Talk:Himalayan salt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhread.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad lamp image
File:Saltlamp.jpg is a 208x288 orange blob that I wouldn't recognise as a salt lamp if I saw it without context. Commons has a lot of better photos at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Salt_crystal_lanterns, I went for File:Salzlampe.jpg but User:Agricolae didn't like it. What is it important to actually illustrate here? --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Funny that. To me the 'bad image' you ridicule as an 'orange blob' is instantly recognizable as a typical salt lamp, while your preferred replacement looks more like a piece of candied fruit than any salt lamp I have ever seen, and far from representative of the genre. Of the other available images, I would pick File:Solanayalampa.jpg as the best alternative. Agricolae (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like there are maybe two distinct designs, one with a hollow where a candle can be placed inside, and one that's a solid block of salt containing an electric bulb - should the article go for the latter? File:Solanayalampa.jpg looks suspiciously like a catalogue photo, and after checking it I've flagged it as a copyright violation. What else is good in there? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I just did a Google image search for "salt lamp" and I quit counting after 120 images. Of these there were a handful of irrelevant images, and exactly zero images of a salt block with a hollow holding a candle. All the rest were blocks with electric bulbs. As to the remaining possible images: File:Royal Himalayan Salt.png is the best, but it is on numerous web pages that predate its upload to Commons. The upload was commercial in nature, with the company name in the file name and the description beginning with a link, so it could either be either legitimate by the content owner or copyvio. File:Lampada di Sale.jpg shows a good lamp but the background is ridiculous. That could be wiped were it not for the original looking commercial and thus maybe also copyvio . File:Lampara de sal pequeña.jpg is a good-quality image, but the lack of illumination is a major drawback, while the differential illumination caused by the cracking in File:Himalayian salt lamp gnangarra-1000.jpg is very distracting, and File:Himalayan Salt Lamp.jpg is somewhat out of focus. Most of the others are too busy or just trying too hard to be artsy. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I find this somewhat distressing. As someone that uses Wikipedia as a trusted source or information, to see a salt lamp so vociferously defended as some kind of 'truth'. I wanted to see what Himalayan Rock Salt was all about and this is the first time I have checked out the 'talk' section. Honesty, I glanced at the picture without reading the caption and was left with no idea what it was, upon looking at it more closely I still do not recognize it as a lamp of any sort. Whereas the lamp discarded as very distracting looks beautiful and clearly like a lamp. Sigh... is this indicative of all Wikipedia articles? 64.228.95.201 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody was vigorously defending anything - all of the available images were evaluated, and found to be 1) probable copyright violations, 2) not typical of salt lamps, or 3) problematic for aesthetic reasons. I simply concluded that the image used was the least bad representation of a typical salt lamp, as a place-holder, until a better image became available. Becoming distressed over such a discussion (or perhaps over the possibility that someone else has different opinions than yourself) to the degree that it might affect your view of Wikipedia as a trusted source of information is perhaps overreacting. That said, to reduce your personal distress, I have substituted what in my opinion is the next least bad one. Agricolae (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

McGill Source
@Zefr I noticed that my edits were recently reverted due to WP: SCIRS. The source for the information I had added was - https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-and-nutrition-quackery-you-asked/himalayan-pink-salt. I would like to better understand why this source in considered an unreliable source? This exact source is already being used in the article already. Whitestar12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The McGill source doesn't provide any references. I reverted your edit because the statement - byproduct of ocean deposits from water that had evaporated and salt that had remained - needs a better scientific source, and there are better sources in the article, such as the UNESCO report or any of those in the History section. Zefr (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Zefr. I appreciate the guidance. I noticed there are other sources used in the article that may not be reliable: metro.uk (website) - reference #21, vice.com - reference #18, and others. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to review and improve the article by ensuring the content & sources are reliable? Whitestar12 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the reliability of a source depends upon what article content is being verified with that source. Certain types of content have a much higher bar for reliability, such as SCIRS content. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, the article is open to improvement by anyone with better WP:SCIRS sources, if they exist. The article has more than 150 editors "watching" it, but new, reliable content and sources are unlikely to be developed for what is a narrow product topic not readily subjected to good research. I think this is similar to what Hipal is saying. Zefr (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Himalayan salt_(coarse).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-02-08. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fuel? Bollocks. It's just the chassis for the actual lamp inside, which is electric. You cannot use salt as fuel for anything, as it is chemically stable and cannot be burned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I edited the template, and ruined your point. I'm sorry, didn't kno that would happen. - Roxy the dog 12:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)