Talk:Lighting control console

message: I can't help but notice that ETC seem to have a higher than expected presence on this page particularly, but also on all Wikipedia articles.  (ie:  Source Four has it's own page, but the Strand SL, Selecon Pacific et al do not).  It's particularly noticeable here where there is a link to a non-existant ETC Express page.  Are we really going to do a page on every single lighting console?  Sounds a bit too specialist to me. Opinions? Bryson430 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an ETC Express article.  An administrator decided it was worthy of deletion on the 21st of this month and deleted it without discussing it on the talk page.  I haven't had time to contact anyone about it to see what the reasoning really is and if it'd be possible to get an archive of that article for incorporation into something.  --Lekogm 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with what they did, I wouldn't have summarily deleted it! I worry about the actions of Admins on this project that don't understand the specialist nature.  Is there an Admin who is a member of the project? Bryson430 02:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Kmccoy is an admin that is a member of this project. And I agree, people don't understand the nature of this project and I think we're lucky to have an admin who will answer questions and come to our aid when needed..  --Lekogm 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You forgot to mention that the Source4 also had a dichroic glass reflector instead of a metal reflector.  This allowed heat (infrared) to escape out the back of the fixture, resulting in a cooler fixture and less heat on stage. Hobadee (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-presence of ETC? 

message: My, I'm tetchy today, aren't I?  Anyway, stuff like this: "A typical mid range console is the Zero88 FatFrog. The GrandMA and Avolites Diamond 4 are considered by many to be top of the range." is highly debatable.  I think we should probably lose all content of this type - what about the Vista, or the Hog 3, or whatever?  Since when is the Fatfrog "midrange"?  It's all opinion. Bryson430 23:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A lot of people like strand consoles, but I'm about to bash the 520i with my hammer. --Lekogm 02:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is just giving an example. give another two to go along and it wil be fine. However, there are only 3 brands of all the lighting in my theater so I have no problems citing ETC on everything. I have never heard of a fat frog. We have ETC, colortran, and martin. KeepOnTruckin 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I think this list of software has gotten out of hand.  It is not encyclopedic, and most links could be classified as spam.  I think that the list should be removed and replaced with a paragraph about lighting control software.  Any other opinions? -JWGreen 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone finally got rid of that list of links. -JWGreen 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I deleted them as they have no place in the article. If someone feels like keeping them I suggest that a List of lighting equipment manufacturers (or something similar) should be created. Bjelleklang  -  talk Bug Me 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: :Image:Strand 300 Series Console.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale has been added. -JWGreen (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Strand 300 Series Console.jpg

message: I removed two manufacturer links from the external links as wp is not advertising any specific brands and therefor there shouldn't be links to only  some manufacturers, on the other hand wp is not a list of links...
--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Which is the proper version?  We are using "lightboard" in this article and "light board" in the article for "light board operator", which links to this article as "light board".
-- BugSwat (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightboard vs. Light board