Talk:Pinhole (optics)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. A plea goes out--can anyone write a WP:DABCONCEPT article at pinhole? If not, the disambiguation page will have to be moved there, once again. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Pinhole (optics) → Pinhole – I propose that we move this article to pinhole and broaden it to cover pinholes in general, since we do not have an article on them. I imagine that their use in optics will remain a dominant part of the article. Srleffler (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose broadening the topic. I see no usefulness in broadening the topic to non-optics subjects, and great dilution of purpose, and turning this into a WP:COATRACK or something. WP:NOTPAPER if you want to cover the other subjects, write a new article. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – since it's ambiguous and no clear primary topic, move Pinhole (disambiguation) to Pinhole instead. Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – pinholes have a specific use in optics different other meanings. Agree with Dicklyon on moving Pinhole (disambiguation) to Pinhole instead.2pem (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: That would just revert a bold move by the proposer [1] little more than a week ago. (Which broke the wikt link, I've fixed it. [2]) No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, if we don't move this article, the dab page should probably be moved back. When I moved it, I had planned to move this page as an uncontroversial move, but I had second thoughts and decided to start this discussion instead.--Srleffler (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: There is no need to move anything to accomplish this; we merely need to write an article on pinholes, generally, at pinhole, and retain these other topics as subtopics of that concept. bd2412 T 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What would an article on such little holes be like? Hard to picture. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinholes are historically significant. S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897 was brought down by pinholes, leading to the deaths of three men. We have put together articles before on topics that were highly abstract (see Particle) or highly mundane (see Lint (material). I would suggest structuring this first as describing what a pinhole is (a very small hole, usually through an easily pierced material), second, describing what uses pinholes have when made intentionally (for optics, for perforation, etc.), and third, describing what dangers pinholes can constitute when unintentional. bd2412 T 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. But I can't find a book that describes the 8 million little stitching holes as pinholes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinholes are also the bane of bad welders (and even of good ones in difficult circumstances) and of course of their customers. [3] I have been responsible for a few of them over the years (;-> and for me that's the only meaning that might challenge the optical use so far as primary topic goes. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• My thinking in proposing this is that pinholes in optics are not in fact distinct things from other types of pinhole. Rather, the optical uses are a specific application of a more general thing. An optical pinhole is not fundamentally different from any other pinhole: it's just a piece of foil with a hole in it.--Srleffler (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Foil already narrows it quite a bit. But what can be said in general about small holes? Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See above... the term has several important uses, and I'd think that there's encyclopedic information about each. But the smallest holes of all are not pinholes... the apertures used in some of the neutron diffraction rigs with which I was once professionally involved for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DABCONCEPT, quote: "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept,". It then goes on to use Particle as an example, stating that it was previously a disambiguation page. Pinhole fits the bill almost perfectly. First and foremost, it describes a tiny hole, which has some interesting optical properties (if it doesn't have them, we wouldn't write a WP:DICDEF, would we?). If there is need to explain other aspects (as Bd2412 hinted), broaden the scope. But we certainly want to explain all properties of a Pinhole in a single article, not devote a stub for each one. Dicklyon and 2pem, above, are wrong asserting that it's ambiguous: apart from the obscure band and song, the primary meaning of "pinhole" is a tiny hole. In any case, the current situation is contrary to MOS. No such user (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A summary-style general-concept article might be OK, but we'll still need separate articles on pinhole camera and pinhole camera model (which are two very distinct things, the first of which uses pinhole (optics), and the second of which does not use) and some other things. A decent article on pinhole (optics) should probably still be separate, and ought to cover diffraction effects well; it's more generally applicable than just to pinhole camera. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to touch pinhole camera and pinhole camera model, regardless of what is decided here.--Srleffler (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope

@User:BD2412: I was attempting a WP:BOLD merge, because it just seemed like a right thing to do. The contents of Pinhole and Pinhole (optics) overlap to a great extent, and both are currently stubs. The Pinhole is now a WP:DABCONCEPT page, and one of most interesting aspects of pinhole are its optical properties; apart from that, I don't see much encyclopedic material. How is reader served by having two very similar articles about basically the same topic?

I understand that a lot more could be written about optical properties of a pinhole, starting from physical explanation of why it acts like a lens. But no one has undertaken that, yet, and I wouldn't mind splitting the article once it grows to a reasonable level. But until that, the current setup leaves a lot to be desired, and it is not easy to discern which article should describe which concept.

What happened in the RM discussion above is one of things I dislike about Wikipedia: in a structured discussion like RM or AFD, everyone has an opinion what could be done to improve the article(s) and votes "keep", "no move" or , but at the end everybody just walks away and leaves them in a sorry state. My reading of the discussion is that there was no consensus to do anything, which is not equal that there is a consensus to do nothing. No such user (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did something following the above discussion, which was to assemble the material that is now at Pinhole (previously a disambiguation page). Perhaps these articles should be merged, but that would require a new discussion, since such a result goes against the grain of the move discussion and would require a new consensus. bd2412 T 13:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I get that, but I just preferred a BRD (or IAR, if you like) path to having a longish merge discussion in advance; it's not that we're talking about merging two long and intricate articles whose reversal would be near-impossible to revert. OK, let's not talk about history, but what should be done now. Obviously, I advocate merge, at least until the optics segment get significantly expanded (and even after that, but we're not there yet). No such user (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

OK, let's do this formally and be done with it: I propose merge from Pinhole (optics) into Pinhole, because:

• The two articles are about the same topic and largely overlap. A "tiny hole used for optics purposes" is just a "tiny hole", maybe made using more precise instruments.
• Existence of two articles confuses the readers and editors alike. I'm not sure how Pinhole (optics) is supposed to be arrived at (i.e. when to link one and when another?).
• Both articles are short. Pinhole (optics) has potential to grow, because it is the most encyclopedic aspect of pinholes.
• While WP:DABCONCEPT facilitates having short articles about general concepts, it does not dictate that each of sub-topics (applications) must be a separate article. Compare particle. Some very general concepts do not have a proper article at all (and it's dubious if it's needed). See for example hole.

No such user (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but this essentially duplicates the proposal that was rejected a little over a week ago. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by relisting it so soon.--Srleffler (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I *Suppport* ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 10:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I opposeMedhekp (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

pinhole image projection direct viewing

• Pinhole camera
• Camera obscura
• Solar_eclipse#Viewing
• Pinhole (optics)
• Pinhole camera model (Redirected from Pinhole projection)
• Magic lantern

Some readers come to WP seeking info about direct viewing of pinhole projected image, such as for eclipses. There are many related WP articles, perhaps most relevant Pinhole camera, but none that do a great job of discussing the subject. (Also, a good discussion might mention that with care and fiddling ordinary hand-held binoculars can do quite a good job of projecting a clear and sizable image onto a safe surface.)-71.174.177.142 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay to edit about holes of nanometer size here ?

thanksMedhekp (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Why don't you give it a try.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)