Talk:One-way mirror

message: * This discussion used to appear above the table of contents since it didn't have a header, so I added one. --Polm23 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The effect referred to by WonderWheeler is called Pepper's ghost. — Paul G 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion by page creator 

message: I once used a urinal at a restaurant (the type where it is along a wall) and instead of a metal wall, they had a two-way mirror, that you could see all the patrons of the restaurant though. I don't understand how this type of glass could be fooled so easily (i don't think it was especially dark in the bathroom) as anyone wearing sunglasses or something could see you! there must be other types of mirrors. does anyone know?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.66.110 (talk)  
: In case it's any comfort, I'm pretty sure sunglasses won't help you see through a two-way mirror from the bright side.  The sunglasses will cut down the intensity of the reflected light from the bright room, but they'll dim the transmitted light from the darker room by the same factor. So the reflection will still overwhelm the transmitted image and you won't be able to see it. I admit I'm not completely sure that the mirror doesn't partially polarize the reflected image -- if it does then polarize sunglasses might have some effect. --Trovatore 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  urinal 

message: This page needs drastic revision.  It is written like a how-to guide.  It does not meet wikipedia's quality standards.  Someone needs to completely rewrite it. --Rebent 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even say when two-way mirrors were invented. PolarisSLBM (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page is terrible 

message: I'm a land lord and I am interested in purchasing a one way mirror and installing it. Does anyone know where I can buy one? It would be best if it was about the size of a normal bathroom mirror. Thanks! 24.21.194.209 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to buy, how to install 

message: move to One-way mirror which appears to be the more common name and the way the "general public" refers to the object in question (per the sole reference cited in the article). --rgpk (comment) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*
*Support Prothall (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*Alternative.  It might be acceptable to move to half-silvered mirror, or to merge into beam splitter. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This doesn't really ring a bell with me.  Can you point me to anything that describes these more, or to an outfit that sells/installs/uses them? --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... maybe they're an Australian phenomenon... I've tried Google with no luck, and the sorts of places they're used don't lend themselves to unannounced photography. Watch this space... Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*
*Support Prothall (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*Alternative.  It might be acceptable to move to half-silvered mirror, or to merge into beam splitter. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: By far the most common form of one-/two- way mirror in my everyday experience is a sort we don't seem to mention at all... it consists of a conventional indirect mirror, with the "back" of the glass silvered and an opaque matt backing layer on top of the reflecting coating, and with narrow parallel lines at about one inch spacing that are transparent, with neither silvering nor backing material.
This allows people behind the mirror to see through quite easily, while those in front have difficulty seeing past the reflection. Such mirrors are particularly effective when the observer is closer to the mirror than the observed, as in supermarket supervisors' offices, or florists' back offices. They don't pretend to be secret, just the opposite, they just give privacy to the observer while letting the observed know that they are on show.
Where do these belong in our coverage? This may be relevant to what we call the article(s). Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't really ring a bell with me.  Can you point me to anything that describes these more, or to an outfit that sells/installs/uses them? --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... maybe they're an Australian phenomenon... I've tried Google with no luck, and the sorts of places they're used don't lend themselves to unannounced photography. Watch this space... Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not half silvered

message: has anyone ever heard these called a 3 way mirror or is that someone being silly with the common confusion between 1 and 2 sided mirrors? i have heard this type of glass be caleld both 1 and 2 but never 3 sided. who/what would even be a 3rd side on a plain?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 way mirror 

message: This page largely depends on citations to a self-published, unsourced website by a man named Jim Loy, who is not an expert in this area. (He has a BS in Mathematics and no professional experience in optics. Whether or not his information is correct, it's not a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines.) Furthermore, these pages no longer exist: the sources point to ten-year-old snapshots on the Wayback machine. I plan to remove all references to this site unless I hear an objection.
I'm also going to remove the claim that "a true one-way mirror does not, and cannot, exist." A form of this claim may be true for some definitions of "one way" for certain types of materials (i.e., passive optics) but one-way mirrors do exist in the general usage of the term, and the word "true" adds none of the required precision to support this statement. ("One-way mirror" is not a scientific term of art where one can say there's some technical meaning different from the common meaning.)
I have no objection to restoring this claim if someone can find a real source and explain the claim with more precision. As it stands it's not only unsourced but it's not literally true. Along with a source, it would need to be phrased in such a way that claims that a particular form of "one way"-ness is not possible, and for what category of materials. Gerweck (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Quality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on One-way mirror. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cu.imt.net/~jimloy/physics/mirror0.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While this talk page is only ~30k, given the number of old and settled discussions present I'd like to set up automatic archiving. If there's some reason I shouldn't do this please let me know. --Polm23 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Archiving 

message: The intro to the article states: "This allows viewing from the side that is lightened but not by the darkened side." If this refers to viewing through the mirror, then it's the wrong way round -- you can see through the mirror from the darkened side and not from the lightened side.Blixton (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement about directionality