Talk:Christmas lights

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Facts?

This article is full of things that are completely debatable, for instance the part about how many Christmas lights should be used per foot on a Christmas tree, or the part where we're told what the best part of National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is. It needs more all-encompassing, global facts and less one-sided irrelevance.Tomsintown 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Lights

I do not doubt that they are called fairy lights, but I sure would like to know where they're called fairy lights. Thanks!

That's certainly true where I grew up in the UK, I'm not sure about anywhere else.--Stronimo 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly aren't normally called "Fairy Lights" in the US. I'm fine with a merge, but we need a more neutral name such as "Holiday Lights". The parallel for "fairy lights" in the US would be "mini-lights", but "Christmas Lights" encompasses many other styles (C7/C9, LED, bubble lights, etc.) --Rehcsif 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wattage

what's the current wattage of christmas lights?

Yes and also this page could use a critisism section... Lots of critique out there of our massive energy burning habit in December...

Reply to wattage

it depends on the lights.

Are these links acceptable?

Does everyone believe the following links are acceptable? I find their inclusion questionable as Wikipedia is not a directory.

The other links I think are a good fit, at least from the title. I say that as they enhance the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The related links seemed Directory-like enough that I attempted to add inappropriate Directory -style links to the link (and was promptly corrected). Should the links be limited to events explicitly referenced in the article? (If the UK charity site is deemed appropriate, then it is as appropriate to list other charity holiday lights events?)--Cthulhia 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency

(Good article!)

For traditional and current common incandescent bulbs, what is the voltage, current, wattage, lumens, and lumens per watt?

For current common LED bulbs, what is the voltage, current, wattage, lumens, and lumens per watt? How do they compare, exactly and technically, with the older incandescent, in energy efficiency?-69.87.203.131 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting

The sentence on troubleshooting parallel strings of bulbs, though accurate, is misleading. The notable feature of parallel strings is that one dead bulb typically does NOT cause the whole string to fail. --Peter Pascal (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the above questions,

some of the points are not necessary; could be misleading to readers.

For example, lumens, and lumens-per-watt would be important factors for household or commercial lighting, they do not matter when it comes to decorative light strings for a couple reasons:

1) the lights do not need to provide any more light than to be seen at night, whereas a 75 watt bulb or 40 watt fluorescent tube is commonly used both in daytime and night.

2) comparing incandescent to LED holiday light strings on these two factors would mislead the readers into thinking LEDs are not efficient--or sufficient. This is because both lumens and lumens-per-watt are much lower with LED lights. But when used in light strings, people commonly perceive LED lights to be brighter (when in fact they are not).

Regarding voltage and wattage, these can be fairly addressed, but would be a lengthy article since every style/size of bulb has its own specification, and different manufacturers will have different specs, too.

Then, one must account for "regular" and "super-bright" sets, the latter consuming more energy.

Regarding LEDs, some bulbs have just one small LED inside, while others may have up to five inside each bulb. To add to the confusion, LEDs come in differing power ratings, too.

Finally, each LED color has different power requirements. Generally speaking, red uses the least and cool white and warm white use the greatest.

Here is an example of why it’s hard to accurately compare holiday light strings and bulbs, based on my tests outlined below. I used a common Kill-A-Watt meter to attain the figures listed. All tests were done at approx. 121-124 volts ac. Our power here generally fluctuates within this range, while most people’s power in the USA is between 110-120 v. The following is from memory, but accurate enough to make my point:

Test 1: New, 2006 model store brand C7 Incandescent bulb, "cool burning" type. One bulb uses approx. 4 watts. 25 bulbs uses about 100 watts.

Test 2: New, 2006 model Forever Bright(tm) C7 LED light string, 25 bulbs. Entire string would not register a single watt. (the Kill-A-Watt device does not measure fractional watts)

Test 3: New, 2006 model ColorSwap(tm) C7 LED bulb. One bulb did not even register on the Kill-A-Watt meter. This bulb has three LEDs inside.

Test 4: New, 2006 model ColorSwap(tm) C7 LED string. I plugged in an empty string and kept screwing in bulbs, one at a time, until the Kill-A-Watt registered one watt. It took nine LED bulbs to get one watt. Each of these bulbs has three LEDs inside.

Test 5: New, 2006 model GKI ™ C7 LED string of 25. The entire string would not register a single watt.

GeneralTsao 01:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)GeneralTsaoGeneralTsao 01:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]