Talk:Glowsticking

Glowstick manufacturers and "rave sites"

I've noticed some glowstick and toy manufacturers and rave sites which don't have their focus on glowsticking is posting here for advertising gain.(I just removed one called genglow which claims to be #1 but site analytics and google have told me that's not the case)

Are their links relevant enough to keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.81.59 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this page needs a good ol' refactor; lots of repetition --MilkMiruku 11:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

done that, but the page really needs input from more sources --MilkMiruku 13:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* Please don't vandalize the page. I don't care whether you are from GenXGlow or Glowsticking.com, it's immature. Try and remain mature about matters such as these. Internet feuds do nothing but anger people. --Exception03 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead in photo choices

I have 4 very very good lead in image choices. I dont think we should clutter it up with all 4, so take your pick and lets get a vote going. (when the lead image is chosen I will attempt to upload the 3000x2200px version)  ALKIVAR™ 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

File:Glowsticking1.jpg 1 color cyalume sticks	File:Glowsticking2.jpg multicolor cyalume sticks
File:Glowsticking3.jpg 1 color cyalume sticks	File:Glowsticking4.jpg various photon lights

Using 'to rave' as a synonymous term

I added a reference to glowsticking from Rave (disambiguation) as part of the verb usage of the term 'rave.' I've noticed in the Rave article and related, the verb 'rave' refers to the act of attending a rave. Here in New York City it's always used in reference to glowsticking (it is extremely rare to actually hear the term 'glowsticking'), though I understand it is slang. Is the term popular enough elsewhere to include in the first sentence of Glowsticking? ~ PseudoSudo 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^ For the above. In Hawaii, California, New York City, Texas, Chicago (all places where I've been with the exception of Chicago-- but I do know people from there), people who don't glowstick seriously (or haven't met those that do), sometimes call it "raving". As raving is the act of going to a rave, glowsticking seems more precise. For example, when people are "clubbing" (as in going to a club), and people are dancing together, nobody says they are 'clubbing' -- people there would say they are dancing. Another example would be snowboarding or skiing. When someone says "I went snowboarding this weekend", you might expect that person drove up the mountain, paid for tickets, rode the lift, put on boots, etc. But nobody when they are actually there would say that person is snowboarding if that person happened to be eating a sandwhich at the time while resting. Another point is that not everyone at a rave is glowsticking. Why lump it in?

But in any case, the disambiguation seems useful for those that might not know, so it's a good call.

Alternatives to Glowsticks

The article keeps referring to other glowstick-like objects. I've heard the word "photon" applied to small LED devices, usually used by the mainstream as keychain adornments. Anyone else heard of something similar?

^^^ Actually, yes I have. Although I'm not sure it'll fit under "glowsticking", I don't really see many other places to put it at this stage.

There are some photon related dance type forms, including conjuring, which is using photons on each hand, and where one passes a ball of light around (some people get elaborate, and have a photons -- usually different colors-- on multiple fingers underneath a white glove). "Photon" is the brand name for the original LED that made such a splash in the early 2000's (now you can see knock offs everywhere including grocery stores, as LED technology has improved).

Another photon related type activity includes "orbiting", which involves taking multiple "photons", typing them into a single string (usually shoelaces, or something that doesn't stretch). The string is then held with both hands at the ends, and the "orbitter" proceeds to spin the photons. After a while, the string has tension from the turning. After a certain amount of tension, the user then stretches the string which causes a strong rotation type affect (you can hear it spin). with the right timing, this rotation can be repeated over and over by varying the tension of the string. This video should explain better than my feeble attempt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18FT1hw43U

In this video at around 30 seconds you will see the actual "orbit" take place.

Here is a video that shows you how to prepare a string to cause this to happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiJxRQpQuZU

== Glowsticking is also known as "Poi" == glowsticking is a spin off of poi same style of dance slightly different moves glowsticking tends to incorperate more wrapping of the body than does poi but the meaning or poi in moari is balls on strings so this counts as the same thing

"Poy" should redirect here.

Poi is something else! 146.169.49.37 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Poi is a form of dance that can incorporate glowsticks, and it's sometimes referred to as glowstringing. I'm not sure how accurate the part about glowstringing is in this article, since all examples of it that I've seen are also referred to as poi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi Undergallows (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

broken glass?

You couldn't make a glowstick out of glass. You have to flex them to break the inner container of luminescent material so it can react with the stuff in the larger plastic tube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They have a glass vial inside the plastic tube, I suppose if you break them (snap them so the liquid comes out) then the glass will come out too. 146.169.49.37 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave External Links

Both sides are equally represented and both are strongly applicable to this discussion. Do not edit out the External Links.

Glowstick = Drug Paraphernalia?

Except for the failed attempt of New Orleans and the DEA [1] to call glowsticks "drug paraphernalia" in 2001, are there any additional examples of attempts to outlaw glowsticks? I have edited the "Criticism" section accordingly. --Gadlen (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Note that linking to external pages should be encyclopedic; per links to avoid, discussion fora such as http://www.genxglow.com are explicitly prohibited. That there is prohibited off-wiki canvassing is particularly problematic, making it less likely for the page to ever be linked to (I'm talking to you, Eric). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to advertise, soapbox or otherwise do anything but inform on the subject using reliable sources. Glowsticking.com is appropriate because it links to videos that are encyclopedic and demonstrative without violating copyright (see WP:YT for more information). This isn't a case of being unduly prejudicial, this is a case of a link clearly and blatantly breaking our restrictions and mandate without adding any encyclopedic value to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the movement to restrict read-only access to that board and thus avoid scrutiny for sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting makes it even less likely that the page will ever be linked to, because now WP:ELNO point 6 now applies as a further sticking point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the addition of this link: http://www.genxglow.com/news/glowsticking-9/what-is-glowsticking-21/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.232.251 (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a social networking site, fails WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I would like to bring the glowsticking.com links up for discussion. This is clearly a social networking website, and by your review - it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.223.85.146 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"...it links to videos that are encyclopedic and demonstrative without violating copyright" (5 posts previous). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Undent. It's nice to see that the forum is back to pubic-readable access. Still no indication that it is a reliable source however. Please thread your posts per the talk page guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a double standard, and I do not agree with your statements. No worries. Useless article. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.248.176.177 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion on the board, the most useful link for wikipedia will never be to forums. Even the current link isn't great or ideal. The best link would be to a page with no advertisements at all and nothing but videos demonstrating glowsticking and aspects of glowsticking. Unfortunately blog and web forum posts are not considered reliable sources and can't be used to refernence text on glowsticking. Until some sort of book is written on the phenomenon, the page is quite limited. Web fora are not allowed because wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia, designed to inform the reader about the phenomenon, using reliable sources. It is not a place to advertise competing web fora, disparage or discuss other web fora, make friends, meet friends or link up people with said sites. See WP:NOT for more information on this. It is not a double standard because the current links go directly to videos demonstrating glowsticking in a very useful way (people actually demonstrating it); the link to genxglow went to a front page, specifically a registration page (see WP:ELNO #6) which is in no way encyclopedic and only serves to bring people together. I'm willing to continue discussing this if you're interested, a knowledgeable editor would be helpful to turn up web resources which are helpful and I'm willing to give my opinion on what sources and web pages could be linked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your engagement into this discussion, but I still fail to see how the current external links contribute to the discussion under the current rules being applied. The current links provided are in blog format, and provided your reasoning above - these links SHOULD be removed. Now, if one standard applies for these links, and not for others - how does this reflect on the overall linking policies being applied to the millions of other wikipedia articles. Also, just because something is in blog or forum format has nothing to do about the quality or resourcefulness of any content. This is the most ridiculous argument ever. What makes content useful is if it contributes to the overall subject in a meaningful way. With this argument, I do not see why this link does not make a valuable contribution to the wikipedia glowsticking article: http://www.genxglow.com/news/glowsticking-9/what-is-glowsticking-21/ I even offer that it is a better resource than the wikipedia article itself! Just because it is posted in a format that allows for commenting and has advertisements, does not mean that content does not contribute to glowsticking subject in a meaningful way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.93.111 (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It may well be a better resource than the Wikipedia article -- I would expect few articles in any encyclopedia to be the best resource on the subject. The point is that this is an encyclopedia, and although we allow external links, they need to follow some guidelines. I'm not happy with the current links, and for sure there should not be 2 links to the same site. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon, if you review our standards for reliable sources, what makes a source "reliable" is degree of oversight and expertise. There is no oversight on blog, web fora or self-published webpage, and no way of determining if a particular person is sufficiently an expert that their word can be taken as fact. It's not an argument, it's how sources are parsed and evaluated. Since anyone can create a web page (see WP:SPS), merely having glowsticking in the title or URL isn't enough. I could create a page that says glowsticking was invented by Jesus to fight Buddha over the souls of the damned, or by Kid Koala while he was in the army directing planes to land, and there's no way of determining who is factually correct since in neither case is there any reliable sources backing things up. The glowsticking.com pages contain no advertising (which is discouraged per our guidelines on external links) and is Creative Commons licensed. In addition, it's comments and factual assertions are minimal. Ideally the page would be solely videos with no text, but we do the best that we can. We are permitted to ignore all rules if we think doing so improves the page. The current ELs are a compromise - not ideal, but not egregiously outside of our policies and guidelines. Adding a second set of demonstration videos doesn't increase the usefulness of the page significantly, at the cost of containing content that is problematic.

Regards two links to the same site, one is for glowsticking, one is for glowstringing. Putting both on a single line is a compromise for having demonstrations of both. Ideal would be Commons hosting videos, then I'd remove even that single site. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The tutorial page leads to both. In any case, glowsticking.com is full of ads, why do you say no ads? At the top is a one line menu with 5 ads, the next line has a link to advertise on the page, then a big Google ad banner. Large banner ad on the left for Texas Hold'em, and a Google ad at the top of the video. That's 8 ads on the tutorial page, the main page has 9 ads, a link to their store, and some other links to commercial sites. Maybe it's your browser, try another one. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The current link (change made here) shows no ads, but I also see no videos. Perhaps it is my browser, I'll check with a different one later today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Or something else blocking ads - what do you see at the very top of the page? I see the same thing with Chrome, Firefox and IE. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With this browser (FF) I see the ads and the video is working. Given the ads and the equivocal videos (some of which seem to be simple advertisements) I'm OK with removing it outright. Really, you can get the same from youtube. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Interesting about your browser, eh? Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're blaming microsoft, I'm all over that. It's always their fault. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)