Talk:List of automotive light bulb types

Nomenclature, Names, Numbers
64.126.93.54, we need to avoid getting into an edit war, so let's discuss the points of disagreement highlighted in this diff (your preferences on the left, mine on the right).

You prefer the term "European" rather than "International" for this article's coverage of lamps contained in UN Regulations 37 and 99. Although the regulations in question are promulgated under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, in accord with the 1958 Agreement originally intended to standardize vehicle equipment throughout Europe, it is no longer accurate (and therefore not encyclopædic) to refer to them as "European" regulations. That is because the 1958 Agreement was opened to worldwide participation in 1995, and many non-European countries are now contracting parties. The nomenclature has been changed to reflect that reality; the term "ECE Regulations" is officially deprecated in favour of "UN Regulations". See here (if you can, might be behind paywall) and here and directly from the horse's mouth here. The UN Regulations are officially recognised by a long list of countries well beyond Europe. Moreover, they are developed by truly international consensus with active participation by South Africa, China, Australia, Korea, Russia, Japan, India, and -- yes -- the United States and Canada; though the US does not officially recognise UN Regs and Canada recognises only a few of them, participation in WP.29 is not a binary yes/no deal; countries are free to sign the agreement and not apply any of the UN Regulations, thereby not being obliged to recognise those regulations. They can still participate in the regulatory development.

So, encyclopædic accuracy requires that we not misinform readers by conveying the incorrect notion that R37 and R99 are "European" in any real sense beyond their (not very relevant) origin. This differs from the North American situation wherein Canada officially recognises the US bulb specifications; that's just one country recognising another country's regulation, and doesn't really make the US regulation "international" in anything like the way the UN Regs are international.

The material you wish to add regarding US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 is not apposite. FMVSS 108 does not regulate car bulbs. It merely points at 49CFR564 and Docket 1998-3397 and says replaceable-bulb headlamps have to use light sources listed therein. It would be appropriate for us to state, with a citation, that FMVSS 108 contains that pointer and requirement. However, this is not the right place for us to babble about what year FMVSS 108 came into effect for trucks and for cars; we have FMVSS 108 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for people to learn those kinds of details.

You seem to want to refer to designations such as 9004, 9005, 9007, etc. as "trade names". That is not acceptable; it—like your earlier insertion of Osram's product numbers as though they are some sort of uniform industry identifier—is an error. This is readily checked by wading through a mountain of NHTSA documentation over the years; they refer to bulbs by their designators (HB1, HB3, HB5, etc.) and by their "trade numbers" (9004, 9005, 9007, etc.). Here is a quickly and easily accessible demonstration of that. Trade names have nothing to do with bulb designations; a trade name is a company name. If the bulb you are holding in your hand has a trade name, it's going to be "Sylvania" or "Wagner" or "General Electric" or any of several others. The designations in question (9004, 9005, 9007, etc.) are trade numbers and must be referred to as such, because we are writing an encylopædia to describe the world as it is, not as we might wish it were. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Insertion of talk page text into article
Dmahalko, I have reverted your insertion into the article of my comments posted in the "Nomenclature, Names, Numbers" section here on the talk page. That's really not the right way to do it. The talk page is where we discuss the article. Often text for the article is discussed and cooperatively developed by consensus on the talk page, and once there is consensus for the developed text it is inserted into the article. But that's not what's happening at the moment here on this talk page. The text you inserted was written as support for my position on a pending matter (see above). It is not itself directly apposite to this article; there are already articles that cover it, and that's where readers need to go to read about those topics. Scheinwerfermann (talk)
 * Your discussion of terminology is relevant to the article. I don't see why you don't think that it isn't. DMahalko (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first place, no, it was not. People who want to understand the minutiæ of the UN Regulations, including why they're called that and when they started being called that, can and should go read UN Regulations. Including that information here would be inappropriate duplication of material not directly apposite to the article topic. This is why we have such an easy time on Wikipedia creating links to other articles; it's a feature, not a bug. Secondly, it is not appropriate (or appreciated) to lift another editor's talk page comments off the talk page and plop them into the article. They were not written encyclopædically as article text, they were written as talk page comments and that is what they shall remain. If consensus develops to include some of the material covered by my comments, that material will need to be written encyclopædically for inclusion in the article. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomenclature discussions relevant to this article should appear in this article.


 * Talk vs Main text usage: I am aware of no such editing restrictions. "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License." DMahalko (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nomenclature relevant to this article should indeed appear in this article. However, we needn't (and shouldn't) redundantly cover nomenclature addressed in detail in its appropriate article. That's what links are for. Which means coverage in this article of automotive lamp type nomenclature is "yes", and coverage in this article of the history and nomenclature of the UN vehicle regulatory system is "no"; that coverage belongs in UN Regulations. As for your attempt to drop unencyclopædic talk-page text into the article, then hide behind "I don't see a rule saying I can't!":  see here, please and thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian and am responding to a request for a third opinion made at that project. I believe that the copying of the material was not inappropriate on a copyright basis (copying within Wikipedia is acceptable provided proper attribution is given; one means of giving that attribution is via notation on the article's talk page; since this originated from the talk page, the attribution was probably adequate), but the material was nonetheless properly removed because, if for no other reason, no inline citation to a reliable source was given for it. It also engaged in analysis of source material in a way that was inappropriate for inclusion in an article and was generally drafted in a conversational, unencyclopedic manner. All of those are adequate reasons for its exclusion. I express no opinion about whether the subject matter of that material was appropriate for this article, though I would recommend that it be talked out here on this page before further editing and if no conclusion can be reached that a request for comments be attempted to attract additional community input to the question. Finally, please restrict your discussions to talk about edits, not about editors. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Renamed ?
Isn't it a bit pompous calling this bulb catalog "Automotive light sources" ? It's not like it even mentions carbide lamps, for goodness' sake. For something with such a grand title I expect more than the cross reference guide that I can find at my local Canadian Tire. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea behind the rename was to address your exact concern, which I agree with, that this article is too much like a catalog and verges too close to WP:NOTCATALOG. The new title and matching new lede are an initial step towards a more encyclopædic article, augmenting the present content (heavily skewed towards a catalog-like listing) with more topical explanatory text. Of course, if consensus develops against the new title, we'll change it back (or to another new title). —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since we have Automotive lighting, perhaps this should either resume being a humble parts list or else should be a redirect (to automotive lighting). --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. Automotive lighting is an enormously long article, and I think adding the entire contents of this article to that article would make that article terribly overlong. But you raise an important and valid point about subject matter duplication. That is exactly why I am being so insistent on excluding talk of regulatory frameworks and regulatory nomenclature; that coverage belongs in the various regulation-centred articles and not here. If this article has no potential to be anything but a "humble parts list", then I would suggest it should be examined for deletion as unencyclopædic in accord with WP:NOTCATALOG. I guess we'd better take a step back and talk about whether this article should even exist. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is definitely a List of some current automotive light bulbs, for whatever EV that might have. It's not even a list of *historical* types. But we love parts lists on the Wikipedia because they are easy to write and look just like real articles if you don't look at them closely. Excuse me, some old war wounds are now troubling me...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to excuse, really. I think we are in agreement that this "article" is of dubitable encyclopædic value. What shall we do now? —Scheinwerfermann T·C 17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been down this road before. If you want to nominate this article for AfD, I'd chime in with a supporting !vote comment but given the way I get mobbed when I try to do things on the Wikipedia, I'm not going to nominate it for discussion myself. Too many people love parts lists and catalogs on the Wikipedia to make this a shoo-in. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okeh, done, go and !vote or comment if you like. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What about R2 bulbs?
They should be in the article somewhere because it fits into one of the statuses (without general restriction,or for replacement only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.90.65 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

-- What I need is LAMP OUTPUT in visible watts, candle power, or mcd, or lumens etc or all of the above. I want to know how the light output compares to other similar bulbs to be able to choose wisely. I want to know if apples to apples if an Light Emitting Diode lamp would be sufficiently bright to replace an incandescent one. I know that wattage wise incandescent bulbs are about 10% efficient and LED bulbs are about 90+% efficient and so wish to prevent my headlights from quickly draining the battery when the kids leave the lights on and still be safe to use. I also need more pictures of the bulb types. And other choices that might work if I wished to use more (or less) light. A reference to a SMD light output guide would also be  helpful here. Anyway, I think the info here is indispensable and hard to find all in one place. PLEASE do NOT delete. Glennndavis (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you had a look for a bulb manufacturer's (Sylvania, Osram, Phillips,etc. ) catalog? There's a number of them available on the Internet that give such details, outline drawings, etc.  Since the makers of bulbs do such a good job of making catalogs, it seems a little pointless for Wikipedia to duplicate their efforts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Wtshymanski for your quick response! I was of the impression that Wikipedia DOES NOT WANT to be original (no original research). In any case it seems that the LED type of bulbs is not represented in this article and I am not sure that the same companies make both types of bulbs. I also doubt that I will get the same non=commercial do on the subject that Wikipedia does which is why I come here first! Of course commercial sources do not publish the knock-down drag-out fights that I see in Wikipedia and find quite shocking. Anyway, I Prefer to get the neutral perspective of Wikipedia without all the misleading hype. And yes, I do hope to not run afoul of the local argument here. I do find value here and wish "list_of_automotive bulb_types" to be expanded on in hopes that those involved will work together to make it better and not just tear it down! I believe that one person can change the world for the better and that that person can be you (Anyone who wishes to do so)! And that is the value that makes Wikipedia and all the articles in it wonderful and worthwhile. I respectfully request that those who must continue arguing and tearing each other down please find more productive outlets for your quite obviously extensive talents! Peace! Cordially, Glennndavis (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC). Thanks!

P.S. I have looked up the concerns mentioned about keeping this article and find that it seems to meet all of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and none of those for removal.

It seems that Wikipedia speaks for lists:"Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article." --from WP:LISTS.

And for the contention of notability: Several governments and NGO's have determined that "Automotive bulb types" are worthy of discussion and debate and ruling on what types one should use and why where and when.

As to WP:NOTCAT "Catalogs" seem to be differentiated from "Lists" by their commercial nature as denoted by prices. I see no indication of commercial intent in this article.

Again, Thanks, Glennndavis (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between an "encyclopedia" and a parts catalog. A parts catalog will list innumerable minor variations without explaining their signifcance. On the other hand, I would expect an encyclopedia article to explain *why* there are variations, what their importance is, their origins and intent. You don't learn anything about light bulbs from a light bulb catalog, not after a few lines of part numbers. We have an article, automotive lighting, that is intended to explain the history of car lights, what kinds there are, what they do and how they do it, what rules they have to meet, and general classes of the kinds of lamps you'll find on a car.
 * I wouldn't look in something called an "encyclopedia" for a list of bulb types, any more than I'd expect to look up phone numbers in an encyclopedia.
 * The article was nominated for deletion when it had a much grander name - we have a better tolerance for lists of parts if they are properly identified as lists of parts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a section added for US-specific non-headlamp bulbs?
e.g. 1034, 1157, etc...?

I realize that that would make this page even larger and more unwieldy than it already is, but it seems that the European bulb types are very well documented here but there are very few listings for traditional US bulbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.163.123 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, hey.. the article is "automotive light bulb types". It's specific to neither USA nor Euro types. Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to omit the two most common 12V USA tail lamp / brake types - the venerable 1156 and 1157.

Ditto ditto!!! It's pretty much useless in that it doesn't even list 1156/1157, etc. The word "tail light" isn't even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.76.24 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I don't agree that it's unwieldy. It's mostly a table, with a few thumbs. It's quick to load and fast to search with the browser. Plenty of room for just about everything, so long it doesn't need a big pic or writeup! Drlegendre (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is the brightness? And where are the older bulbs? I don't see my 97, 97A, 168, 194, 1156, 1157, 1157NA, etc. Nor is bulb # 550 (happens to be for a Map light on a 1968 Cadillac) listed. This list is so incomplete as to be useless to an automotive restorer. Source: Cadillac Division of General Motors Corp; 1968 Cadillac Shop Manual, page 12-19. Cadillacmike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nor is the pretty common #67 included. From a U.S. perspective, the list is still so incomplete as to be practically worthless.  47.32.160.40 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Bayonet (B) base, wedge (W) base and ... what is the meaning of P(Y20d) base etc.?
89.247.55.241 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of automotive light bulb types. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621034916/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/regulations-crc-c1038-sch-iv-108.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/regulations-crc-c1038-sch-iv-108.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't find anything about P15d / M5 / H6 bulbs
I'm sorry to ask here but I can't find this info anywhere. I have downloaded ECE Regulation No. 37 but I don't see anything about this kind of bulbs. I'm going mad. Can you help me?

This is the kind of bulb that my motorcycle from 1998 has. You can search it online, the part number from Honda is 34901-KET-940. It seems that P15d is the connector. I also think that there are P15d-25-1, P15d-25-2, and P15d-25-3, but I can't find consistent results on google images to learn the differences. There is always a mix of various types. I think M5 is the kind of bulb my bike has. Still, it is slightly different from the M5 that Philips or Osram sell. You can see the difference in the extreme of the glass. I have also found that some sellers in Aliexpress for LED bulbs mention the H6 standard along with p15d. Like... Everything in my head is absolutely mixed. I can't find anything about H6 bulbs neither. Can you provide me with some info about these standards?

Thanks in advance. Niksfish (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I kinda got it clearer. T19 = Tubular glass, 19mm in diameter (this applies to the non-halogen version of the bulb). That is the original version. P15d-25-1 is the bulb's base (formally called the 'cap'). P = prefocus, 15 = minor diameter, d = two electrical contacts, 25 = major diameter, 1 = variant. M5 is the other bulb standard, it's halogen, and they seem to be compatible so I'm using that one. They aren't in the ECE 37. I dunno about H6. Niksfish (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of sources that can be useful
I have found this website, candlepowerforums, it has a lot of good quality info. I'd like to share regulations about lamps: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?348614-Vehicle-Lighting-Laws-amp-Regulations-%95-Documents-amp-Links

The most important document would be this one: R.E.5: Light Source Specifications (supersedes UN Regulations 37, 99, and 128 -- contains specs for all regulated automotive light sources; spec sheets start on page 14). It contains new standards about LED and Gas-discharge light sources.

Niksfish (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

W21/5W has no bayonet?
In its descript, it states that W21/5W has a bayonet, but the picture says otherwise. 178.85.36.190 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)