Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a224acb23de0ecfa

Jump to content

Talk:Rushlight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Martin of Sheffield in topic Edits by 109.78.99.243

When were Rushlights used?

[edit]

Context: when were these in common use?--Srleffler 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Certainly in the Middle ages, and probably long before that, but I know that I can't say that authoritatively. Perhaps someone else can.
Atlant 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

type of candle?

[edit]

A proper rushlight is just a piece of fat-soaked plant stem. It does not really match the Wikipedia definition of a candle which says, "A candle is a source of light, and sometimes a source of heat, consisting of a solid block of fuel (commonly wax) and an embedded wick." The rushlight has no block of fuel distinct from its wick.

So, I guess the opening sentence in this article (A rushlight is a type of candle formed using the dried pith of the rush plant as its wick) is incorrect. But I'm not sure how rushlights should be categorized. As very small torches? Rikat (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cottage Economy by William Cobbett

[edit]

Described in chapeter VII how to make rush lights. Freely downloadable from Project Gutenberg. I see the article only references this described in another book - why not reference the original? 92.15.13.152 (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, then why not do it ?  Velella  Velella Talk   14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edits by 109.78.99.243

[edit]

I believe that this editor was trying to improve the article, but in doing so has eliminated the only illustration and all the citations. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, depends upon having citations to support all facts. Any uncited fact may be challenged by another editor as part of the effort to produce the best summary of accepted, authoritative knowledge. Some of the editor's efforts were directed to reordering sections, but other changes were unsupported and removed existing cited sources. This is the first and (so far) only edit by this IP, I would encourage the anonymous editor to register and then through their talk page seek help in the Wikipedia way of doing things. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply