Talk:Flashlight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Wikipedia External Link Policy

Here is the only page I could find addressing the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

Candlepowerforums.com and flashlight-forums.com are largely informational sites and are not primarily geared towards socializing as exemplified by myspace.com, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.3.10 (talk • contribs) 18:02, Aug 14, 2006 (UTC).

This has already been addressed in the RfC and many knowledgeable people have given their opinion below. The majority does not see the need for the links and I agree with them.Betterthanyouare 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That is NOT correct. The RfC says "the majority of weblinks here are not suitable for an encyclopedia" (emphasis added) -- THAT is what the RfC stated. It DOES NOT specifically address the http://candlepowerforums.com link. I don't understand why you're making such a big deal about this. In the Postage stamp article there's a link to a stamp collecting forum. In the Knife article there's a link to a knife collecting forum. A non-specific, vaguely worded RfC doesn't trump WP:EL guidelines (which do not prohibit all links to any discussion forum). When the WP:EL wording change to deprecate (but not prohibit) forum links was made on 8-April 2006 [1] the situation we see happening was discussed. Namely that some enthusiastic editors would misapply the general suggestion as an absolute rule. Common sense should prevail. The intent is not to absolutely prohibit all links to any discussion forum.
If you agree to abide by it, we can do another RfC that's clearly worded and which specifically addresses http://candlepowerforums.com and http://www.flashlightreviews.com/. Joema 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here and was wondering if I could ask a question. I would like to upload some information pertaining to LED flashlights in relation to an acquaintance's company. To do this, I intend to cite from scanned newspaper articles, and I was wondering if this is a sufficient way of referencing the material. Chair12345 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Links to Subject Forums

I'm new to wikipedia so I am not familiar with all the rules. I've never been involved in any of the controversy below. I've read most of the comments supporting the deletion and quite frankly find them without merit. Conclusory statements are made regarding their suitability without any support or explanation. Why can't links to forums devoted to discussing the subject at hand be made available to those interested in learning more about the subject matter? Seems very odd to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.3.10 (talk • contribs) 18:02, Aug 14, 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Re: Recent vandalism

Ok, Mr. 66.244.x.x host -- you have been reported for repeated, willful vandalism of this page. You have been warned four times and yet you persist. -- Betterthanyouare 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: CPF link

I have sent the administrators of Wikipedia clear and convincing supporting documentation of why I made the revisions, so I would suggest you drop the threats. It is not vandalism if the information is true. It would be good for you to learn this. Just because you don't like something that is the truth does not mean it is vandalism.

Please end your your comments with ~~~~ to leave your signature. Regarding your remarks, I am sorry to hear you feel that way. Using Wikipedia to promote your personal agenda is unethical, and I ask you to consider this: are you really being unbiased here? I would like to resolve this as peacefully as possible, and as such, I'd like to suggest we end this quickly by making a compromise. We leave out the header, as CPF *is* online more often than not, but have a remark next to it saying the server is often down. Is this satisfactory? Skomae 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I do not have a "personal agenda" and am not "unethical". I simply feel that people attempting to go there should have an explanation of why they may get a "Page cannot be displayed" I know it would frustrate the #### out of me if I tried going there and got that error. Also, that may prevent others from removing it as a dead link if they find it one day that it is down.70.191.173.252 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, among whom was this alleged "agreement" discussed? Two people? I think that the comment makes this page look more like a web directory than an encyclopedia entry. Regardless, I think people around this page need to tone down when reverting. Stop making threats against users to "report" them or whatever. Instead, try suggesting that they come here and talk. If that doesn't work, then just be polite about whatever you do there. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to actually read the entry above yours from 70.191.173.252 That is a valid explanation of why the text exists. Betterthanyouare 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
We (BTYA and I) made this agreement in order to keep the peace. If you look at the reversion history his and my opinion differ on the subject but a compromise was made in order to stop unnecessary edit warring. I feel that the agreed-upon disclaimer to the controversial link, though not incredibly consistent with Wikipedia standards, is acceptably fair and unbiased. If you look even further back into the history the link was constantly being removed and readded by various anonymous users; I will not speculate on the causes, but since the disclaimer was added, link removal has ceased. Of course, anyone and everyone is free to dispute the 'agreement' made, but I feel that in order to prevent any unnecessary revert wars, they should be discussed here first so the conflicting parties may sort out their differences. At this point I would simply rather not take sides. - S. Komae (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like that negative comment was an irritant here for a long time. I think it is obviously a cheap shot comment, and should not be included on the page. Foray 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you. It seems in no way cheap shot to me, just a friendly hint not to assume the link permanently dead by mistake. A technical note, about intermittent availability, like "javascript required" or "registration necessary". I don't understand how one can see negativity in it. If anything, the part about "popular" online forums should go, which might make any link look like a cheap promotion. So unless there is consensus to remove it, it's fine as it is, and I would appreciate if you cease the reversion war. Femto 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to read all the comments on this page before popping off here. In case you cannot read them for some reason, I will reiterate. The reason the text is there is because the link was constantly being removed when people would find the site unreachable because they presumably thought it was a bad link. Now, if you would rather the link continue to be removed completely on a regular basis, that is what will happen if you keep removing the text. Does that not make sense to you?? I suggest you leave the text there if you wish the link itself to remain. Betterthanyouare 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If your intent is to prevent the link from being removed, then the appropriate thing to do is to use an HTML inline comment. I'm going to go ahead and make that edit so that you all can see what I mean. Comments that are visible in the article itself generally should be directed at readers, not editors. Comments directed at editors should generally be hidden from the main article display, either on the talk page or via a comment. kmccoy (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
However, as a reader too you'll be interested in not getting unnecessarily negatively surprised, won't you? I think being a reminder to editors is only a secondary effect of notes like these. Femto 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Femto. It should be in place for both readers and editors. New editors may "miss" (or ignore) that text. Readers will understand why the link isn't working if they try to go to it. Betterthanyouare 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I am quoting Betterthanyouare: "The reason the text is there is because the link was constantly being removed when people would find the site unreachable because they presumably thought it was a bad link. Now, if you would rather the link continue to be removed completely on a regular basis, that is what will happen if you keep removing the text." You indicated that the text is there to prevent editors from removing the entire link. Now are you saying that is not the case? kmccoy (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to read the entire page for the full reasoning behind having the text there. I will not play your game any longer. If you have any other issues with me, you take them to an arbitrator. I have nothing further to discuss with you, KEVIN. Betterthanyouare 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made a mention of this on RFC in hopes of drawing in further opinions or ideas. kmccoy (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, KEVIN...what do you think about Pjacobi's latest edit??? Is that what you want? (I think it's fine, btw...:-) )Betterthanyouare 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Incandescent spectrum graph

Is this really necessary? It does not apply to all flashlights, and only the specific subset that pertains to incandescent bulb-based lights. Wouldn't this graph be more appropriately used in a page about incandescent light emitted from a filament? I find this graph to be of questionable value to the article, and I will remove it if there are no objections within a few days. - S. Komae (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove! Beside your reasons above—while a simple, typical spectrum measurement may be verifiable and repeatable, this one is original research also flawed because it includes the reflectance of paper. Femto 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Commenting the question raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, I have to say that the majority of weblinks here are not suitable for an encyclopedia. As a start, I've deleted the forum links, as forums are almost always out of question linking to. --Pjacobi 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Werdna (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the easy way to solve it. Compared to this, you should have seen the amount of links some time ago. (diff) Femto 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good solution. Works for me!!! Betterthanyouare 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I think the "review" links are far less useful, and would have removed them before I removed the forum links. When I spent an unreasonable amount of money on my flashlight, CPF was a useful resource in researching the purchase. It's certainly more useful than most "review" sites. Just being a forum doesn't disqualify a link from appearing in Wikipedia, nor does an article need to have any external links. A question that I'd like to see discussed is "what sorts of links do we want in this article?" Manufacturer web sites are usually removed because you can't list them all without turning into a web directory. Pjacobi has removed the forum links, and most of the review sites here are little more than useless blogs. Maybe some comparison with FAs about similar topics would come in handy. It's nice to finally see some discussion, though, rather than the same revert over and over, and rather than some editors essentially claiming ownership over the article. kmccoy (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. For comparison how about shoe polish, typewriter, bicycle, or electronic amplifier? External links are quite limited, and not at all geared towards reviews or discussions of specific products. 192.75.48.150 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the "review sites" aren't that great, too. Actually I consider http://www.geocities.com/~stuarts1031/flashlight.html to be the best of all current weblinks, and that's on GeoCities and in an awful design. But the rest of the crowd is worse. On de: not one of the links would have survived, and in fact de:Taschenlampe is without external link. --Pjacobi 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Second comment: much better with the links gone, but I would lean towards removing the review-site link as well. SB Johnny 09:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, far as I'm concerned. Femto 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with linking to the http://www.flashlightreviews.com/ site, nor the http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/ site. The review site is high quality, focused, non-commercial, and not manufacturer-specific. IOW it provides additional information readers would likely want -- just like the external links Encarta, World Book, etc. provide. Likewise with the CPF forum. WP:EL guidelines DO NOT prohibit links to forums, only certain types of forums. The guidelines say forum links are OK if "such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard". The CPF forum clearly meets all those criteria. Joema 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are, by far, in the minority according to the comments here. Betterthanyouare 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree we don't want a bunch of links to junk forums and low-quality review sites. However WP:EL specifically states external links to appropriate forums are OK. The CPF forum clearly meets all the criteria. I don't see anybody uniquely disagreeing with linking to that specific forum, nor stating a reason why. Regarding links to review sites, http://www.flashlightreviews.com/ is by far the highest quality flashlight review site. If a link to it isn't appropriate, then no link to any review site anywhere on Wikipedia is. Joema 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Please don't contribute to wikipedia in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.209.7 (talk • contribs) 18:02, Aug 14, 2006 (UTC).
I agree with User:Joema. As I mentioned earlier, those sites were very useful to me in purchasing a flashlight, as well as illustrating the sort of community that has grown up around flashight collecting and use. kmccoy (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The forum links

I would like to voice my objection to the continuing removal of certain sites (CPF, for example) from the list of 'External Links'. The key criteria for inclusion in a reference of this sort is usefulness for readers. With over 15,000 members and literally millions of posts on the subject, CPF is probably a greater source of flashlight information than this Wikipedia page will ever be. To exclude it is to exclude the largest and oldest board of its type and subject. I believe personal opinions about the quality of external linked sites are irrelevant and unneeded. These sites should stand on the merits of their suitability to the subject and their utility for factual exploration of the subject, as decided by those that visit the sites. CPF has over 1 million page views monthly...same for FlashlightReviews.com and LEDMuseum.org. To ignore these sites is a dis-service to those exploring the topic area. Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing these links removed for no real reason other than personal prejudices. By the way, I publish FlashlightNews.org and am interested only in promoting the hobby of flashlights...not a particular board or website.metalhed243 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Obviously some anal Wikipedia users like to remove useful links. That's great (for them), but until they can provide some Wikipedia rule references that prohibit linking the useful forums on the subject topic, they should stop messing with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.209.7 (talk • contribs) .

See the part on social networking sites of WP:EL. Femto 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Femto, Candlepowerforums is NOT a social networking site or a blog. It is a high quality unique resource, the link to which adds significant value to this article. WP:EL DOES NOT preclude any link to any kind of discussion forum. The wording is designed to keep out riff-raff, spam, commercial sites, etc. Many WP articles have links to similar high quality forums, from kite building to watch collecting. The WP:EL wording is intended to keep out poor quality or questionable forum links -- it is not intended as an anti-forum vendetta. The link to Candlepowerforums is perfectly in line with WP:EL policy. It is a mistake to remove the link. Joema 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Of the people that have been requested to take a look at this recently in the RfC above, you are (still) in the minority.Betterthanyouare 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you carefully re-read the RfC, you'll see it's about questionable links in general. In fact the specific RfC wording is "majority of weblinks here". The RfC is not saying the two specific links http://candlepowerforums.com/ and http://www.flashlightreviews.com/ should be deleted. If there's misunderstanding on this we should have another RfC, (a) just for these two sites and (b) just for editors who take the time to carefully scrutinize them. You can't lump all sites together, as each one is unique and requires close examination for a meaningful decision. Further, let me re-emphasize, WP:EL DOES NOT preclude any link to any kind of discussion forum. That is another misunderstanding. Joema 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging "LED flashlight" into "flashlight"

I would say this makes sense, given the limited information in the former. A redirect from "LED flashlight" will pick up the thread for those interested. The historical and application notes are both interesting and useful. Note that Nakamura invented the actual LED device while at Nichia, but Lumileds perhaps (someone needs to check) was the first to successfully commercialize the invention. - Acugnini 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Torch?

Although "torch" is used widely, I think it's an abbreviation for "electric torch" and, if so, that might be indicated. For example, one could write "(electric) torch" Carrionluggage 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

agreed

[edit] images?

Sorry, I am new here. I think I have tried uploading an image not allowed by wikipedia. I will see if I can sort that out. Thanks, Tell

Someone has edited out my new changes. I just thought that the credit card sized torch was interesting. But I see why I need citations. I will try and find them and then put it back on. Thanks, Tell.

[edit] Flashlight Forums

Obviously, discussion of flashlights on forums is very important to some. This article is not meant to be a pointer toward those discussions. The addition of further website references beyond the current amount will continue to be an area of contention.

Instead, please create an article on "flashlight comparison and review" if this is of importace or add a sentence to this article as an aside (i.e., ==Trivia==).

Thanks for helping!

Lmcelhiney 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Selected links to external discussion forums are allowed under Wikipedia guidelines, and there's no good reason why http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/ can't be included under External Links. A few editors apparently don't understand the guideline about external links, and believe it's a hard, absolute prohibition of all links to external discussion forums. It is not. We should use common sense here the same as any other external link. Just as we individually evaluate the quality and usefulness of each external web link, we likewise should for a link to a discussion forum. By any reasonable assessment, the CPF link is relevant, useful and non-commercial. Joema 22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Since the guideline about external links is the current topic:
This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.
  • It appears that the "few editors" do understand and follow the guideline.
  • A forum is, similar to a blog, an opportunity for everyone to have their say and make their comments. Nothing wrong with them, but they are not in general, meritable.
  • The question of appropriate to the article is more of an opinion.
  • It appears that a few editors believe that that kept to a minimum is a key part of the guideline.

Maybe we should just do some zero-based budgeting and removed all of the current external links and make each of the editors justify why theirs should be included. In actuality, we have two (2) museum links and two (2) review sites. It is possible that we could get to the guideline minimum by just including a single link from each of those categories and then we'd have three (3) instead of five (5) links?

Lmcelhiney 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A dispreportionate amount of time has already been spent debating and edit warring over the CPF link. Much of it is based on the misunderstanding that links to external discussion forums are totally prohibited. They are not. Other credible encyclopedias besides Wikipedia use "see also" external links to external discussion forums. E.g, the Encarta article on Mathematics contains a link to this math discussion forum: [2]. Similarly the Wikipedia Mathematics article also has a link to a math discussion forum: [3]. Despite being forum links, they are clearly meritable, at least from the standpoint of Encarta and Wikipedia editors.
If I was the sole editor of this article, I'd just include two links, one to Candlepower Forums, and one to Flashlightreviews.com. Those are the highest-quality discussion and review sites. However I'm not the only editor, and since the other links aren't grossly objectionable in content or amount, why make an issue over it. If all the previous editors fighting against the CPF link had behaved similarly, it would have saved much valuble time better spent elsewhere. Joema 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of flashlight merge

This articles history section and the main article are basically identical. This page is not too long to contain the content, and there's no other good reasons to keep it separate. If no one objects I'll just redirect History of the flashlight here. Vicarious 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incandescent lumens

I tagged the 10,000 lumens statement as dubious, because I find it incredibly hard to believe that any flashlight produces that many lumens. For comparison, a standard 100 W household bulb produces around 1700 lumens. So scaling linearly (yes, I know incandescents increase in efficiency as power goes up, but this effect is not dramatic) we would expect said "flashlight" to be 588 W or so. I just don't see any handheld device putting out that sort of power, especially one that is battery-operated.Ngchen (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article explains it is a halogen bulb instead of normal incandescents, a maximum of 38 lumens per watt can be achieved as per the halogen lamp article. That puts the power to around 260W which less than your estimates but still way too high for portable use. --antilivedT | C | G 09:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Tag was needed, reworded to fix, added ref. Most powerful incan. flashlight is probably the "The Torch" from Wicked Lasers, about 4,100 lumens using a 50w halogen bulb: [4].