This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Headlamp (outdoor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The disambiguation appears to be rather misnamed, as its usage by miners is not really "outdoor", and automotive usage is usually outdoors as well. Thoughts? Perhaps headlamp (gear) might be more apt? Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor Wtshymanski keeps reintroducing Original research ( WP:OR into this article. His adding edit summary makes it clear that the information is based on his observation it his local stockist of these products. This is not permitted. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose that that this edit be undone.
Reason: This was the latest revert that added a considerable amount of original research. The fact that it was original research is betrayed by the edit summary to the edit that introduced the material originally ( here). The edit summary, "anyone who's seen the display at the local outfitter knows there's at least three styles" clearly betrays this as original research. Any of the remainder if not original research is certainly unreferenced. Removal of original research and unreferenced material cannot possibly be 'controversial' (except, of course, by the editor who introduced the material). DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. You really need to talk with
Wtshymanski about this to try and reach an agreement as to what should be in the article. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Headlamps are usually powered by three or four AA or AAA batteries. Well, no. This page shows pictures of headlamps powered by lithium ion batteries and wet cells. C cells can be used too.
Systems with heavy batteries (4xAA or more) are usually designed so that the light emitter is positioned near the front of the head, with the battery compartment at the rear of the head.
You know, only on Wikipedia can we use millions of dollars of Web resources to learn that the lamp is on the front of the head. It must be true, no-one has been dragged to admin for saying it even without a note. This is of course one of three styles of headlamps listed in any book on headlamps, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the hate for the Swart book that I cited.
It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. The headlamp is strapped to the head or helmet with an elasticized strap. [1] full citation needed
It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. [1] full citation needed Got to say this twice, it's so important. But that doesn't trouble anyone who'se reverting edits, it seems. And "it is sometimes possible" is wordy, vauge, and entirely in the tradition of flabby Wikipedia writing. But let's not try to fix it, oh no.
Lighter headlamp systems are strapped to the user's head by a single band; heavier ones utilize an additional band over the top of the user's head. And some are attached to a helmet, but don't tell anyone.
Headlamps used incandescent bulbs before power LEDs became available. Incandescent bulbs have the advantage of allowing more tightly focused beams and the use of more power than LEDs citation needed, with the disadvantages of high power consumption, fragility, poor beam pattern and inability to operate at lower power levels. The more you read this, the less meaning it has. But it must be true, it's evidently preferred to a version that makes sense. Watch what happens later when we say more about power.
Incandescent headlamps also have rapidly declining light output once the batteries start to lose voltage. [1] full citation needed
Painfully written statement of the obvious, but blessed by a reference.
White LEDs were quickly adopted for use in headlamps due to their smaller size, lower power consumption and improved durability compared with incandescent bulbs. See? Now lower power is an advantage. Creidibility?
Power LEDs rated 1 watt or more have displaced incandescent bulbs in many models of headlamps. To avoid damage to electronic parts, a
heatsink is usually required for headlamps that use LEDs that dissipate more than 1W. To regulate power fed to the LEDs, DC-DC converters are often used in 1W+ lights, sometimes controlled by
microprocessors. This allows the LED(s) to provide brightness that is not affected by a drop in battery
voltage, and allows selectable levels of output. Following the introduction of LEDs for headlamps, sometimes combinations of LED and halogen lamps were used, allowing the user to select between the types for various tasks.
[1]
full citation needed
More brilliant prose. Now we like Swart.
If we could fix the above problems, the article would be better. I've tried, and failed. Perhaps you, Gentle Reader, can run the gauntlet and fix this, though I really don't know why you'd bother. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ I B Wright and Titodutta:
Swart, Peter K. (2002). Caving. Stackpole books. pp. 34–41. ISBN 0811720527.
You do not need to put the specific page for the refs. The following date range is perfectly fine. There is nowhere in mos where this date must be even more specific. On journal articles, we don't put specific date. On books, have a small page range is fine. The source could be in multiple pages, two page or one. Usually several paragraphs is summarized into one sentence in an article. Tell me where in tarnation does one needs to put the exact page when there is a small page range? Also, I have reverted three different IPs.
I B Wright, don't ever put a partial sentence as a reason. Per WP:PROVEIT, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). (emphisis mine) Bgwhite ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Tito☸ Dutta 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
reliable source directly supportingThe book is reliable and it is directly supporting. Don't use words that aren't in a quote.
@ Bgwhite: You do not have the right to close a discussion no matter how right you may believe yourself to be. Especially one where you are totally missing the point. The editor concerned regards the citation as covering every claim in the section. This includes the ones that are patently wrong. That same editor then hides behind the vague citation when he made this edit, claiming that it was cited. The reality is that no one can tell what is really cited (let alone accurate) and what is not. The fact that he cannot do this was taken to WP:AN3 and he was specifically told that he cannot use a blanket cite (so the admins believe that both he and you are wrong).
This editor really does have a very long history of tendentious editing and deliberately including false information. You can read more about it here. And the associated talk page is a rivetting read as well. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 13:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
85.255.234.85, Bgwhite, you are both WP:EDITWARing, fucking stop it, seriously, its annoying as hell. I don't even know what you are arguing about but it sure seems silly to argue about some tags instead of just improving the content or the sources. It is stupid to even mention how many batteries are used by a product this generic or where the band goes. Wikipeida is about the content, not the stupid, petty-ass argument you two seem to be having. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I made this [ [1]] change because the argument being held on this page is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I absolutely removed a source that was being argued about and appears to be causing more conflict than it is worth, additionally it appears to me that it is basically an opinion piece by one man with a specific interest (caving). I propose that under WP:IAR(policy) and WP:SKYISBLUE(essay) we re-write this article to not include mundane details and improve the damn content.
I can go out on amazon and find thousands of headlamps [ [2]] each with a different design when it comes to batteries, controls and light sources. To mention them all would either be full of WP:weaselwords or be a list that is of inappropriate length for this article. We are all smart and the WP:THESKYISBLUE so why are people edit warring over this?
I use words some may consider "bad" for effect. This is a really fucking retarded argument you are all having and I can think of no better way to try to make you all realize this than using "bad" words. If you are all going to act like simpletons, I will use the language of simpletons. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Headlamp (outdoor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The disambiguation appears to be rather misnamed, as its usage by miners is not really "outdoor", and automotive usage is usually outdoors as well. Thoughts? Perhaps headlamp (gear) might be more apt? Morgan Riley ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor Wtshymanski keeps reintroducing Original research ( WP:OR into this article. His adding edit summary makes it clear that the information is based on his observation it his local stockist of these products. This is not permitted. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose that that this edit be undone.
Reason: This was the latest revert that added a considerable amount of original research. The fact that it was original research is betrayed by the edit summary to the edit that introduced the material originally ( here). The edit summary, "anyone who's seen the display at the local outfitter knows there's at least three styles" clearly betrays this as original research. Any of the remainder if not original research is certainly unreferenced. Removal of original research and unreferenced material cannot possibly be 'controversial' (except, of course, by the editor who introduced the material). DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. You really need to talk with
Wtshymanski about this to try and reach an agreement as to what should be in the article. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Headlamps are usually powered by three or four AA or AAA batteries. Well, no. This page shows pictures of headlamps powered by lithium ion batteries and wet cells. C cells can be used too.
Systems with heavy batteries (4xAA or more) are usually designed so that the light emitter is positioned near the front of the head, with the battery compartment at the rear of the head.
You know, only on Wikipedia can we use millions of dollars of Web resources to learn that the lamp is on the front of the head. It must be true, no-one has been dragged to admin for saying it even without a note. This is of course one of three styles of headlamps listed in any book on headlamps, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the hate for the Swart book that I cited.
It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. The headlamp is strapped to the head or helmet with an elasticized strap. [1] full citation needed
It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. [1] full citation needed Got to say this twice, it's so important. But that doesn't trouble anyone who'se reverting edits, it seems. And "it is sometimes possible" is wordy, vauge, and entirely in the tradition of flabby Wikipedia writing. But let's not try to fix it, oh no.
Lighter headlamp systems are strapped to the user's head by a single band; heavier ones utilize an additional band over the top of the user's head. And some are attached to a helmet, but don't tell anyone.
Headlamps used incandescent bulbs before power LEDs became available. Incandescent bulbs have the advantage of allowing more tightly focused beams and the use of more power than LEDs citation needed, with the disadvantages of high power consumption, fragility, poor beam pattern and inability to operate at lower power levels. The more you read this, the less meaning it has. But it must be true, it's evidently preferred to a version that makes sense. Watch what happens later when we say more about power.
Incandescent headlamps also have rapidly declining light output once the batteries start to lose voltage. [1] full citation needed
Painfully written statement of the obvious, but blessed by a reference.
White LEDs were quickly adopted for use in headlamps due to their smaller size, lower power consumption and improved durability compared with incandescent bulbs. See? Now lower power is an advantage. Creidibility?
Power LEDs rated 1 watt or more have displaced incandescent bulbs in many models of headlamps. To avoid damage to electronic parts, a
heatsink is usually required for headlamps that use LEDs that dissipate more than 1W. To regulate power fed to the LEDs, DC-DC converters are often used in 1W+ lights, sometimes controlled by
microprocessors. This allows the LED(s) to provide brightness that is not affected by a drop in battery
voltage, and allows selectable levels of output. Following the introduction of LEDs for headlamps, sometimes combinations of LED and halogen lamps were used, allowing the user to select between the types for various tasks.
[1]
full citation needed
More brilliant prose. Now we like Swart.
If we could fix the above problems, the article would be better. I've tried, and failed. Perhaps you, Gentle Reader, can run the gauntlet and fix this, though I really don't know why you'd bother. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ I B Wright and Titodutta:
Swart, Peter K. (2002). Caving. Stackpole books. pp. 34–41. ISBN 0811720527.
You do not need to put the specific page for the refs. The following date range is perfectly fine. There is nowhere in mos where this date must be even more specific. On journal articles, we don't put specific date. On books, have a small page range is fine. The source could be in multiple pages, two page or one. Usually several paragraphs is summarized into one sentence in an article. Tell me where in tarnation does one needs to put the exact page when there is a small page range? Also, I have reverted three different IPs.
I B Wright, don't ever put a partial sentence as a reason. Per WP:PROVEIT, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). (emphisis mine) Bgwhite ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Tito☸ Dutta 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
reliable source directly supportingThe book is reliable and it is directly supporting. Don't use words that aren't in a quote.
@ Bgwhite: You do not have the right to close a discussion no matter how right you may believe yourself to be. Especially one where you are totally missing the point. The editor concerned regards the citation as covering every claim in the section. This includes the ones that are patently wrong. That same editor then hides behind the vague citation when he made this edit, claiming that it was cited. The reality is that no one can tell what is really cited (let alone accurate) and what is not. The fact that he cannot do this was taken to WP:AN3 and he was specifically told that he cannot use a blanket cite (so the admins believe that both he and you are wrong).
This editor really does have a very long history of tendentious editing and deliberately including false information. You can read more about it here. And the associated talk page is a rivetting read as well. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 13:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
85.255.234.85, Bgwhite, you are both WP:EDITWARing, fucking stop it, seriously, its annoying as hell. I don't even know what you are arguing about but it sure seems silly to argue about some tags instead of just improving the content or the sources. It is stupid to even mention how many batteries are used by a product this generic or where the band goes. Wikipeida is about the content, not the stupid, petty-ass argument you two seem to be having. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I made this [ [1]] change because the argument being held on this page is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I absolutely removed a source that was being argued about and appears to be causing more conflict than it is worth, additionally it appears to me that it is basically an opinion piece by one man with a specific interest (caving). I propose that under WP:IAR(policy) and WP:SKYISBLUE(essay) we re-write this article to not include mundane details and improve the damn content.
I can go out on amazon and find thousands of headlamps [ [2]] each with a different design when it comes to batteries, controls and light sources. To mention them all would either be full of WP:weaselwords or be a list that is of inappropriate length for this article. We are all smart and the WP:THESKYISBLUE so why are people edit warring over this?
I use words some may consider "bad" for effect. This is a really fucking retarded argument you are all having and I can think of no better way to try to make you all realize this than using "bad" words. If you are all going to act like simpletons, I will use the language of simpletons. CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)