Talk:X-ray specs

Novelty value is original research

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)

• Hmmm well you're right. I just made it up. On the other hand, I guess it's true, and that you're underestimating the naivete of older boys... I recall that when I was about age 10 or so a friend and I bought a pair, I put them on, and was all like "OMG I can see her underwear!" and he was like "LEMME SEE LEMME SEE GIVE EM OVER!!!" Lol. But yeah that is original research, so delete it if you like, although I think it explains the popularity and main attraction of the specs. I suppose a third-party source could be found, although likely to be no less anecdotal than mine... Herostratus 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with that picture?

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

1. 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:

1. Some sort of image of the specs is important to the article, and
   1. 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
   2. 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
   3. It's not that badly photoshopped. It's not below encyclopic standards.

Possible outcomes:

1. Keep the image.
2. Delete the image (but include an External link to a site with a pic of the specs.)
3. Replace the image with an unfree fair-use image.
4. 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)

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)

OK, done. I'll look for an external picture of the specs to link to. Herostratus 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Encylcopaedia entry?

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)

Trivia

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)

ooo-EEEE-ooo.... Herostratus (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Commercial link

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)

Tone or style

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)

Change Title to "X-Ray Glasses"

I propose this article be changed to the title "X-Ray Glasses". This novelty product was originally a purely American product (as originally noted in the first rendition of the article and subsequently removed). The product for most of its history was only available in the United States and is known as "X-Ray Glasses". The product was only much later exported to Great Britain. Therefore, giving the article a British English title seems completely backwards and should be changed to the normal name of the item.

Requested move 6 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

X-Ray Specs (novelty) → X-ray specs – 1- capitalization, 2- I believe the actual specs are the most common thing called "x-ray specs", the others are in X-ray specs (disambiguation). Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Daniel Carrero: Or move X-ray specs (disambiguation) to X-ray specs? The so-called "actual specs" are NOT working x-ray spectacles within the definition as described in fiction stories about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, hmnn. It seems that this article is probably about the most notable meaning, but does it overshadow all the others to the extent of being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Let's see, we have:

• X-Ray Specs (novelty), this article about the novelty eyewear.
• X-Ray Specs (comic strip), which sounds pretty obscure to me. I guess it depends on how notable Buster (comics) and Monster Fun are. A British person might know. The strip did run from 1975 to 2000 it seems.
• X-Ray Spex, a British punk band. The spelling is different, so it's in the "See also" section rather than the main section; I consider a likely legitimate possible target for some searches though. Article lede says "[T]heir first single, 'Oh Bondage Up Yours!', is now acknowledged as a classic punk rock single and the album Germfree Adolescents is widely acclaimed as a classic album of the punk rock genre" with refs.
• "X-Ray Specs" song by The Sweet. Their article says they "rose to worldwide fame in the 1970s". On the other hand the song seems pretty obscure. It doesn't have an article and wasn't on any album except later compilations.

Dunno. It's a touugh judgement call which really has to be based on one's best guess. My best guess is that yes, X-Ray Specs (novelty) is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I guess. It's also the original meaning and the source of the other uses, if that matters, which it doesn't much. I guess I support the requested move. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Some would say that the primary meaning is the fictional device, as now described in X-ray specs (disambiguation). I heard of the fictional device long ago, but not of any other of the meanings listed. Move X-ray specs (disambiguation) to X-ray specs? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this primarytopic grab. The case for the product depends on whether it's a trademark; no currently cited sources show a product by this name so it's hard to tell. The other entries in the disambig page are probably all proper names, so the disambig page belongs where it was, at X-Ray Specs, where i've put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support lowercase The main brand of X-rays specs spells specs with an X since 1973, and we're not just talking about them, anyway. No opinion on primacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The novelty is the clear primary topic; it receives 97.4% of the article traffic.[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.