Talk:Photoreceptor cell/July 2006 talk

message: I have suggested that Photoreceptor be merged here; it's an essentially identical article.  Photoreceptor is also a little repetitive, and I'd like to trim some of the info that's mentioned multiple times.  Any objections to either of these suggestions? delldot | talk 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not do the merge the other way? Isn't photoreceptor a simpler title than photoreceptor cell? What's the difference? -Silence 18:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Photoreceptor cell is more specific. As noted above, there are "photoreceptors" that are not cells, and which are not covered by this article. A photodiode could be considered a "photoreceptor", for example. I'm OK with merging to photoreceptor, if others feel that is preferable. I think merging to the longer term may be clearer.--Srleffler 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that. Do you think it would be wise to then make Photoreceptor a disamb page that would list Photoreceptor cell and Photodetector/Photodiode. -AED 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm OK with that, too. -AED 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have moved the disputed section here, for discussion:
Srleffler 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed section 

message: #Parts of it are written in the second person, contrary to the Manual of Style.
#The number of rods and cones cited is wrong or at least misleading, and the correct number already appears in the article. One hundred and thirty one million is a lot different from "over three million".
#The three types of cone cells are not specialized for red, green, and blue. See Cone cell. The peak responses for the three types are, respectively, to yellowish-green (564 nm), bluish-green (534 nm), and blue-violet (420 nm). The color processing done in the eye and brain is quite complex. It's not as simple as RGB color television. :)
#Not all animation has a dark space between frames. That was true of old movie projectors, but is not true of television, for example. I tried to replace this with an example based on fluorescent lighting, but 216.15.73.245 seems not to have found this acceptable.
#I am doubtful about the claim that there is a "resetting period" during which your eyes are unable to take in information. This claim at least needs a reference to support it. I would believe a claim that each rod or cone has a "resetting period" after it fires, but I doubt that the entire eye is "blind" all at once.
#The original version of this section contained a version of :Image:Grid illusion.png (although with a different filename), and claimed that the illusion of moving black dots was caused by persistence of vision. This is certainly not clear, and perhaps quite doubtful. This type of illusion is discussed in the article Grid illusion, and from the information there it does not seem that persistence of vision comes into it. At least, a reference would be needed to put forward this claim in a Wikipedia article.
#The section contains information which is redundant with the rest of the article. It's as if the author just slammed it in here, without bothering to even read the rest of the article.
#I'm not sure photosensitivity is the correct term for the neurological process here. At least, the linked article seems inappropriate in this context.
I tried editing the section down into a paragraph about persistance of vision, which fixed these problems. The anonymous author of this section simply reverted the edits, twice. I have moved the section here for discussion in the hope that we can resolve this and come up with a reasonable compromise text that is factually correct and has the correct encyclopedic tone.--Srleffler 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this section