Talk:Ceiling fan

Technical Information

There should be some more additional technical information about a Ceiling Fan, for Example:-

1. How the ceiling fan works? 2. What is the function of Armature and Capacitor in a Fan? 3. What is the difference between a capacitor fan and a non-capacior fan? 4. Why a capacitor is necessary for a capacitor type fan? 5. How a non-capacitor fan works without a capacitor?

Mujeeb Ahmed, Karachi-Pakistan.

• Seems to me that these items (excepting number 1) are more appropriate in the article on Electric Motor than here. Number 1 should essentially be a link to Electric Motor. -- Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Besides, the article has been totally blanked and re-written in the intervening months. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blanking

This talk page has been blanked since the article has been completely rewritten.

Piercetheorganist 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Talk pages should not be blanked, they should be archived WP:archive. Wikipedia is an organization that thrives on debate and discussion, the disscussion helps people evaluate what has happened with an article and what needs to be worked on. So even if the article has been completely rewritten, the content in the talk page should remain. If you feel that a question is no longer valid you may add to the record of the discussion explaining why its no longer valid. Pretty much the only time when things get deleted from talk is if they contain personal attacks, or if the are blatant vandalism. Idioma 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, point taken. I'll use WP:archive in the future. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations need tag

Thank you for taking the time to edit the ceiling fan article.

Upon careful review, it is evident that all statements are properly sourced using The Fan Book (ISBN 0-8359-1855-6).

The tag you added has been removed. Thank you for your interest.

Piercetheorganist 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• The section I marked has a lack of inline citations. I marked the entire section because it has no inline citations. Without inline citations it is not possible to tell where information came from. Yes there is a references section at the bottom, but unfortunately it is not possible to tell which information came from that resource unless inline citation is used WP:REF. I will go through the article and mark the article with "" at specific points that need citation so you can get a clearer idea of what is needed. I see you have put a lot of good work into this article. Idioma 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And once again, I removed them. All the data you cited comes from the source listed--The Fan Book. One resource was used (it happens to be the only book ever written solely about ceiling fans); it is cited at the bottom of the article; and so there is no need to add an in-line citation at the end of every sentence. There is no confusion to be had--all the data comes from one source. If multiple sources were listed, then it would make sense to add citation tags. But that's not the case. If you won't be able to sleep soundly until there are useless idiotic tags in place, feel free to add a tag to the sole source at the end of every sentence in that section. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, your edit wherein you "cleaned up" the language was actually not helpful. The capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and other mechanics is all technical detail which belongs as-written. And yes, it all comes from the wonderful cited source. Besides, I've got rank on you here--I restore/repair ceiling fans for a living, in addition to the fact that I'm a collector and very well-versed in ceiling fan history. One edit in particular comes to mind, "removing POV" from the picture caption under the Casablanca Delta. Describing a 4-blade GE-vent fan as "generic" is completely accurate and is not a POV statement. That style, which is defined by its long-expired patents, was used nearly unilaterally in all mass-produced contractor/builder ceiling fans in the 1980s. It not being a debate of any nature, there is no POV to be had. The dictionary definition of "generic" completely and unquestionably applies to that defined style. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no rank in wikipedia. This is collective editing; anyone can edit wikipedia. Please read WP:REF especially the part about inline citations. Since you are an expert in this you must be especially careful to use inline citations to guard against original research WP:OR. Cleaning up language can include cleaning up style, which is a useful edit. I cannot assume that there is only one source in this article because in order for an article to meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, an article should have multiple independent sources. As people edit this article (it belongs to the collective wikipedia community who are free to edit it) there will be other sources added. Since wikipedia can be edit by anyone, in order for wikipedia to have credibility using the correct inline method of citing sources is essential. People are free to look at any claim in an article and add unless it already has inline citation. I certainly appreciate the contributions you have made to this article. Idioma 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will be happy to add inline citations to the source, useless as it is. As far as other sources go, there aren't any. "The Fan Book" is the one and only book written solely about ceiling fans; and there are no other books in the Library of Congress database which even have a section on ceiling fan history, evolution, or anything like that. Unfortunately, it's kind of a specialized subject area. So, everything in this article came from The Fan Book, and is verified by common knowledge (or, more accurately, knowledge that's common in the ceiling fan community). Having said that, IF you or anyone else can find another source, PLEASE list it here. I've searched high and low, and even gone so far as to contact PR reps at Emerson, Hunter, and Casablanca, and there is apparently no further information available (other than companies' personal history, which is relevant to an article about that company but is not relevant to ceiling fans in general). Thanks Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this statement "The capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and other mechanics is all technical detail which belongs as-written. And yes, it all comes from the wonderful cited source." It seems to say that the grammar and spelling came directly from another source. Please clarify. Idioma 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the grammar/mechanical structure came from an external source (the cited source). For example, you changed "The Diehl Electric Fan" to the Diehl electric fan. It is incorrect the way you've re-written it (so, once again, I reverted that change). Diehl was a brand; they made many electric fans; but that first model was named "The Diehl Electric Fan", capitalized in that way. This comes from the cited source. Since it is a proper model name, it must be formatted in the accurate way. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Idioma 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations added. Piercetheorganist 09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugger or Snugger fans

A section outlining the advantages and disadvantages of snugger fans would be appropriate. Idioma 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, "Snugger" is a trademark; it's Emerson's name for their hugger-style fan. Personally, I disagree that a separate section needs to be added. Hugger fans are no different from any other ceiling fan in any way, except for the fact that they don't have a downrod--something which is entirely unrelated to the fan's operation. The motor, blades, etc. is no different. Refer to the section "Bases for Comparison", subsection "Height of the fan relative to the ceiling", for more info on huggers if you're interested. That section details their sole disadvantage; it is appropriate for it to be in that section since it is not a problem unique to huggers (though all huggers have it). The sole advantage of a hugger is that it saves space--something which is such blatantly obvious common sense that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (any more than the statement "water is wet" belongs in the article on water). Basically my point is that huggers are no different from ordinary fans, and so don't deserve their own section any more than each decor-themed fan at Home Depot deserves its own section. Piercetheorganist 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good info. There are fans that appear to be different from ordinary fans that are huggers, such as the Concept II among others, it could use a subsection in the style section. Idioma 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Minka Aire's "Concept II" model is no different from any ordinary hugger ceiling fan. Same motor, same blades, same mounting method. It deserves its own section no more than fans of different colors deserve their own section. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does have the same type of motor, but from what I read, the blades are not flat, and it doesn't have a down tube. I think that a good number of people who buy fans would define style as visual rather than technical. While not all hugger fans are visually different they lack the down tube and some lack ceiling medallion. I believe that they are both visually and slightly functionally different, even they use the same motors. Idioma 00:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: you're wrong, they are not functionally different. They employ hub-mounted rotating paddles to circulate air, and their motor (which is not unique to them) is already covered comprehensively in the article. The differences between different types of fans are defined by technical aspects, not style; that's a rock-solid fact, not up for debate. This article is written to educate the uneducated about ceiling fans and their history. It's not a comparison of aesthetic styles...and the only difference between a hugger fan and a non-hugger fan is the aesthetic styling. Any other differences (say, some special blade offered on a hugger) are not inherently unique to huggers--so would need to be mentioned in the appropriate place (in that example, the section on blades). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "BASIS" for comparison? -Superbeecat 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha I've been waiting for someone to fall into that trap :-). The plural of "basis" (BAY-sis) is "bases" (BAY-sees). So since we're talking about more than one basis for comparison, it's "bases for comparison" (as opposed to basisis lol). Thanks. Piercetheorganist 09:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perceived Usefulness

In the "perceived usefulness section", in the paragraph about humidity, something doesn't seem right. I can see that perceived usefulness here means the need for a fan, and thus fans are needed more in more humid climates (as explained by ), but I read it to mean the actual usefulness of a single fan: a fan cools one more in a dry climate, thus the fan is perceived as being more useful. Does anyone else see this? ChrisMP1 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I disagree. A fan cools one more in a HUMID climate, according to the heat index article.

This is how the section you question currently reads:

"Since a fan creates its cooling effect by speeding the evaporation of moisture on human skin, its perceived usefulness is directly correlated with the amount of humidity (moisture) in the room. In dry environments, such as desert climates, a fan has a lesser perceived usefulness than in humid environments; this is especially notable during cold weather, where a humid environment has a pronounced wind-chill effect which is lacking in dry environments."

The introductory paragraph to the heat index article reads:

"The human body normally cools itself by perspiration, or sweating, in which the water in the sweat evaporates and carries heat away from the body. However, when the relative humidity is high, the evaporation rate of water is reduced. This means heat is removed from the body at a lower rate, causing it to retain more heat than it would in dry air.""

...thus proving that my original statement was correct. In humid climates, heat is naturally removed from the body at a lower rate than in dry climates, causing a person to remain hotter longer than in dry climates. Thus, there is a greater need for a fan than in desert climates--thus it is perceived as being more useful.

I'm originally from the east coast myself, and I lived here my whole life save for two years in Utah--a very distinct desert climate. The lack of humidity out there is actually quite a pleasure. In the summer there, it can be 105 degrees and feel no hotter than 85 here on the east coast--you look at the thermometer there and say "Wow, I didn't realize it's over 100--this isn't that uncomfortable!". I wasn't dying for a fan there, the way I do here. Also, the converse is true--the winters out there are more bearable than they are here. They don't seem as cold, because the humidity is really what adds the "bone-chilling" factor into the mix.

That's my opinion, FWIW Piercetheorganist 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. I'm stating that percieved usefulness is possibly being used in a confusing way. You're basically saying, that a fan that doesn't work as well (because of humidity) is perceived as being more useful because it will be needed more. However, perceived usefulness seems to me to mean that the fan is perceived as being more useful in a dry climate because it works better. IMHO. ChrisMP1 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple--I'm saying a fan is perceived as being more useful in humid climates, because it's harder for humans to naturally cool off in humid climates than in try climates. Piercetheorganist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand this. However, that's not what it sounds like in the article. Am I the only one who thinks this? Is anyone other than Piercetheorganist reading this talk page? ChrisMP1 01:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, upon re-reading it, I agree with you that my wording in the article is confusing and sounds incorrect. I went and changed it. Thanks for sticking up for your point!! I've always said that it's very important to have bi-partisan debate, by which I mean it's important to be forced to argue your side of an issue against someone with an opposing side--it's what sparks original thought, close examination of comfortable assumptions, et cetera. Had you not stuck up for your point, I never would have looked at my writing, and I wouldn't have seen my mistake, and I wouldn't have learned anything. So thanks for being a conscientious Wikipedian, ChrisMP1! Piercetheorganist 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you contradict yourself. You state that a fan cools one more in a HUMID climate, then go on to say that In humid climates, …, causing a person to remain hotter longer than in dry climates. IM(not-so)HO. ChrisMP1 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't contradict myself. You're still not getting it. "...when the relative humidity is high, the evaporation rate of water is reduced. This means heat is removed from the body at a lower rate, causing it to retain more heat than it would in dry air." What that means is that people have a harder time cooling off in humid climates, and so need fans more than people in dry climates (where it's easier to cool off due to the lack of ambient humidity). Piercetheorganist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, but you said that a fan cools one more in a HUMID climate. Now you're contradicting that again by saying that people in humid climates have a greater need for fans, thus the fan itself cools them less. ChrisMP1 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "perceived usefulness" is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined. Idioma 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not vague it all. The term "perceived usefulness" is extremely self-explanatory--it's how useful an observer perceives a fan to be. That subsection details a few different bases on which a fan's perceived usefulness is based...so it belongs exactly where it is: under the section "Bases for Comparison". Piercetheorganist 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question, though, Idioma: what's your motive here? Do you honestly thing that this article is in any way poorly-written, or that is does not give a complete and well-rounded basic-to-intermediate education in ceiling fans, or that it is hard to read/comprehend, or that it is inaccurate, or anything else like that? Or do you just still have your panties in a wad because I shot down your idea about adding a special section for huggers? Personally, I think this article is near flawless; very well-written, complete, highly educational, well thought-out, et cetera. If there's something specific that you think needs to happen, then post a detailed description of it here on the talk page (i.e. rather than saying "The term 'perceived usefulness' is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined.", say how it's vague, what you think would be better, and what rewrites you would propose were we to adopt a change to that term.)--in other words, don't be vague in your accusation of vagueness. Personally, I don't think that term is vague at all--I think it's night-and-day clearly self-explanatory. So back yourself up here--explain, in clear and convincing detail, why you think it's vague. Thanks. Piercetheorganist 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that your panties are in a wad, because somebody doesn't think that your article is perfect. How: it seems to mean the actual usefulness of a single fan - if the fan works better (cools one more), it's more useful. What would be better: include a definition of what "perceived usefulness" means. What rewrites: write said definition. Then it'll be night-and-day clearly self-explanatory, near flawless, very well-written, complete, highly educational, well though-out, et cetera. (Read that list of worship words. Yes, you wrote every single one. Wow, you do think highly of your writing…) Besides, Idioma's response wasn't lacking detail at all. You just got upset because nobody is ready to worship your article just yet. (P.S. No, I'm not Idioma, but here's your answer anyways.) ChrisMP1 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Chris. I think that, next time before you speak, you should take a good hard look at the userboxes on your userpage to make sure you're not contradicting yourself. Anyhow, no, I'm not looking for anyone to worship my article. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see that I read over what you said (re: the humidity topic), actually agreed with you, went and changed the article, and then publicly mentioned it here. I'm not looking for worship, or thanks. What I am looking for, however, is people to make points which are (a) valid and meaningful, (b) direct and clear, and (c) detailed and well-substantiated. Like I said to you before, "I've always said that it's very important to have bi-partisan debate, by which I mean it's important to be forced to argue your side of an issue against someone with an opposing side--it's what sparks original thought, close examination of comfortable assumptions, et cetera." This particular comment was directed at Idioma, however, and not you, because this was in response to his point about how "The term 'perceived usefulness' is vague and needs to be defined. The section may need a rewrite depending on how it is defined." I'm still waiting for his response, and I'm waiting for someone to substantiate the claim that "perceived usefulness" is vague, by explaining how it's vague, as I asked before. It's a two-word term; both words are common English; and both are being used in the colloquial definitions. I don't see room for "vague" there. Oh, and I still think my article is near flawless; very well-written, complete, highly educational, well thought-out, et cetera :-). Piercetheorganist 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I guess I got a little hot-headed. My rant was a little bit rude… Actually, the article is very good, and I apologize for not checking it. Also, in response to the userbox comment - I agree. I got very rude here, and I'm not normally like that, so you have my sincerest apologies. ChrisMP1 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, dude, it happens to all of us. I've said far worse. But thank you, I appreciate your apology :-). Piercetheorganist 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, Pierce please do not use inflammatory language such as "panties in a bunch". Such language does not contribute to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I am not here to promote my own agenda. I'm here to work together with others to create a resource for the world to use freely. The I think this article is very informative. However it needs work to conform to Wikipedia standards such asWP:NPOV among others that I have already communicated to you. This is partially due to it being authored almost entirely by one person who fights every single edit anyone else makes to it. "Perceived usefulness" is vague because different people find different features to be useful. These seem to be a list of items that you perceive to be useful. The confusion that lead to this discussion is because of this lack of definition. I cannot define useful means in this instance because I don't know what you find useful until after I read the section. Perceived is also a sticky word. Who's perception. Most apparently it is probably yours, or you will attribute it to "The Fan Book". If it is from the fan book, use inline citation (page numbers are always nice). I have repeatedly thanked you for your contributions to this article, I encourage you to continue to work in cooperation with others to improve this article. Instead of getting offended when people make suggestions and changes listen to their concern and see what you can do to improve the article, responding with civility. Kaizen. Idioma 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Other languages

Is there some fantastic easy Wikipedia way to see whether a page about the same topics has been written in another language? Piercetheorganist 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia doesn't know this, as the word for a ceiling fan would be different in another language. Unfortunately, you'd need to figure out the translation for "ceiling fan" in any language that you wanted to include a link to. To get you started: Esperanto - plafona ventumilo, Spanish - ventilador del techo. ChrisMP1 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw you added Esperanto. I added ventilador de techo (I typed "ventilador del techo" into Google, and the Spanish seem to go with the incorrect[?] grammar of using "de") as the Spanish link, and ventilateur de plafond (again, it should technically be "du", but the French go with "de") as the French link. I also created both those pages on the respective Wikipedias, and added the English-language link, so if anyone every writes those pages they'll automatically be linked in here. Piercetheorganist 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean to improve on the Esperanto article. Do you mind if I use translated text from this article? I don't know nearly as much as you do about this subject; I couldn't write much more than a stub, which is what I've done. ChrisMP1 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to! If there's anything I typed that's too much of a fan-world vernacular to translate, let me know, and I'll define it as best I can. Piercetheorganist 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your blank article on the Spanish Wikipedia has been deleted, so I removed the link. ChrisMP1 14:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks! Piercetheorganist 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)