Talk:Stage lighting instrument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Stage on stage This article is part of Wikipedia's Stagecraft coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Stagecraft, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the art of stagecraft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Stagecraft, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.


Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Stage lighting instrument was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 26, 2006
Stage lighting instrument was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 16, 2007

This is a current Stagecraft collaboration!
Please help improve it to good article standard.

_TOC_

Contents

[edit] Merging

this article should be merged with [[1]] Stage Lighting what do you all think

No way. Look at the talk page for stage lighting; it's long enough. This article needs to stand on its own, and maybe even a single article for each type of light. KeepOnTruckin 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
it is not realy about length it is about keeping relavent information together and acording to wikipedia policy wich would be to merge them
No this article should not be merged with Stage_lighting. However Lighting_fixture contains a merge box suggesting it should be merged with this page. The current contents of Lighting_fixture seem to indicate that it should be merged here, however if the article was greatly expanded to include all types of lighting fixutres, home, exterior, achitechitural, table, office, street, etc... than it would not warrent a merging with this article, simply a mention/ cross-linking.--Mattarata 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Lighting fixture should be merged into this page (SLI). SL itself should NOT be merged into SLI. Note the difference between Lighting fixture (stage) and Light fixture (other) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeepOnTruckin (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 August, 2006 (UTC).
+1 to merge Lighting fixture into this page. This would additionally disambiguate Lighting fixture.
cori(talk) 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I never took the disambuation into account when I first commented. Now that I think about this with it in mind, a merge would be a good idea. --Lekogm 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lighting_fixture isn't really about all Lighting Fixtures. It's about Specialized Lighting Fixtures. I think that a merger of this into Stage lighting would not be ok as these lights are also used architecturally. Lekogm 13:21, 05 September, 2006

[edit] Floodlights

Floodlights redirects here. Is there any similarity between the forms of floodlight used in stage lighting, and those used in sporting stadia? Proto||type 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't think there are any similarities (aside from being a powerful light) ...why is it redirecting? surely floodlight deserves an article of its own? e.g. sporting floodlights, security floodlights etc SMC 08:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Floodlight has a section farther down the page, but I think it needs its own article to clarify.

I have (IMHO) a better picture of a source 4, Showing all the parts of it. Should I put that in? KeepOnTruckin 21:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

yes by all means--65.83.204.33 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I did, its the one at the top. KeepOnTruckin 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Placement

By the way, thanks to JWGreen for fixing where the images are. But I still think that the placement of cyc lights and scoops might be confusing to some. I played around with it a little, but I can't get it right. Anyone else have a suggestion?--KeepOnTruckin 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godspot effect?

Does this belong in this article? Surely if we started listing every possible artistic effect that can be achieved with each lantern then we'd be here all day? I've removed it. If you really want it back, here it is:

[edit] Godspot effect

Although, as mentioned above, fresnels are rarely focused in, a fresnel may be pointed vertically or almost vertically down and focused to a two-to-four foot (one meter) diameter circle to produce an effect called a godspot. This effect looks somewhat like a halo of light coming down, and may be used to represent a character or somthing else having some sort of relationship or conversation with God. It may also be used to produce the "UFO vertical suction" effect. Bryson430 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


You're right. I'll work on making a page about lighting effects. --KeepOnTruckin 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put it back in....so I took it out again. Bryson430 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pars

I've edited this for factual innaccuracy re lens construction. I also removed this line: "This characteristic of traditional PARs is falling into disuse with modern PARs favoring a PC based lens, which is able to produce a more controllable circular pool of light." Which obviously refers to the ETC Source 4 Par which certainly does not represent the death of PAR units and is arguably a totally different type of lantern. Either way, "normal" pars are not falling into disuse and to imply so is inaccurate. Bryson430 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PAR Lamp Lenses have always included PC based versions and 'open' narrow beam versions - the CP60 & CP61 type lamps, this has nothing to do with Source 4 Pars, which simply have the lenses as seperate items, rather than within a 'sealed beam' type unit. It would help if those posting knew what they were talking about! Trotboy (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, the ETC Source Four PAR is not a PC, it is still a PAR. A PC is a totally different fixture, which is actually becoming less popular as ERS's (profile's) become more readily available. I have no idea about this in Europe but I would assume the trend would be simmilar. Still, I don't see the death of the PAR anytime soon. It still has it's uses, and is relativly cheep and simple. I can see that the moving light industry is pushing PAR's out of big tours in favor of the profile and wash moving lights, but those are not PC's.

[edit] Conventional vs. Moving Lights

Should this page be split up to seperate movers from conventional lights (or possibly more splitting focusable vs flood fixtures?) At least when it comes to movers vs. conventional, the usage, history, and design choices are different enough to warrant seperation I believe. Also, should there be a mention of accessories (Color scrollers, gobo rotators, etc.) or does that also warrant a new page? Morydd 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that since a, for instance, MAC 500 is a stage lighting instrument, albeit a moving one, that it belongs on the SLI page. Intelligent Lighting already exists. I think that there needs to be one page about all lighting accesories. Also, I was going to sometime make a page of lighting effects such as the godspot. I think we need to have the main article, SLI, with smal amounts on info on everything, and then links to the main article under each type of instrument, etc. We already sor of have this in the bolded link, but I belive the correct way is to put Main Article: in bold italics and then have the link there so it looks better. KeepOnTruckin 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Four

Source Four redirects here. The source four is a notable instrument. It revolutionized elipsoidal construction, and was the first of its kind to use the enhanced aluminum reflector. It needs a separate article. JWGreen 02:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a project! ;) --Lekogm 04:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Done JWGreen 04:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
And Source Four (with a capital F) now redirects to your new page. Happy-melon 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of redirects, shoudln't luminaire redericet here instead of lighting fixture? KeepOnTruckin 22:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Image

The size of the lead image was excessive, making the text look completely out of proportion, and squashed into a tiny column beside it. Shrinking reveals another problem: the labels are no longer readable. However, I would argue that this is not the most appropriate image to lead the article with anyway. I think we need a flashy, in-situ image which shows a stage lighting instrument at its best. Can anyone think of/find/create such an image?? Happy-melon 18:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

THe reason I put that one up was beacause it shows the parts of a lighting instrument. You are right, when smaller, you can't read it. That's why I made it big. KeepOnTruckin 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Should it be croped so there is less white space and re-uploaded? Then we can make it slightly larger so text is readable, but the article text is still in proportion. -JWGreen 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Done -JWGreen 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


On the image pointing out the parts of the S4, the slots on the end of the barrel shouldnt be labled as a "gel frame holder" but rather an "accessory holder" (or something like that) because other accessories such as top hats, color extenders, half hats, color scrollers, and others can slide into that posistion. || Airbornecasualty 15:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Accessories also fit into a slot above the barrel. So having a name like "accessory holder" wouldn't really describe just that one location. --Lekogm 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Who puts a top hat or barn door on a ERS? well, actually I saw a new tech do that once but...KeepOnTruckin 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Never seen a barn door on an ERS, but I have often seen snoots (top hats) put on ERS's to block the audiences view of the lens. Every show I have seen on broadway uses them on ERS's that are mounted in coves or in the house. -JWGreen 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen top hats but not barn doors on ERS's. I have also seen eyelashes (half-hats) on them. It's all about what the designer wants. --Lekogm 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

I saw a stub template at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure if it is referring to the "Moving Lights" section or the article as a whole. This particular article has been suggested as an important article by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stagecraft, and we would need to know whether this article, and the other article mentioned, Stage lighting, are being recommended because of their importance or their quality. The differentiation is important. Thank you in advance for your response. Badbilltucker2 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually was refering to the section. But of course the stub I put in does say article so that is probaly why it is confusing. I'm going to switch it out to a {{Sectstub}}. --Lekogm 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the section as a stub. It is just like the rest of the sections with a picture as well as a short description, and a link to the main article. In fact, I think I'll put a main article template under each section. You might as well put the section stub tag on all the sections. I still think that this article is the best of all in the project, due to its importance and quality. KeepOnTruckin 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selecon

The image of the Selecon Pacific 23-50 is off of the companies website, and is copyrighted. The high school theatre I work for part-time won two of them a couple of years ago, so I will try to take a picture of one next time. They are an inovative ERS, but the text was very POV, so I cleaned that up. As for the followspot, it was also copyrighted, and the old image is fine for the article. -JWGreen 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can get a picture of a selecon pacific follow spot in the theatre I am working it at the moment. -leaderofearth 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, do that and stick it in the gallery on the followspot page. KeepOnTruckin 14:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I now have a picture of the Selecon Pacifc 23-50. Its not the best, because the instruments were in storage at the time, but i'll put them in until I can get a better one. -JWGreen 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you have noted that the instruments are upside down, but even then, that picture needs replacement quickly. I have Pacifics at work, so I may take one myself. Bryson430 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will be working in that theatre again this coming week, so I can take one of them out of storage then and take a picture of one of them, if it still needs to be done. I have also seen a diagram on Selecon's website and in a few textbooks showing how the cold mirror actually works. I know this is copyrighted, but maybe we can get permission to use it. I'll check into that, because that would explain everything much better than any amount of text can. -JWGreen 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The opening is extremely contradictory:

The terminology below is representative of professional stage lighting craft in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Terminology is different between the USA and UK for many stagecraft terms. In the USA, lighting fixtures are called "instruments" in the UK, they are called "lanterns" or "luminaires".

Lighting instruments are used in stage lighting...

So, it claims to be representative of the UK, Australia and the USA, but doesn't say what term Australia uses, and promptly uses the purely American term? Very unclear as to what's being done.


Another common error is in something like "Fresnel lantern or Fresnel (US) are small fixtures giving a soft-edged spot or pool of light." - Should be Fresnel lanterns or Fresnels or, alternatively, "A Fresnel lantern, or Fresnel (US), is a small fixture...

It needs some work to get to GA. Adam Cuerden talk 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden talk 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for your input. I'm hopeful that all the contributors to this article will take it into account and try and bring it up to GA level. --Lekogm 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, maybe I shouldn't have copied and pasted. KeepOnTruckin 00:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Well, it's not that far off from GA, it just needs to be more explicit with what term is used where, and have a standard way of choosing which term to use after saying what is used where. Adam Cuerden talk 10:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the article title uses US terminology, I've edited the article to us that by default. I've also changed the first paragraph to reflect that per the suggestion below. (4.156.99.104 15:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
Hmm. It's not clear what term goes to which country now. Might I suggest a rewrite of the first paragraph to clarify wehat's actually being done? Adam Cuerden talk 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
After 2 weeks at GA and no real noticeable changes yet, I'm failing this. At the very least, there are plenty of academic texts (some of which I'll attempt to incorporate) that can be referred to to give this page some references, something it sorely lacks, as well as some ease of language for people who may be unfamiliar with the terminologies. Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ads links

I removed links to product information from a commercial website. This is an ads link; thus it is not allowed in Wikipedia (see WP:ADS). Provide your article with reliable sources only. — Indon (reply) — 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a commercial product. If linking to the company's website that makes the instruement is not a reliable source than I don't know what is. I also don't recall where on the website that was referenced where there was a link to purchase anything and upon futher browsing I was still unable to find a purchase link. I also have reviewed this article and see that we are keeping a neutral point of view while still citing the creators website. Therefore, I think you are in error in your removal of the source links. After discussing it with other people involved in the stagecraft project we feel that they are valid sources and will be putting them back in as such. If you feel this still doesn't qualify as a reliable source, please see the company and organization section of WP:RS. --Lekogm 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there any neutral non-profit source for that? — Indon (reply) — 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. These are all spam links. I am currently sitting at a company hired by ETC spamming an online encyclopedia by readding all these pages. Regardless of the fact that the page I referenced for a the par includes the following:

  • Enhanced Aluminum Reflector
  • Rated up to 750W
  • Super-efficient HPL lamp
  • 25º- 45º variable field focus
  • Easy spot to flood adjustment knob
  • Die-cast faceted reflector
  • Die-cast aluminum construction
  • Supports ETC Dimmer Doubling

You caught me. Now buy this product. --Lekogm 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasm (from your edit summary) reply is not going to be helpful at all. — Indon (reply) — 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I think the sacasm wasn't necessary, I think that a link to the company that makes the luminaire is a good link. One of the plagues of the stagecraft industry is that there are no scholarly journals about the subject, and textbooks are often out of date with current equipment. Technical specifications about a specific luminare from the website of the company that manufactures it IS a reliable source, and unfortunatly, it may be one of the few out there. -JWGreen 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on kmccoy's talk page about this issue. He's a Wikipedia admin, works in this industry, and is involved in the stagecraft project. I am hopeful that he will be able to help solve this dispute. In the meantime, I suggest doing a search for "etc source four" and tell me how many non-commercial links you get that are suitable references. --Lekogm 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for the Source Four PAR in a textbook, how would I cite that? The textbook is Page 362 Theatrical Design and Production 5th Ed. by J. Michael Gillette, published by McGraw Hill in 2005 in New York. If you need any more information just leave a comment on my talk page. -JWGreen 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe WP:CITET is helpful for you. — Indon (reply) — 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


To cite this book, write
<ref> {{cite book 
| last = Gillette
| first = J. Michael 
| title = Theatrical Design and Production: An Introduction to Scene Design and Construction, Lighting, Sound, Costume, and Makeup
| id = ISBN 0072562625
| publisher = [ [McGraw Hill] ]
| pages = 362
| date = [ [November 10] ][ [2004] ]
}} </ref>
which causes it to be formatted as
Gillette, J. Michael (November 10, 2004). Theatrical Design and Production: An Introduction to Scene Design and Construction, Lighting, Sound, Costume, and Makeup. McGraw Hill, 362. ISBN 0072562625. 
I looked up the title, date and isbn at amazon.com. — EncMstr 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Having worked in the lighting industry as an end-user of equipment for a while, I think that linking to the manufacturer's website should be acceptable on pages like this one. The reality is is that there is no independent source of information about lighting instruments besides the manufacturer. Independent trade publications like Live Design rely on the manufacturers, a book like Robert C. Mumm's Photometrics Handbook is just an edited collection of industry tear sheets, and I'm willing to wager that Gilette (I have an earlier edition) relies on manufacturer data in putting together textbooks. There is no independent testing of the claims of lighting manufacturers in terms of the actual performance of the lights. However, all the major manufacturers provide truthful data that can be relied upon.
The thing is, what is an ad? I read WP:ADS, and it seems to be concerned with 1)articles that are really just advertisements (which nobody thinks this article is) and with 2) bots that insert external links, not with users acting in good faith to try to present truthful information. I would argue that a link to a dealer in lighting equipment would be an advertisement, but the manufacturers do not sell the equipment to the end user directly. Thoughts? Overcamp 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats the thing, the ETC site has no direct way to buy anythig from them. Its just info on their products. You have to go so a different company to get the actual products. So there is nothing wrong with it. KeepOnTruckin 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of what any of us think Indon doesn't care and will revert anything we change. I listed two reasons why they are proper references, but that didn't matter. Indon also wanted to nominate Source Four for speedy deletion because he believed it was a copyright violation but was told there was nothing wrong with it. So basicly, I question his judgement because he seems to not have all his facts straight. --Lekogm 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I do care if the external links point to commercial sites, as it happened here in this article before. Read this edit: [2] and also this [3] from the same project. Two sources you gave before in here: [4] points directly to the mainpage of a commercial site, which is inappropriate. The source now that points to the history page is all right for me. I did ask for speedy deletion, on behalf of my WP:AGF. Otherwise I put the tag directly. What's wrong with asking first? The way you replied with sarcasm is, on the other hand, going to be uncivil. Now somebody has found neutral non-commercial source, which is preferrable. The article is now better with it. — Indon (reply) — 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I'd throw in my thoughts -- I'm busy on tour so I won't really be getting into it too much. It seems to me that the question should really be whether or not the links improve the article or make it worse. This is a case which falls inside the grey area of the applicable guidelines, so it's a matter of talking it out and finding a compromise. I think valid points have been made by all parties, especially that A) there's not really a lot of decent source material on this subject other than that provided by the manufacturers, and that B) links to commercial sites should be used only when they provide something that improves the article and can't be found elsewhere. I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I think that's the idea. It also is true, for better or for worse, that one company dominates the manufacture of lighting instruments, especially ERSs, and only a few other companies are even in play. So it's hard to have an article on this subject without mentioning ETC and Source Fours. It looks like maybe people are starting to settle down and look for compromise, which I think is good. I don't think that a link to ETC's site is absolutely forbidden, but it needs to be for a good reason. A reference from someone else's site, maybe like Strand, might help balance it out. And non-commercial sites are great, as long as you can find some that are useful and trustworthy. Good luck! :) kmccoy (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Indon is fine with the textbook sources, so I am going to cite it as I find usefull information in it. I still think that leaveing the history page from ETC as a source is apropriate, as most people wouldn't be able to readily find the textbook I am citing, so I am leaving them in addition to the textbook. Any thoughts? -JWGreen 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a textbook I have seen called Stage Lighting and Scenery or somthing like that. THe front cover has teal text with a picture of some robot show on it. If I can find that book I will try to cite it as it talks about everything.KeepOnTruckin 03:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So... I'm in another theatre design class, this one concintrating in lighting design, and conciquently I have another text book. Anything that needs citing, put the citation needed tag next to it, and I will do my best to find it in one of my sources. We need to get this article to Good Article status. -JWGreen 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ill work that tonight. The other thing needs doing is making the article have terms common to US, UK and AUS. KeepOnTruckin 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Put a bunch in. If you can't find a ref for one, just delete it and note it here and I'll look for a ref. HAve fun! KeepOnTruckin 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Got as many as I can. As for the floodlight/spotlight designation, my textbook separates fixtures into lensless and lens instruments, so i'm stuck there. -JWGreen 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floodlights (sport) merge

So it has apparently been suggested that Floodlights (sport) be merged into this one. I for one think that this is not the proper article for it as they are not stage lights. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --Lekogm 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Who suggested it? You're the one that put the tag on. I am confused. But I vote don't merge. KeepOnTruckin 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at what linked to this talk page and I stumbled upon the merge tag on the floodlights page. seeing as it's been there for awhile I thought I'd just put it here and we could discuss it. --Lekogm 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My vote is no. I don't get this merge tag. -JWGreen 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags on both pages. --Lekogm 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent IP Edits

There have been a lot of IP edits on this article lately, the information is usefull, but there are some grammar errors, and unencyclopedic wordings. It needs some cleanup, therfore, I am going to put the tag on. -JWGreen 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I Did...

I rearanged and cleaned-up the opening, and added headers. I added a section on field angle to the ERS section and a section on Beam projectors. I also did my best to cite absolutly everything. I left the {{Fact}} tag in where citations are still needed. I cant find information on intelegent lighting easily, as nither of my textbooks go in-depth into that subjec. What else needs to be done to get this to Good Article status? -JWGreen 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the components of lighting instruments to the botom. -JWGreen 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Not liking the move there. I like it at the top. Just my opinon KeepOnTruckin 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It seemed out of place at the top, but I also agree it doesn't belong at the bottom. Maybe after the first paragraph? -JWGreen 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAR

I have a question for everyone... Is a PAR a floodlight or a spotlight. I seem to think it is a spotlight, but I may be wrong. -JWGreen 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a very narrow, a narrow, a medium flood, and a wide flood lamp that you can put in a par. Plus there are no lenses to focus through so the light just spills everywhere. Based on that, I would say it's a floodlight. --Lekogm 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My textbook by W.Oren Parker calls it a spotlight. Not to contradict you or anyhting. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Mine too... I also noted that it called a beam projector a floodlight as well. I think the classification has more to do with whether the instrument has a lens or not. The PAR lamp has a built in lens, so that would be a spotlight, the beam projector has no lens, so that would be a floodlight. I'll try to find more on this later. -JWGreen 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Both! A CP60 is a VNSP (very narrow spot), a CP61 is a NSP (narrow spot), a CP62 is a MFL (medium flood) and a CP95 is a WFL (wide flood). (Those are all the 240v lamps, btw.) So it is both and neither. Helpful, eh? Bryson430 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All the fact tags

Do all of the fact tags really need to be here? The article has 17 citations, more than hundreds of other articles I have read on wikipedia, yet this article has 5 or 6 fact tags still? Perhaps we can get some consensus on why the tags are there and if they should be removed or cited? --Mattarata 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As you get up on to good article status and esp. Featured article status, you need a lot of refs. Lets see, in tech terms...You have to get enought references that it would require 5 rolls of gaff tape to cover them all over. That is, look at a featured article, tell me how many refs there are. There's at least one per paragraph. Put in all the references you can. KeepOnTruckin 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
fair enough--Mattarata 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Were now up to 22 references. Should we go for another Good Article Review? KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say to go for it. The worst that'll happen is we're told we suck.  ;P --Lekogm 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked spelling and added another citation... we now have only one {{fact}} tag left in the article, but is about WYSIWYG, and its hard to find reliable sources on that kind of thing. I'll keep my eye open though. -JWGreen 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize we have 24 in text citations, but they are only from 4 sources. (Most of which are from the same author (Gillette). As we continue to improve this article, we should work on broadening our research base (i like fancy wordings like that), it would lend more creadablity to the article. -JWGreen 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Well, ill try to add from my book. But the WPI technical theater handbook also has a boatload of info as well as the lighting history link that is further up this page, check those out. They are some alternate sources. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally got rid of the last couple of fact tags. Anyone feel like following up the other suggestions from the last failed GA assessment and get the thing reassessed? Leaderofearth (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I have to say that I am enormously impressed with this article, but it's just not ready for GA yet. Here are the reasons why I am delisting it from the nominees:

  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
  • There are two fact tags currently in the article; GA nominees should not have any of these present.
  • There is a fair bit of stilted prose; could benefit from a good copyedit or peer review. Second person should be avoided in the text body.
  • Would benefit from further wikilinking of jargonistic terms, brand names, and so forth.

Chubbles 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

I have a few pics if needed

A Strip of Par cans with different coloured gels

[edit] Other instruments

This article covers the basics, but seems to be missing a lot of instruments. HMIs, Birdies, audience blinders to named a couple.

207.172.95.203 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Darkspots (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)