any plans for articles on stage lighting design, use of colours, Gobo's and other filters, what about sound reactive lighting and projection. etc.
As it stands this article does have some good information, but it's also a bit of a mess. In particular, differences between US and UK nomenclature aren't always fully elaborated. There is also the lighting designer article which says some of the same things this article does. I really think that we need to make this page the main article for anything related to stage lighting and bring the other articles (lighting control consoles, lighting designer, etc.) into a sensible hierarchy. This page itself needs a better format than what it has right now; in the broadest terms, maybe three sections: one for theory (principles/quality of lighting in the current article), one for instruments, and one for the people involved. Then we could branch out with subpages from the article as necessary. If anybody has any other thoughts, I'd love to hear them.Kevin M Marshall 17:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd add to that that there needs to be some disambiguation between stage lighting in general and theatre (plain and musical) lighting, concert lighting, Rock & Roll lighting, and TV lighting.
Would you need to capture the differences between abateur and professional too? User:Rufty 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
There should be a section on stage lighting theory as mentioned above, explaining the principles practically- i.e. how to produce the describes qualities/effects, and some general guidelines on HOW to light a stage in various environments. user:bfleet315
Just a note on nomenclature; the jargon used in other parts of the english speaking world also varies radically. I've seen the same thing happen in French, as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to just stick to one simple set of terms, rather than using colloquialisms. While this isn't entirely possible with some aspects of lighting, we could probably just use the engineering terms for many of the aspects of the electrical side of things, and for instrument terminology, stick with either brand specific, or complex engineering terms for stuff (I.E.- no differentiation between profile, or a flood, instead call it what the instrument is, A fresnel, a PAR, etc...). Those of us who started in the industry before getting any formal schooling in it were taught mostly specific names, rather than general ones. It removes a great deal of ambiguity from the text, and it makes it easier for someone who has no experience to understand the difference. As for the disambiguation of Stage versus everything else, It's not needed. If you work in one, an understanding of the basic principles of the others is present, and we're not dealing with an industry article here. Lighting is lighting, whatever you apply it to.--Caspiankilkelly 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)