Talk:Automotive lighting/Archive 5

Global point of view to be added
Hans Haase, you are adding (and I am deleting) a lot of unsupported claims that just don't stand up, as well as random incoherent text that doesn't seem to belong, especially not where you put it. Examples from your most recent edits:

"The 1977 Oldsmobile 88 has no rear side marker and was equipped with tail lights over corner"

Bull. The 1977 Oldsmobile 88, like every other 1977 (and 1970...and 1980...and 1990...and 2014) vehicle built to USA or Canada specifications, was -- in accordance with the mandatory legal requirements of Federal/Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- designed and built with front (amber) and rear (red) side marker lights and reflex reflectors. These do not have to be separate, discrete items, they can be integral to the tail lights (rear) or parking lights (front). The split between integral and separate side markers is roughly half and half, and there is nothing unusually notable or special about the lighting system configuration on a 1977 Oldsmobile. Legally there is no difference between integral and separate side markers; they must meet the same requirements no matter which type they are. The fact that a tail light is visible to the side does not make it an acceptable side marker light; just wrapping the red lens around to the side is not legally or technically sufficient. "No rear side marker" has not been a legal option for vehicles built for sale in the USA or Canada since January of 1970. So, where is your reliable support for your claim the 1977 Oldsmobile 88 has no rear side marker?


 * REMOVED ANSWER by IP:
 * No, its no BS at all! When using dedicates turn signals, even red ones, often single bulbs were used. Conbined ones are likely redundand, but less before the 1960es, more to present. It would require a list of vehiles.

"1977 Toyota Hiace, 1983 Mitsubishi L300, Volvo 240 and 740 in European version had the white front position markers placed over corner."

For one thing, there is no such light function as "front position marker". There are front position lamps and there are side marker lamps. Those terms are clearly defined (with good quality citations to primary-source documents) in this article. Encyclopedic writing must be precise, so why are you trying to introduce terms that don't actually exist? Number one. Number two...even if there weren't a terminology issue...where's the relevance of this ungrammatical comment about the white "front position markers" being placed "over corner" on the 1977 Toyota Hiace, 1983 Mitsubishi L300, Volvo 240 and 740? So what if it was? The European versions of those vehicles did not have side markers, and these vehicles are hardly alone (i.e. not notable) in having their front position lamps located at the right and left corners of the vehicle. I'd ask where your support is for these claims about these vehicles, but it doesn't matter because these claims are not relevant.

"Vehicles with combined red stop and turn lights often use redundant bulbs."

Bull. Some do, but many don't. I challenge you to come up with reliable support for this bizarre claim.

"Only vew models had redundant amber tail turn signals installed, like Mercedes-Benz W140 and V140 or Daewoo Espero/Aranos in the trunk lid."

There is no such word as "vew", I guess you mean "few". There is no such light function as "tail turn signal"; there are tail lights and there are turn signals. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so if English isn't your first language, please get some help with it. More important, where is your reliable support for any of these three claims (only a few models have redundant amber turn signals, the Mercedes W140 and V140 has redundant amber turn signals, the Daewoo Espero/Aranos has redundant amber turn signals in the trunk lid)?

"When side markers in the Europan Union were no longer prohibited, the Volvo S80 was one of the first equipped with dedicated markers."

This contains a kernel of some good encyclopedic information, but it's half-baked and it looks like the rest of the material you put in (i.e. it looks like something you think you just know). Please cite your source for this assertion that the S80 was one of the first cars to have "dedicated" (what do you mean by this?) side markers in the European Union, and also please cite your source for the statement that side markers were prohibited in the EU.

When you are being serially reverted...when your 3O request comes back against your opinion...when your AN/I report is ignored...when your request for a block on the user reverting you is ignored, that means EITHER all of Wikipedia is ganging up against you, OR you're doing it wrong and your complaints don't have merit. Obviously the correct answer is #2. Now please stop crudding up the article with word-soup and let's figure out -- here on the talk page -- what it is you're trying to say, how much of it is supportable in accordance with WP:RS, and work together to improve the article. Thank you. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1983 Olds Delta 88 Royale.jpg (1977–1985) was equipped with tail lights over corner substituting the rear side markers, see pictures and service manual]]


 * 1979_Chevrolet_Caprice_Landau.jpg required side markers.]]
 * The Ford F Series is also referenced by pictures, only. The Olds 88 solved this with 2 redundand bulbs only. Used for stop, turn, position and markers.
 * Toyota Hiace (second generation) D front.jpg]]
 * Mitsubishi L300, WAW.jpg = L300, 2nd Generation 1977]]
 * 99-03 Volvo S80 2.9.jpg]]


 * We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it. The automotive lights manufacturer Hella refered to an EU regulation permitting SMLs since 1996 without quotation title number or reviewable. "Sicherheit in Gelb" (=Savety it yellow) 30 NOV 2000. Europe had never been open, publishing regulations and especially specifications on the web. In the 1970s to middle 1990s imported US vehicles to Europe required to uninstall side markers and center stop lights, their cabled to be cut and sometimes brackets and supports to be removed as well to revent reinstallation.


 * As pregnant the article was written, I carefully contributed a diagram of practical use, showing some details in different and in common. As you discussed, to rm the diags, we agreed to write plain text and you are continuing to revert every of my edits. I see you are trying to integrade the missing information, but this is broken down to a single detail. The symbols in the diag were linked and described in imagemaps. Even children would understand in by moving the mouse over. I already predicted, the substituded text would inflate the article or giving minor information of it. It appears you to solve this by edit war. So again: redundant aber turns signals are very rarely, but have been built. Combined turn and stop signals often are redundand, but not indicated on failure. An european side turn signal is 5 watts only and also unindicated without CAN or similar bus systems. A question for the reader should be: Why do I need indication of failures instead having redundacy as backup? The other little detail on redundant bulbs is the phyicals effect we know from the Centennial Light. Whenever you had a failed light bulb, did it fail in operation or during power up? Bulbs share their inrush current. The voltage is beeing dropped on wires fuses and switches. Turn singals are limmited in inrush current by the shut inside the flasher. Do you want to search sources for all this or keep it as it is in a nice little diagram, referenced by service manuals, for readers who want to see and go deeper into details? It may result, the american engineeing ha(s/d) many useful product attributs ahead.

I see we return to discussion. Some reliable information is here (german)


 * See a practical use f.e. Volkswagen Golf Mk2s Europan confuguration is "dead" of side markers. Turn asnd stop was over corner only. Tail light and stop were dedicated chambers and single wire bulbs only.


 * It is not to reduce the article to the american regulation only and use finding a theory to associate some vehicles as it already is. It is to verify and add a practical part to a high-importance automobile article to give it a high quality. Here is another cherry: At 30 JUN 2010, the EU allowd red tail markers when the marker is intgrated into the tail light by an Update of regulation no. 91 from 15 OCT 2008. When it is a dedicated unit, it still requires to emit amber light. --Hans Haase (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Um...no. You're mostly wrong. First of all, for god's sake, do not crap up the talk page by interspersing your comments with existing comments (mine or anyone else's). We use THREADED conversations on the talk page. Your comments go UNDER mine, all in one block, then my response goes UNDER yours, all in one block.


 * As for your comment itself, it's mostly wrong, too. Looking at cars (or pictures of cars) and deciding you know and understand what you're seeing correctly and well enough to put it in an encyclopedia is a non-starter. It's a direct violation of WP:NOR. Your interpretation of what you think you see on a car or in a picture (or what you claim to have seen in an unspecified service manual) is not reliable. If you can find WP:RS compliant support for your claims, great! Otherwise, no. Speaking of supporting assertions: if there are no rear side markers on a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, how come this reliable source says there are? Same for the 1983 Delta 88. So much for your claim to have "looked in the service manual". The rear side markers are built into the tail lamps, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent!


 * As for your "pregnant" diagrams (whatever you think that means): They were inaccurate, unsupported, arcane, and even the 3rd opinion you sought said they shouldn't be in the article. Even if the diagrams had been accurate, nobody ever said they would be replaced element-for-element by text.


 * You write Combined turn and stop signals often are redundand, but not indicated on failure.That's the second or third time you've made this claim. It's not accurate, and you can't support it reliably because you made it up. Likewise you made up these supposed "reader questions". This is not the place to write a school report about car lights, and it's not the place to write up your version of a service manual, it's an encyclopedia article and whether you mean to or not, you're damaging it by inserting factually incorrect material that isn't supported (because it's not supportable, because it's wrong and/or made up).


 * You also write again: redundant aber turns signals are very rarely, but have been built. Well, again, repeating your claim doesn't verify it. Say it ten times, say it twenty-nine times, it's still unsupported. If you can support the assertion with a reference to a valid primary source, great, do so. But continuing to put it in the article just based on nothing but your personal beliefs of what you think you know will probably continue to get it deleted. And you haven't bothered supporting your claim (if you even can) that iIn the 1970s to middle 1990s imported US vehicles to Europe required to uninstall side markers and center stop lights, their cabled to be cut and sometimes brackets and supports to be removed as well to revent reinstallation, either.


 * Also, when you're digging up support for your claims, try to do a proper job of it. You claim At 30 JUN 2010, the EU allowd red tail markers when the marker is intgrated into the tail light by an Update of regulation no. 91 from 15 OCT 2008 Look at the correct regulation (Regulation 48) and you'll find the allowance for rear side markers (no such function as "tail markers") to be red if they are grouped, combined, or reciprocally incorporated with another rear lighting function dates back many years before the 2010 date you think you found in Regulation 91.


 * You also write We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it and It may result, the american engineeing ha(s/d) many useful product attributs ahead. This word-soup doesn't mean anything (and neither does the babble about the Centennial light), so please try again in actual English that's actually relevant. Same with your thing about It is not to reduce the article to the american regulation only and use finding a theory to associate some vehicles as it already is -- What? This article contains a huge amount of coverage of international (=European) practice, there's no way a reasonable person could claim it's been "reduced to the American regulation only".


 * And you write The automotive lights manufacturer Hella refered to an EU regulation permitting SMLs since 1996 without quotation title number or reviewable. Side markers have been allowed in Europe a whole lot longer than just since 1996. Do more and better research. And you write Europe had never been open, publishing regulations and especially specifications on the web. Oh really? Then how come I had such an easy time finding all the European regulations right on the web, downloadable for free in multiple languages, and with historical versions, too?


 * Seriously, dude, there's plenty of work to be done on this article without making new problems. You're making new problems. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First: Why you have removed some of my answers?
 * Second: Keep headings neutral is in WP:INTERSPERSE, also Don't praise in headings, Random factoids being added is biasing the section for 3O.


 * Further REMOVED ANSWERS


 * Yes, I mean "few", sorry. Click to enlarge, I refered to the best pictures, I found. More information requires to refer parts lists and service manuals. I confirm I have seen this configuration only.


 * We cant write about how useful it is to know about a failed turn singnal instead having already installed backup for it.

---
 * Next REMOVED answer
 * Automotive_lighting here it is!
 * Regulated with some special exclusions in § 51 German StVZO. de:Standlicht required front white (often 2,5 watts) backup to headlight failure, optional park position. Do not be confussed, most of the pictures on the web are not for use in road traffic. Some patch the turn signals to markers and offr this. A regular use is here: See btw. the turn signals integrated to the head lamp on VW Golf 4 ( = Volkswagen Golf Mk4) caused the turn signal to be less visible when head lamps turned on, it was called the "egg a la sun in the sky effect" (= Spiegelei-Effekt, use google translator). It was solved by moving the 2,5 watts "Standlicht" to the sights reflector and add a second turn signal instead. A typical patch sharing the white position "Standlicht" with the amber turn signal is most usen in Mercedes Benz vehicles.


 * Unspecified service manual(s) Doing the diagrams, I refered some manuals and reviewed by functionality of VW, GM in EU and US to cover most commons and differents. In refering them as source. These manuals could not be that wrong to mislead technicians.


 * Side markers on a 1977 / 1983 Oldsmobile Delta 88. So much for your claim to have "looked in the service manual". The rear side markers are built into the tail lamps, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent!. There was an second version. The vehicle targeted several markets. The link to OSRAM supports the other version, like this: 1979 and 1983 were face lifts. If uses 1156 1157 and dedicated marker. The most common version used two 1157 (or 1157A) lamps only. The law required markers, but not dedicated ones. It is not to use a special bulb, it is to emit light. So even the marker was redundant.


 * We faced some guidlines and usage of sources, beginning with books. As you may not own such, you should have access to it. I do not tend to use a product offer from a lamp or bulb manufacturer, only. In case of supporting the Olds 88, OSRAM did not cover the cars variations. Hella was less precisely to refer regulations, but meet the truth.


 * Qute: I think the two schematics are a very obscure way of presenting the differences between how American and European turn signals and brake lights are connected - it would be better to describe the differences in plain text, rather than expect the reader to deduce the difference after scratching her head over the unnecessarily detailed schematic. Not everyone reads wiring diagrams as their native script. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So you tell me I would make problems? Quote: Seriously, dude, there's plenty of work to be done on this article without making new problems. You're making new problems. 24.87.80.234 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) No! Really I am rid of discussing about guidelines if you, I guess so, only collect some garbage from the web, removing my answers, biasing section titles of discussion. The only characteristic in common is to removed my contributions. I already explained to give pregnant information, I refered from books. This way would comply all WP:RS and other guidelines. An IP started a talk to remove this information under minor argument WP:UGH. When comming up with Wtshymanski's option, the IP reverts and reverts and reverts. When coming back to the discussion, I found my answers restructured and even the WP:RS complaint references removed and furter declared as Bull and crap up. The contrib I prefered first was to prevent all interpretation and origin resiearch. The plain text enforces such or ingores several facts. I never would read an article about and chemical substance and remove formula or diagrams as WP:UGH. Finally stop the libricide! The diagrams still were imagemaps. By moving the mouse over, it told about the symbol you are over. All else is following wires, achievable by analphabets as well, means not too complicated. I finally as you one question: Are you with the wikipedia or are you against it? --Hans Haase (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * An other opinion and review was asked here. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Automotive lighting
Cyberbot II has detected links on Automotive lighting which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-cts-consumer-compact-v7-en-may-2012.pdf
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The need of knowledge
As the article does not contain practical knowledge, and I am not sure to talk with a single opposing party, after the death of Sandra Bland and the shooting of Walter Scott, the videos do not show to proof on malfunction but still the drivers have been blamed. I guess it is time to start a discussion to bring information to the article instead of copy of laws text only that can be found somewhere else and combined with political or sales interests. The idea of Wikipedia from Jimmy Wales differs totally from that. Wikipedia should provide knowledge, not detain it from the public. In the videos, the right turn signal of Sandra Bland's car has never appeared, but she gave way for the police car. The officer did not order her to turn on turn signals of hazard flasher to test functionality. The right stop light of Walter Schott's car was not in the view of the camera when the left stop light appeared. A question on the Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 March 7 with the request for review was not completed. There was a mistake causing the hazard lamps to turn permanent. It was not found by the reviewers. I think, it is time to make new decision and stop longer taking about "forum shopping" or "UGH". -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bulk of your bizarre, rambling jeremiad—Sandra Bland, Jimbo Wales, etc—has no relevance to this article. The rest is just more of your same old willfully-oblivious whinge. The answers you previously got right here on this page (and in your disingenuous little forum-shopping escapade) are still the answers, no matter how often you whine about it: Your drawings don't fit in this article because they aren't correct, they aren't representative, and they aren't otherwise helpful. Kindly please cut it out (again). —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your word, Scheinwerfermann, will You be ready to draw a better one? You also may download it and fix all You find and see as wrong. The goal is to bring the most representative basics to the article. Features and variants of other manufacturers I have declared as good as possible. This is still the most likely simplified circuit diagram of a typical used circuits of its generation. It requires to provide basic information. Would You draw a better one or clear tell me what is wrong? -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no particular dog in this hunt, I just happened on this discussion, but I have to say it does look pretty much definitively like numerous times Hans Haase has already been told what's wrong with his drawings, and he just seems to have difficulty hearing what he's being told. I think this is a case of "asked and answered...and answered...and answered". Pogorrhœa (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked again for a review and I got again an oppinion, only. Followed by the 10th contribution of an new user, telling me I would not hear and not answering my question about review. Such contributions have something in common with a pamphlete. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Structuring and Splitting proposal
I find this article monstrous from a length perspective. It is unnecessarily broad and deep at the same time. I think many sections should be split off and this article reduced to strictly emphasize breadth at the expense of depth, and link to related main articles as needed. Here are two proposed changes (personally opinionated): split off "4 Conspicuity, signal and identification lights", link to it via a Main article entry, and provide a short summary here instead; also, "7 Light sources" to be migrated to a page titled "automotive lighting technologies" or similar. Skl (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Monstrous"...? That is an extreme idea! What, it is taking too many pages for you to print it out, and then the stack of paper is making too heavy for you to carry on the cross-country plane trip...? It is the giant, hulking, towering mountain of article that is causing the browser to become crashed and is bringing the computer to the grinding halt and causing the ISP to bill you with the surcharges and throttle the bandwidth for attempting to download such massive article? Your smartphone has exploded in balls of fire? What??? I'm being sardonic, but please come on: what real issue this article is causing for you? What objective standard you are using, please, to judge this article as being "unnecessarily" broad and "unnecessarily" deep? Maybe we shall be taking away the "unnecessary" breadth and depth by removing facts...then you are happy with it? Another way how to describe the article, but with the positive spin, is that it is covering the subject matter thoroughly. At least one of the Wikipedia's length guideline documents says, "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". How you are sure this is not one of those? I am not.


 * As for your proposals, yes, I agree like you say, they are "personally opinionated". I go further: they look like the random and arbitrary suggestions to me. They would shorten this article, but they would also create the new need for the readers to go to multiple articles instead of one. I don't think that's necessarily improvement. So: I disagree. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Skullydyvan, I have just restored the text you removed from this talk page in this edit. You are permitted to remove or edit your own comments on a talk page (though this should be done within the guidelines at the link), and it looks like you thought better of the personal attack you posted to this page and removed it. That's good, but you are generally not permitted to edit other users' comments except in certain very specific situations, none of which was the case here. If you have a disagreement with 24.87.84.143 (or any other editor), there are many effective ways of resolving it. You can discuss it with the other user on your talk page or theirs, and if that fails there are many other steps you can take. 174.21.168.24 (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support splitting. The proposal makes sense, because the article is too big, and other-language projects have individual articles for each type of lamp. Each lamp type also has their own history, which is completely missing, and this article does not sufficiently reflect the world-wide point of view. - Mardus /talk 20:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Parking lights
There are slightly complex rules about parking light requirements here in the UK, and I imagine there will be similar legislation in the US and elsewhere. The article needs to add this as an additional chapter. 80.47.170.163 (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

CHMSL?
I've never heard or seen "CHMSL" before - in my experience it's always been CHMBL (Brake Light). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.90.196 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Indicator stalk location
The article currently states "In most cases, the signal stalk is on the outboard side of the column: the left side in a left-hand drive car, or the right side in a right-hand drive car." This may be the case in Japan, but it certainly isn't in the UK, where the only vehicle I've ever driven with an RH stalk was a 1988 Toyota MR2. As far as I can tell, RH stalks on British-built cars had died out by the mid-1970s. I put it to The Panel that the statement concerning stalk location is at best dubious. Mr Larrington (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

But turn signals, other safety signals, etc. DO dazzle people.
The article currently claims:


 * "As with all vehicle lighting and signalling devices, turn-signal lights must comply with technical standards that stipulate minimum and maximum permissible intensity levels, minimum horizontal and vertical angles of visibility, and minimum illuminated surface area to ensure that they are visible at all relevant angles, do not dazzle those who view them, and are suitably conspicuous in conditions ranging from full darkness to full direct sunlight."

This is blatantly false. These things do dazzle people. I've often stumbled into the street after being hit and disoriented by turn signals and other dangerous safety signals. Though it's hard to verify that it is false, since there doesn't seem to be much concern fo the effects of "safety" signals on neurodivergent people. 96.255.9.115 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah, no. That isn't a "claim" in the article, it's a statement backed by references to two bedrock-solid primary sources. If you feel you've been dangerously glared by turn signals, it's not because they're designed carelessly, it's because you -- as you acknowledge -- are neurodivergent in a way that makes you unusually sensitive to light. If you're so ultra-sensitive to relatively low light intensitites that you feel "hit" and "disoriented" by them, then turn signals designed to accommodate your special needs would probably not be of adequate intensity to do their job for people who do not share your super-sensitivity. We don't have a thing in Kitchen stove that says "Oh, and kitchen stoves are unsafe because people who have no feeling in their hands and are neurodivergent in a way that makes them lack the usual instinct to avoid self-harm can be badly burned by touching the hot burners"; this is no different than that. Pogorrhœa (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Flashing CHMSL gaining popularity
Various newer sedans and SUVs in the USA flash several times (only upon brake application) very quickly, then flash several times more slowly--then solidly 'ON' in the normal use fashion. I have found no new car dealer or automotive publication mentioning this feature. The automotive aftermarket does offer a solenoid unit that can be installed to perform this function, but only when it is an LED light. More specific information regarding the specific laws and manufacturers offering this feature are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Turn signals on side view mirrors... how old?
This question concerns this edit:

The straight Dope message board discussed this same question 15 years ago but nobody found a reference then either.

So who had the first turn signal on the side view mirror? I suspect that the first was an aftermarket item for semis. If so, who had the first OEM turn signal on the side view mirror of a passenger car, van, or pickup truck? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)