Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation)

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

What is a light bulb?

It's not clear to me that today's edit is correct. While it would once have been clearly true that the primary meaning of "light bulb" was "incandescent light bulb", it is not so obvious that that is still true. The term "light bulb" is certainly commonly applied to some other forms of lamp, such as compact fluorescent lamps and LED bulbs. --Srleffler (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srleffler. The edit you are referring to is one I made yesterday. Sorry about the late reply; I've been busy with other matters on Wikipedia. Good thing that I placed this disambiguation page on my WP:Watchlist; otherwise, I would not have known about your above comment unless I checked back in to see if anyone had contested my change. As you know, I made a similar edit with regard to the Light bulb redirect. As noted in my edit summaries, I made these edits because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; among sources, judging by common use of the term light bulb, as well as common imagery as to what a light bulb is, I believe that what is primarily meant by the term light bulb is incandescent light bulb. I see that you also felt this way, but in 2006 and 2007, seen here and here; however, I see that you were also conflicted about this matter in 2007. When I saw this and this edit by an IP and that you had not reverted, I assumed that you agreed with that IP or that you didn't care much about whether or not the term was noted as most commonly being associated with the incandescent light bulb. If it is best to start a WP:RfC about this matter, which I think it is, I don't mind that. It just doesn't seem best to me to redirect readers to the Lamp (electrical component) article when they type in or click on "light bulb"; I was surprised that an article about the light bulb was as poor as the Lamp (electrical component) article is; soon after reading that article's talk page, however, I realized that the article I meant to go to was located at Incandescent light bulb. Yes, I also refer to certain compact fluorescent lamps as light bulbs, but I expected those to be included in a general Light bulb article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a usage that is likely evolving, given that traditional incandescent light bulbs are no longer available in parts of the English-speaking world, and will I believe in a couple months be unavailable in a much larger part of it. I'm content with either definition for the moment, but am concerned both that Wikipedia should not anticipate the future, nor should it be bound by a traditional definition past the point where it no longer holds out in the real world.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "evolving usage" argument makes sense. I still think that, since this matter will keep coming up (even if occasionally), we need a big discussion on this it, with different editors weighing in on it, so that there is WP:Consensus about what to do in this case. That stated, I'm obviously okay with letting my light bulb edits stay intact. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a year later, and I think it's time to switch to "Lamp (electrical component)" as the primary usage. It's clear that people (at least where I live) are using "light bulb" to refer to things other than incandescent lamps. Boldly giving it a try...--Srleffler (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. I suggest either alerting Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to this discussion or starting a WP:RfC on it, or both. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to get some discussion going to establish consensus. I'm curious, though: can you still actually buy traditional incandescent light bulbs where you live? Have people there not started referring to CFLs and LED bulbs as "light bulbs"?--Srleffler (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to this discussion. And, yes, I can still get incandescent light bulbs where I live (Pensacola, Florida). And, of course, people refer to compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and LED lamps (LED bulbs) as light bulbs where I live; I didn't dispute that (that people refer to those things as light bulbs) last year. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here, I noted this discussion at Talk:Incandescent light bulb. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

NAC:The redirect now points to [[Lamp (electrical component}]], and that appears to be consistent with consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has become unclear what the primary meaning of the term light bulb is now. Traditionally, light bulb has unambiguously referred to an incandescent light bulb, and the term currently redirects there. Incandescent light bulbs are being rapidly replaced by other technologies, however, and are no longer available in some places. In common usage, "light bulb" is at least sometimes being applied to other technologies such as compact fluorescent lamps and LED lamps. Is it still true that "incandescent light bulb" is the primary topic in this case?

A quick survey of online dictionaries finds that most still define a light bulb as an incandescent lamp, but that a few including American Heritage, MacMillan, and Random House have broader definitions.--Srleffler (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion, the Incandescent light bulb article is still the WP:Primary topic for the term light bulb; see above where I and Srleffler discussed this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems to me that a "light bulb" is a thing you screw/plug into a fixture to produce light, and in common usage that would include CFLs and LEDs (which are often made to resemble the "old timey" kind now anyway). As much as language purists may want the public lexicon to be specific, people have been saying light bulb for a very long time and I don't believe there has yet been a collective shift to saying "I need to go pick up a CFL bulb." The average reader would go to light bulb expecting an article or at the least a disambig page that includea and/or leads them to all of the current technologies.— TAnthony^Talk 20:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of this RFC I'll point out that the alternate redirect destination being discussed for lightbulb is Lamp (electrical component), which I would support.— TAnthony^Talk 20:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TAnthony, for me, it's not a matter of being a language purist. How I feel on this matter is clear above, in the initial section. And I'd rather not repeat it here in this section when editors can just scroll up and read the short debate there. Also, the Incandescent light bulb article addresses the aforementioned light bulbs. And, obviously, anyone looking for the other light bulbs can click on the disambiguation link currently noted at the top of the Incandescent light bulb article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a dispute like this, I would usually put it to the most reliable sources on the subject. In this case, since we're talking about words and not things, then the most reliable sources I can think of are dictionaries. I think Funk and Wagnalls says it best: "Definitions in this dictionary are adapted to the nature of the word. Any effort to tailor all words to fit a rigid pattern of definition would result in a distortion rather than a clarification of meaning.... Either the most relevant or most general meaning is given first, depending on the sequence which will best convey to the user the interrelations between the various meanings of the entry." In other words, rather than us deciding which is the most valid meaning, let the dictionary decide, based upon its order of entry, which is the most suitable meaning as of this date. (That meaning will likely change in the near future, but for now, follow the sources.) Zaereth (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth, yes, WP:Primary topic is about following the WP:Reliable sources. Well, that, and WP:Common sense. Not so much specifically dictionary sources, especially since dictionary sources are sometimes behind on matters and/or not sufficient sources for the depth of a topic, but I understand what you mean in this case. And as you can see above, Srleffler pointed to dictionary sources. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, dictionaries are usually quite up to date, considering they have to constantly follow the constant changing of language, plus they need to examine each word in its entirety of context. (It's far easier to write an encyclopedia than to write a dictionary.) Personally, I'm not taking any stand one way or the other. I haven't looked up the current definitions to see, but I think a comparison of three or four of the most reliable, most-current definitions would yield an answer we could all live with ... for now. Zaereth (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth (last time pinging you to this section via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you are interested in replies), there are often a lot of cases on Wikipedia where dictionaries are not up to date and/or are insufficient, such as regarding legal or medical matters, or even sexual matters; I've seen it time and time again. A dictionary source, for example, is usually not a good source to use for a medical article; instead, a WP:MEDRS-compliant source -- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) -- is. I also can't agree that an encyclopedia is far easier to write than a dictionary is. Well, I mean that I can't generally agree with that. And this is because if that were the case, there would not be so many people creating dictionary-like Wikipedia entries...and the WP:Not a dictionary policy would not exist. But I'm not here to debate whether or not dictionaries are usually sufficient sources to use for encyclopedic content; they often are, but I wouldn't state "usually are"...except for in WP:WORDISSUBJECT cases. And I'd rather that this WP:RfC, which is barely getting any responses as it is, not get bogged down by people having a WP:Too long, didn't read mindset. Flyer22 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I concur with TAnthony about current usage, and would like to reiterate that dictionaries are wholly unsuitable to establish a primary topic, especially in an area where technological change may have left even fairly recently updated dictionaries quite far behind the times in terms of usage. A survey of dictionaries might actually contain some examples reflecting modern usage, but a large number of them are not going to have been updated in time to reflect the changing technology, so a median usage is going to be hopelessly out-of-date. I think the only way to establish "light bulb" → "incandescent" would be to find an overwhelming preponderance still being exhibited by modern newspapers/magazine articles/etc, in a place where CFL and LED technologies are generally available, where the term "light bulb", without being qualified as "incandescent" is being explicitly contrasted with CFL or LED bulbs. That is a litmus that is not being met in any context I have seen. Van Isaac_WS^cont 18:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No; we need a WP:CONCEPTDAB here. Red Slash 01:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No not a lot to add to the above, would definitely like to see a concept DAB here. A google search reveals results on the first page for incandescent, halogen, LED and unspecified "energy saving" bulbs. A google image search reveals mostly incandescents but also several energy savers and halogen spots. A google shopping search reveals a mixed bag, including edison squirrel cage bulbs and a quick survey of the people around me (17, no technical expertise) reveals they think of anything with a fixed base and 'Glass top which you fit into a lamp or light fitting to illuminate something as a light bulb. They struggled to define it but it definitely included incandescent, halogen and clusters of LED's but not individual LEDs. SPACKlick (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have consensus that "light bulb" is now broader than "incandescent light bulb". If there is no further objection, I'll change the redirect to point to Lamp (electrical component) for now; a more focused concept dab could be created later, if there is the need.--Srleffler (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never disagreed that "light bulb" refers to more than "incandescent light bulb"; I've been adamant that "incandescent light bulb" is the WP:Primary topic for "light bulb." I still believe that, especially since the little proof provided above points in that direction, whether one wants to argue that the dictionaries are out of date or whatever. Not to mention that WP:Primary topic is partly about historical usage. But WP:Consensus is against me on this matter, so proceed as you will. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - dab concept needed, can't add to other's. Widefox; talk 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the primary topic is correctly a redirect to the dab concept Lamp (electrical component), all but one of the dab items are examples of the dab concept, already covered there so should not be included in the dab per WP:CONCEPTDAB. That leaves WP:TWODABS with one non-primary, which I've marked as such. Widefox; talk 12:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update

WP:Pinging people involved in the previous WP:RfC: Srleffler, TAnthony, Zaereth, Vanisaac, Red Slash, SPACKlick, and Widefox. This "27 November 2014" edit by Widefox makes me question why the Light bulb (disambiguation) page is needed; it is not needed to point to Lightbulbs (album), since a WP:Hatnote for that would suffice. And this "06:02, 19 March 2015" edit by Ticklewickleukulele makes me wonder if people will be looking for the Electric light article when they type in, or click on, the term light bulb; I highly doubt that they will. Per what I stated above, I still believe that they will generally be looking for the Incandescent light bulb article, but since WP:Consensus decided that we should not re-redirect the term light bulb to the Incandescent light bulb article, I ask the following questions: How is the current disambiguation page helpful to our readers? And by "helpful," I mean a benefit or a necessary benefit. And how is it good to have readers directed to the Electric light article when they type in, or click on, the term light bulb? Anyone have a better idea? In the aforementioned WP:RfC, editors mentioned WP:CONCEPTDAB. But does that mean we should go ahead and keep the Lamp (electrical component) page, and fix it up, and then remove redundancy from the Electric light article? Does it mean that the Electric light article should be the WP:CONCEPTDAB page even though it's not strictly about light bulbs? Or does it mean that the title should be Light bulb? I'm thinking that editors would prefer the title be Light bulb. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Ticklewickleukulele's edit. Before replacing the existing article with a redirect, he should have discussed it on the talk page. We would also have to make sure that a proper merge between the two articles is done. You're right that the dab page could be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote. It would be a good idea to have a discussion on merging Lamp (electrical component) and Electric light, and what the appropriate title for the merged article would be. This is the wrong talk page for that discussion, however; it should be done on one of those two articles' talk pages, with merge tags on the articles to direct editors to the discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I see that Srleffler reverted Ticklewickleukulele four minutes before I posted the above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this dab: No new items have arrived, and I still can't find any so per WP:TWODABS it qualifies for G6 speedy, and I've set the hatnote.

For the redirect edit of the other page, I suggest moving the discussion there (nothing to see here). Widefox; talk 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, regarding this speedy deletion tag you added, I think that this talk page should be preserved because of the discussion history. It is not unheard of that the talk page of a deleted page remains. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hidden note about it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this talk page's discussion history should be transferred to a different, related talk page, with a note about that at the top of the section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note in the G6 "note to admin - please merge talk to Lamp (electrical component)". Widefox; talk 10:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Template:g8-exempt tag, Avicennasis. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]