Talk:Architectural lighting design/Archive 1

Archive 1

sales-promoting illumination

Im not sure here is apropriate or if it deserves an own article, but in the last years we have seen sales promoting illumination become more popular, for example using a bright customized light source which will make for example fruit look fresher compared to in a normal light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.196.138.178 (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reflectance Table

• Colors

70-80% White

70-80% Light cream

55-65% Light yellow

45-50% Light green

45-50% Pink

40-45% Sky-blue

40-45% Light grey

25-35% Beige

25-35% Yellow ocher

25-35% Light brown

25-35% Olive green

20-25% Orange

20-25% Vermilion red

20-25% Medium grey

10-15% Dark green

10-15% Dark blue

10-15% Dark red

10-15% Dark grey

• Materials

95% Mirror

80% Plaster

65-75% White enamel

60-75% Glazed white tiles

60% Maple

60% Birch

40% Light oak

15-20% Dark oak

15-20% Dark walnut

15-40% Concrete

5-25% Red brick

2-10% Carbon-black

6-8% Clear glass

• Lighting design

60-90% Ideal Ceilings

35-60% Ideal Walls

30-50% Ideal Countertops

-69.87.203.133 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

pathetic stub

This article needs about ten times as much real content. -69.87.203.133 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page is very much written from the point of view of an industry insider with an axe or two to grind. The history of architectural lighting is much richer than a list of professional bodies. I suggest this article desperately needs a history section, with references to professional bodies only where notable. Notable buildings and monuments are completely neglected. The list of professional bodies could be appended, if we really need to have it at all -- Headlessness 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Have made some structural changes to the article that I hope will promote its encyclopedic development -- Headlessness 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Headlessness but suggest merging with lighting until such time as there is enough content for a stand alone article.--Thorseth (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger into Design section of Lighting article

Having read the guidelines on merging articles I went ahead and merged this article with the Design section of the Lighting article. However, this merger has been undone in order to discuss the issue with other editors of this page. Hence this addition. I strongly believe that the "architectural" distinction in lighting design is niche at best. Further, this entire article contains much less useful information than the section of the page which I propose merging into. Indeed, I have already merged across the salient points from here, and all that remains is to redirect this article to there. If anyone has justification for "Architectural lighting design" being significantly distinct from "lighting design", please contribute to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headlessness (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're right, that means the section needs to come out of Lighting and moved over here. It's a large field, notable on its own - with many books, experts, etc. It stands on its own as a subject. The sheer number of references and links from within Wikipedia (I'll clean a few up) is an indication that this is a notable subject on its own. If anything, the material concerning architectural lighting should be condensed in the lighting article and moved over here. Also, we need to make a distinction between architectural lighting design, designers, and the lighting itself (installations, examples, and equipment). Lighting is a much broader issue that encompasses all kinds of illumination - small devices, portable lighting, automotive lighting, streetlights, etc. Further, even regarding interior lighting and illuminating buildings and other structures, there is often a distinction made between simply lighting something (i.e. without significant design considerations) and an architectural lighting design. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right, but as you see no one has put in the work that is needed to get this article up to speed. If you feel strongly about the subject, I suggest that you start adding content. It is my experience that when the size and quality of an article increases so does the number of editors (a sort of avalanche/snowball effect). Architecture is not my field so ill not be of much help, but I do look in from time to time. Thanks--Thorseth (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aboslutely enough for a separate article. Don't re-merge. I've got some references, for example, on lighting structures for aircraft warning and markers for runways...there's a lot of art and science to describe. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expert on this issue, but I think having a separate article from the architectural point of view is necessary. --Wayiran (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No further commentary, time to move some text from Lighting and remove this tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)