Talk:Overillumination

This article provides almost no information on "Over Illumination"
Suggesting the "coatrack" tag on this one. I came to get details on the topic of over illumination, which has distinct definitions with respect to art, architecture, etc but instead got an odd smorgasbord of negative health effects (there are positive biological aspects to intense lighting) and what amounts to "you should turn lights off when you don't need them", but no actual definition or insight into what is actually considered "over illumination". There could easily be sections or links in the article into things such as "the artistic effects of over illuminating a photograph" or how it impacts exposure. Or there could be insight into the various standards boards definitions of what constitutes the "proper illumination" of residential or commercial spaces (how can an article about over illumination have no mention of, or even link to something like lux?). Even the photos on the page are questionable -- the primary photograph, though described as having twice the recommended lighting levels" appears dim and has relatively few lights. - Heyus (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with adding such a tag, and have now added it. I also tagged the photo in question and its (probably) faulty and un-factual description and use of a reference. The whole article has a problem with neutrality. It only mentions negative effects of overillumination (I would highly suspect there are more positive than negative health effects, within any reasonable amounts of illumination). Furthermore, examples such as leaving streetlights on during daylight is irrelevant; I would argue this is not a problem of overillumination (as it in many cases would not add any more illumination to an already overlit area covered by a more powerful light source, that is: the sun). I would not call this overillumination, but rather a problem of stupid energy use. Perhaps the whole article should be discussed in Articles for deletion. As the article stands now, perhaps in my opinion it should be deleted or started all over. Sauer202 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A great effort by a middle-school class
I can only assume that this article was written as a class project by a middle-school class. Great effort, but it's time to let the adults fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.117.64.215 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of simply criticizing, you could pitch in and help. – void  xor  01:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Overillumination
The term is "overillumination". It's a long word, so many people inject a spurious hyphen or space. "Over-illumination" is bad and "over illumination" is worse because they imply phrases that contain the word "over". Single words don't begin with "over-" (or "hyper-") with a hyphen. The word "over-" is used with a hyphen in adjectival phrases like "over-the-hill". Spell-checkers often suggest "over illumination" and "over-illumination", but only because overillumination is not in their word list and the prefix "over" also happens to be a word. Searches for "over illumination" find some phrases like "Visual Loop Closure Detection over Illumination Change" that are not talking about overillumination (a condition of overbright lighting) - A876 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
I reverted 's deletion of cited and not-controversial material. The deletion has been restored. What is the problem here? There are citations. What specifically do you challenge about this material? ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Material lacks sources and fails WP:V. You reinserted unsourced material. Read WP:BURDEN.
 * From WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed."
 * Regarding:
 * "Research has been conducted showing worker productivity gains in settings where each worker selects his or her own lighting level. "
 * One single field study does not support the claim above; the study cited does not make a definite claim or conclusion, but suggests possible conclusions based on their study. Fails WP:V.  // Timothy :: talk  14:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  14:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is something that can be fixed by adjusting our text slightly.
 * You have not answered my question about what you object to in the other material. You apparently think you can remove material just because it is uncited. I don't believe this is the case. You have to challenge the material for some reason other than it being uncited. Is it wrong? Is it controversial? Is it inconsistent? Is it nonsense? ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)