Talk:Sunglasses/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Deletion discussion

Please try to focus on the matter of deletion of List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses in this section of the talk page. Initially from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

  • Delete List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses - nonsense (someone)
    • "Nonsense" meaning WHAT? That they don't wear dark glasses? That Wikipedia is too elitist to refer to peoples' outward appearance? That you personally dislike that list? If you want to have a look at real nonsense, see List of people by first name. --KF 22:00, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • what is so special about wearing dark glasses? wshun 22:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the fact that only a very small percentage of people regularly wear them. Let's be tolerant: This list is factual, NPOV and probably can't be found anywhere else. So Wikipedia rather than wearing dark glasses is something "special". --KF 22:25, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • From my perspective, I ask myself how we hope to have Wikipedia used as a reference. List of left-handed people...all right, sometimes students might be working on a paper on the topic of left-handedness. List of famous Germans (or other country)...fine, occasionally one might want to check if Kafka was indeed Czech. When on earth would anyone need to refer to a list of dark-glasses wearing people? Should we make a list of "people frequently seen wearing sweaters" (oooh, there's a good one for Fred Rogers, though)? Unless someone can make a stirringly good argument for how someone would use this list as a reference, I say delete. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Can i start a List of people who have Marmite sandwiches for lunch every day, then I can be in it... :) quercus robur 23:08, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Are you notable for eating Marmite sandwiches? Do you have a Wikipedia article? Martin 23:58, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • First of all, it's an interesting phenomenon that such a list survives undetected for months. Then someone adds a name and suddenly everyone thinks it's no longer bearable. Secondly, it does not do any harm. Thirdly, someone might want to investigate the reason(s) for wearing dark glasses: Fashion/eccentricity? Poor eyesight? Ugly eyes (or what is left of them) which someone wants to hide? Any other reasons? Finally, the question is of course where to draw the line: While People who pick their nose in public seems ridiculuous to me, Famous people who smoke in public does not appear so far-fetched these days, especially in America. There's a lot of trivial knowledge on Wikipedia pages -- just read, say, the "brilliant prose" bio of Humphrey Bogart, so why pick on this one list? --KF 23:24, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Who can say this article would not be useful to some anthropologists 50 years from now? Also, there is a rumor that drug addicts are extremely sensitive to light, this list may help to confirm the claim overtime. Kowloonese 23:55, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lot's of other places on the WWW for this sort of thing to live other than an encyclopedia...and since it has been noticed... Bcorr 04:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Otherwise, I'll be adding myself to the list; my wife is always complaining about my unnecessary wearing of dark glasses in restaurants. ("It's bright in Las Vegas, man!") sugarfish 08:30, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • But you're not famous, Sugarfish! Wiwaxia 08:57, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be merged into something more general, in my opinion.—Eloquence 08:45, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it or merge it into sunglasses. --User:Docu

Matter appears resolved by the merge - everyone ok to remove from VfD? Martin 12:34, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why is John Lennon included in the list? He was obviously short-sighted and wore corrective glasses, which were ocasionally tinted. He was very influential in making round-shaped glasses popular, but what does this have to do with sunglasses? --Georgius 15:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

New Discussion

stuff not related to deletion of List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses

The Blues Brothers

I'm not entirely sure if The Blues Brothers still qualify as fictional characters. True, they were roles played by Belushi and Aykroyd, but after all, they did appear on live television and at one point released an album, which would qualify them as a music act, if not a band. knoodelhed 01:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

picture

Um, why does this article have a picture of regular glasses? Shouldn't it have a picture of sunglasses?—Eloquence 04:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Go figure .. I changed it to someone from the "People predominantly seen wearing ..". Unfortunatly few have images, and oddly none of Kim Jong-il (the one with the most) show him wearing sunglasses. -- User:Docu

Matrix

DropDeadGorgias, although I am not sure what you wrote is absolutely correct, as there are many antagonists and some (such as the woman from Merv's brigade) wear glasses not unlike those worn by Neo, this sentence can be expanded into much more information on cultural perception of sunglasses (for example, they are an important part of government agents image). I've just read a great treatise on sunglasses a few weeks ago, but have already forgot the source... :(

List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses in this article

I shortened the lists ,because it should be obvious for example, that blind people wear glasses,also the list is bloated. A lot of people and characters wear predominantly sunglasses. If there are objections just add some persons back. --ThomasK 09:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Time to resurrect List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses? --Error 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

cyclops

ok, this may sound preeeeety pedantic, but when Cyclops is wearing sunglasses and not in costume, then he isn't Cyclops, he's Scott Summers. Cyclops never wears sunnies, only Scott does. hmm? hmm? --Ballchef 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Purple lenses have no benefit

I'm not sure that's true; I wear purplish sunglasses (I can be seen wearing them on my userpage, in fact) and they help. But then again, they are sort of purplish-gray rather than purple, so maybe that makes the difference. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blindness and sunglasses

Perhaps a sentence or see also could be included over the cultrual significance of sunglasses and blindness.


prada

the prada paragraph is extraneous, and looks quite a bit like advertising. The Oakley "thump" lines are dubious, but acceptable, since the design is at least slightly new and marginally unusual. I think both should be removed, since this is an article, not an advertisment.--Caspiankilkelly 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"PRADA SUNGLASSES

The new Prada's sunglasses collection for 2002, designed to complement their clothing range, includes a large selection of plastic frames with matching lenses in amber, olive, light blue, silvery grey, copper and basic black. The big news is rimless frames, some with photochromatic tinted lenses in pastel colours, and large rectangular and aviator shapes, combined with graduated lenses in purple, green and amber.." -Removed.

Also removed advertising at the base of the "other names" section.

I don't see why there is even a section on who wears sunglasses; nearly everyone does.


  • I agree that the Oakley "thump" lines ought to be removed. The "history" of sunglasses is meticulous up through the 1930s and then WWII, and then we suddenly jump to the Oakley "thump" in 2004??? Sunglasses evolved not at all from the 1950s until the turn of the millenium? If the five decades of missing history were filled in, the Oakley line wouldn't seem so out of place--it would be just another development. As it reads now, the line sounds like advertising, or at the very least an instance of an Oakley "thump" owner wanting to sport how cool his/her shades are.--Blert 22:19, 21 August 2006

On "Other Names for Sunglasses"

What about "Shades"? That's what I usually call them. I would add it myself, but I don't know the extent of the word, most of the others specify. Gritironskillet 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)