Talk:Light-emitting diode
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 Archives |
| /Archive1 |
Contents |
[edit] Calculator Picture
Is it just me or does this display look remarkably like Nixie Tubes?
- not particularly, no. Anastrophe (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Section layout
Some of the layout of the sections don't make much sense. My section numbers are from [1]. Section 1 is the history and then Section 7 is "a" history? Sections 7.x are unrelated to the history, altho 7.2.1 might be related. Yngvarr 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What a mess
Seems there are people editing that don't understand the subject, and are drawing numerous oversimlified conclusions from references. The article currently contains an awful lot of misinformation, due I think to misunderstnding material. Personally I'm not interested in editing things that are changed by various folk that lack understanding of the subject material, its just pointless.
Are there any mechanisms in wikipedia to help improve this problem? If not the article will continue to contain a fair amount of misinformation, since its what unqualified people have been told by enthusiastic promoters with $ signs in their eyes. Tabby (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A or B class
Meanwhile I think its time to consider changing A class to B class, due to the many errors in an otherwise thorough article. Tabby (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History section
There were two history sections, one at the beginning and one at the end of the article. I moved the content at the end toward the beginning, but there are some points of redundancy that an expert on this article should try to remove: for example, Losev's invention is mentioned twice. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed section from article
Removed this sentence: In early 2008, researchers at Bilkent University in Turkey demonstrated a new technique for producing white light from blue LEDs coated with nanocrystals. This approach was shown giving off "more than 300 lumens per watt". [1]
This is about visible lumens per watt of emitted light, not about lumens of visible light per electrical watt, as the others, and therefore not comparable. -- 87.187.10.235 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] That DNA crap is unwikilike
and quite frankly I'm not sure if every single new piece of research belongs on Wikipedia. Unless someone comes along and edits it for style, I'm deleting it. eigenlambda (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. it's interesting, and describes genuine research. your justification for removal doesn't seem to be based on policy. Anastrophe (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
i should add that this research is very exciting. it could mean dramatic reduction in the cost of manufacture of LEDs. it belongs in the article. if you don't like how it's written: fix it. don't just delete sourced material. Anastrophe (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Overly-technical lead?
Is it just me, or is the first paragraph of the lead a tad overly-technical? Things like that belong in the article, of course, but the first paragraph of the lead should probably have more of a layman's description, useful for people with no background in the subject. The second paragraph of the lead seems to work quite well for this; I'm just wondering if it's good to have such a technically-oriented paragraph before it. Maybe they should just be swapped. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a simple explanation at the top would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.47.83 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Should this get a mention?
This development. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
