Talk:Artificial sunlight

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

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 The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Untitled[edit]

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.

Prod[edit]

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)[reply]

Ah - fair enough; if you think something can be made of it. -- Chzz ► 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Status of the article[edit]

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:

Promoted it to start class (that's the only logical category left)
Removed it from "WikiProject Technology History" as the article hardly deals with any historical background.
Demoted its importance level to "low"
Assigned mid level importance in WikiProject:Technology, as certain applications like use in refrigerators, full-spectrum light, prevention of jet lag, Ergonomics-related applications, etc. might have far reaching consequences in the future.

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)[reply]

Review of page[edit]

Hey all, I was asked by Sunderland on IRC if I'd review this. I did, so here are a few of my comments:

"but I'd recommend a definite rewrite on the last couple sentences of Horticulture..." - info is kinda fuzzy, grammar and terminology a little unclear
"there needs to be more explanation/introduction on the composition of sunlight and light sources sections" - the sections feel kinda like they're just launched into, without a full explanation of how they relate to the topic at hand (it's kinda obvious, but it doesn't hurt to explicitly make these connections, IMO)
"more introduction might help in the applications section, but that's not terrible" - same rationale as before, but more leeway given on this one.

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)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

Proposed move to Artificial light[edit]

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)[reply]

Support move: per all above...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—

" (Redirected from [index.php?title=Artificial_light&redirect=no Artificial light])

Not to be confused with lightning.

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)[reply]

Wait - but that article you're reading is "light" (it almost seems as though you didn't notice the redirect - however I could be mistaken) - artificial light doesn't have an article right now ... so "Artificial light" wouldn't cover the "efficient use of natural sunlight" ... I mean, you wouldn't include natural sources at all, because natural is actually the exact opposite of artificial.
I'd agree with you that "Artificial light" is a broader term than "Artificial sunlight" - whereas one discusses all forms of artificial light the other discusses the use of artificial light specifically to imitate sunlight - the question is whether or not artificial sunlight is really a legitimate term - because it seems like whenever you look up artificial light, the results are usually related to using artificial light as sunlight - but the term artificial sunlight is almost never used.--daniel folsom 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did see the redirect, that's why I pointed it out. But, I wouldn't see the point in moving as the current title is a more accurate description. Also, somehow the title "Artificial light" sounds a bit weird—light is always natural, only its source could be artificial. And, if noticeability is the factor that drove you to suggest this, then "solar simulator" is a noticeable enough search word.

Yes, I'd agree with you that may be the current title of the article "artificial sunlight" is not the most appropriate one, but that's why I suggested moving it to "solar simulator", which is quite a searched and technically sound term. —KetanPanchal^taLK 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps artificial lighting than as the title. The "noticeability" is not the factor, but rather it is a question of usage. Artificial sunlight and artificial light(ing) really sound like the same thing. Artificial sunlight is (as we define it) the use of artificial light sources to emulate natural light, and artificial light ... would have the same definition, for as you mention, light is always natural, so there for artificial lighting is merely an attempt to emulate natural light (alternatively, we could go with the broader definition of Websters any light other than that which proceeds from the heavenly bodies). Solar simulator has the same problem as artificial sunlight - it gets so few results in comparrisson (it gets 52,400, while "artificial light" got 1 million something ...)--daniel folsom 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

New Proposition[edit]

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)[reply]

Initially, I'd mistakenly believed that there were only 244 results for artificial sunlight, and comparable number of results for "solar simulator" on google. But, it turns out, when I actually searched for the two terms that there are respectively 29,200 and 46,700 results for the two respectively. While agree that the current title might make the article a bit less likely to be searched, the new article, in my opinion should be "Solar simulator"—firstly, because of its notability in terms of the number of search results, and secondly because an entire industry exists that specializes in making solar simulators just like how there's an industry for say a microprocessor with the only difference that the latter is used much, much more commonly than the latter. Also, solar simulator is a serious product meaning a lot of research goes into imitating the Sun with greatest possible fidelity.^[1]^[2]^[3] On this basis I'd feel that an article on "Solar simulator" (the existing article "artificial sunlight") would do justice to all the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and spirit. Also, the term "Solar simulator" is much more concise than "Artificial light used to emulate sunlight". —KetanPanchal^taLK 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

The applications section lack space exploration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.173.79 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] High fidelity dual source solar simulator

[2] The design of a more accurate, higher fidelity dual source air masszero solar simulator

[3] see slide 9

[1]

[2]

[3]