint I've encountered is lack of information available on types of lighting equipment used for "solar simulation".
All the best with expansion.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, I feel that the article is no more a stub, and might not be expanded/overhauled in a major way, so have removed the "expand stub" tag from the article page.
Other changes I made to the status of the article:
The article as of now requires attention from an expert in the field of lighting.
Hoping to see the article get into a better shape.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey all, I was asked by Sunderland on IRC if I'd review this. I did, so here are a few of my comments:
So, overall, I'd assess it as possibly a B-class, maybe only (very) high Start class. But, YMMV. I tried to chip in with a couple minor changes, and I may look back in with a few more later. Best regards, umrguy 42 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Support - given that simple google results prove that "Artificial light" ( 1,330,000 results) is a much more popular term than "Artificial sunlight" ( 32,000 results), and whereas an examination of the pages found relating to "Artificial light" suggest that "Artificial light" can be used interchangeably with "Artificial sunlight" (these article explain how "artificial light" can be used to grow plants when natural light isn't present [1] [2]), I propose we move this article to Artificial light - which is currently a redirect.-- daniel folsom 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
" (Redirected from [index.php?title=Artificial_light&redirect=no Artificial light])
Lighting includes both artificial light sources such as lamps and natural illumination of interiors from daylight."
That's how the destination ( Artificial light) article begins. It's a very generalized term, and also defines it in terms of just efficient use of "natural sunlight (daylight)", which of course is not the subject of the article, rather very much the opposite of it. Going by that definition, even a lit matchstick would qualify as a source of "artificial light", but not as "artificial sunlight". I'd have very much agreed if one would have liked to name the current article itself as " Solar simulator"—a page that does not exist. You can search for solar simulator on the net, and will realize that the artificial sunlight is almost based on "trying to simulate the properties of sunlight", of which illumination per se is a very insignificant component (i.e., full spectrum light). Other applications like testing of solar cells, use in photobiology don't simply use any light; dedicated attempts are made to make sure that the light source being used resembles sunlight in all aspects possible.
See, if the article would have been so close in its dealing of simply any artificial light, the section on light sources (for simulating the spectrum of sunlight) would not have been so short. It would have included all the light sources known that can illuminate the surroundings. But, of course that's not the case.
I'm afraid my points should not get lost in trying to go by a consensus. Regards. —KetanPanchal taLK 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is there's a reason that sections exist, not everything that's a section should be an article; and given the lack of information on this topic (as proved by both google results and the modicum of content in the article that is actually geared to just artificial sunlight - which is really just the applications section), i simply think it should just be a section, "Artificial light used to emulate sunlight"-- daniel folsom 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the opposition/irc discussion - the new proposition is to keep this as its own article, but, whereas Artificial sunlight is, as proved above, simply not a good term, it would be moved to "Artificial light used to emulate sunlight".-- daniel folsom 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The applications section lack space exploration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.173.79 ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)