Talk:X-ray specs

message: The "Novelty value" section has no citations or references, which means it is likely original research. Not only that, but it's unlikely anyone older than about six years old would believe the lenses really worked. Can anyone back up this section? I think it not only violates policy, but it also makes the article bad. BigNate37(T) 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelty value is original research 

message: OK, an editor has objected to the image of Jimbo wearing the specs, and another editor (me) wants to keep it, so I'm asking a third party to take a look via Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's the situation:
One editor has said the image should be deleted becauseL
#It's obviously a (badly) photoshopped image and is therefore not of encyclopedic quality and reflects poorly on the encyclopedia.
One editor wants to keep the image because:
#Some sort of image of the specs is important to the article, and
##This image is probably free, being a melange of a free image, an unfree image, and some hand drawing, thus qualifying as original creative work, and thus better than using an unfree image in fair use, and
##An external link to a pic of the specs can be provided, but that's not as good as having an image in the body of the article, and
##It's not that badly photoshopped. It's not below encyclopic standards.
Possible outcomes:
#Keep the image.
#Delete the image (but include an External link to a site with a pic of the specs.)
#Replace the image with an unfree fair-use image.
#Other? Can't think of any.
(I've also put in an image request for someone to take an actual photo, which would solve the dispute, but it might be months or longer before that happens.) Herostratus 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking over the image, I can safely say that they do not lend any useful information to the article, which is the primary purpose of images.  Unless there's a reason why this "Artist's conception" provides anything helpful for the reader's understanding, I'd recomend just removing the image from the article. (since it's gpl'd there's presently no reason to delete the image itself.)i kan reed 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. I'll look for an external picture of the specs to link to. Herostratus 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, although the pic is not too good. Grumble, I think the article's the worse off, but a deal's a deal... I hope they don't take out the picture of the hand, that's also photoshopped... the Novely Value section is to go, also... pretty soon the article'l be down to a stub at this rate... Grumble grumble... :p Herostratus 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the deal with that picture?

message: This doesn't seem like an encyclopaedia entry to me. The bit about people wanting to have a go to see if they could have Superman's ability, for example.
It's very unprofessional.
I agree. Also, I'm not sure if everyone who buys them does it on the off-chance that the really 'work' rather than to see the reactions of other people. The link to Stupid.com is unneccessary - and doesn't work anyway!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.153 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encylcopaedia entry? 

message: For a brief period in 1971, a New Jersey based company sold novelty "x-ray" glasses through the mail via advertisements in the Marvel line of comic books. People who viewed their televisions while wearing these glasses reported seeing images that were "hellish" or "like hell". It should be noted that this phenomena occured whether the televisions in question were turned on or not. The company quickly went out of business and investigations reveal that the company's address leads to a graveyard founded many decades before 1971. 76.66.57.154 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ooo-EEEE-ooo.... Herostratus (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I don't know why the article links to "Advanced Intelligence Company", which clearly sells a simple near-IR CCD cam for an extortionate price (buying the components, cam, glasses frame, handheld DVR individually would yield a price well below $600). There is no thermal imaging and no X-ray vision going on.
It would have been more interesting to state the fact that multiple different handheld camcorders could be used to see through clothes by using their night vision mode at daylight.  88.215.67.179 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial link 

message: OK, this article is tagged for "Tone or style". So what's the problem with the tone or style? Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone or style