Talk:Sunglasses/Archive 1

Archive 1

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
    • Merged.—Eloquence 09:43, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

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)

Related AfD

For those interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses. -AED 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My Husband Beats Me Sunglasses

I'd like to see a single reference found for the paragraph JustinBlue101 added. (Nothing found via google at this time) His only other contribution to wikipedia before being banned was to repeatedly delete the content on Donald Trump's page. CraigWyllie 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for additional information

Nothing given on sunglass measurements. How do you interpret "Base Curve: 8", "Temple Length: 125mm", "Lens Size: 54 x 38 x 56mm, DBL 13mm" (from the [Serengeti Eyewear Napoli]http://www.serengetieyewear.com/products/serengeti_aviator/serengeti_napoli.cfm page)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnjacob10 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Blah blah blah

I removed the phrase "blah blah blah" from the Mirrored Lenses section. Someone must have vandalized it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.159.50 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Although this happens so frequently it's usually not mentioned on the talk pages.Nastajus (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's copying somebody else

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.17.153 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The second(2) source is unavaliable or corrupt. 78.82.190.14 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The external link for reference #10 is incorrect. The actual link-to address is http://wcbstv.com/consumer/UV.Rays.Sunglasses.2.234545.html . 24.236.228.224 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wraparounds = ?

The article talks about "Wraparounds"... but when I google "wraparound sunglasses" I find tons of pictures that do not fit the definition in the article (frequently more than 1 lense, so I added that they have separate lenses; the lense(s) often don't "wrap around" the fact/eyes; sometimes the lense(s) don't even merge into the temple arms...

So... is there any source for this definition of Wraparounds? Or at least vast Wikipedia consense? If we don't find anything, we should rather delete the section than leave it in the current sorry state... Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Porsche sunglasses (like those Yoko Ono wore until John's death) are really wraparound. Do you understand me?

Aviators?

These were popular through the LATE eighties (not early). This was due to the advent of the Top Gun movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.25.14 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Alexander Gradsky started wearing aviators much earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.140.215 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

red tinted

I heard red tinted glasses from a book called "Lights Out! Sugar, Sleep, Survival" helps sleep better/earlier. It talks about how have too much light at night, and this filters some of it out. I'm not sure how to cite this, what page etc, so I'm leaving it here in the talk.Nastajus (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

chicken in "egg factories" are fitted with red tinted glasses so they don't see the blood from injuries inflicted on their "colleagues". 69.9.28.55 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Need improvement

there should be citations for the ailments sunglassess suposedly help avoid. Currently there is only one for cancer. The rest are speculative, from what I've read elsewere, and mostly pushed by sunglassess companies to scare people into buying expensive ones. 38.96.176.66 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and while I'm sure sunglass manufacturers tout dubious features in some cases, it is well understand how UV can harm the retina and cornea. Health benefits are barely mentioned in the current article. Other practical information is missing as well. For example, I use specific sunglasses for specific tasks: polarized with yellow or amber tint for fishing, orange or yellow tint for hunting, gray or brown tint for driving. While there are similar examples to this in the current article, there is not much to teach the reader why one tint is better than another for a particular task. Given that this has been tagged a fashion article, is it forbidden to include an intelligent technical explanation relating to light wavelengths and filters? 204.145.225.27 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the "eye-lens" and the development of cataracts. 69.9.28.55 (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I do not understand this sentence. Is something missing ? How were the emeralds used ? How were they acting as mirrors ?

"It is said that the Roman emperor Nero liked to watch gladiator fights with emeralds. These, however, appear to have worked rather like mirrors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.128.87 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Protection" section & UV-A,B,C

Here are the UV bands:
UV-A is longest, 400-315 nm
UV-B is 315 - 280 nm
UV-C is 280 - 100 nm or nanometers; x10 for Angstroms.
The SHORTER the wavelength the higher the energy (see Planck Constant) and the higher the biological damage. So protection DOWN TO small wavelengths is most important. Most see-through materials, by their nature, lose transparency at extremely short UV (or far infra-red) wavelengths. That is fortunate, but leaves us with problems in the UV-A band. Technically, protection UP TO wavelengths closer to the visual ones we want to use is an evolving goal. I hope you can reflect these facts -- we push protection down to short wavelengths because they are ionizing, they break chemical bonds and destroy the body's proteins, while we work to push protection up to longer wavelengths as our technical abilities increase. In dermatology, the energy of UV-A radiation is low but still dangerous. UV-A is known not to be able to break many bonds of DNA (which would increase the risk of cancers like malanoma), but it leads to the generation of free radicals and they break the DNA. Clearly the lens (cataracts) and retina are more exposed and thus more in need of protection. Hope this inspires others to improve the way "Protection" is presented.
--jerry
Jerry-va (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hatred to British English

Ain't you, really, think that sunglasses are used only in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.166.233 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope. But neither are they used only in Britain. Angr (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But ain't you deny that the Beatles are British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.166.233 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities and sunglasses...

"Sunglasses have long been associated with celebrities and film actors primarily from a desire to mask their identity." Anonymity may well be a factor in this, as well as style, but the main reason celebrities wear sunglasses is that most of their jobs take place in front of incredibly bright lights. Most people don't realize this until they end up on a stage or set for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.111.77 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Градского не забудьте добавить. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.166.233 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-tinting lenses

I'm not finding any discussion of self-tinting lenses, nor is there an article by that name. I'm talking about the thigns that go dark when you go outside and allegedly go clear again when you come inside, but usually stay just a little dark even indoors. Are they called by some other name? Or is Wikipedia's silence about these monstrosities a case of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"? —Angr (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Transitions" (or similar) is used in the trade literature. 69.9.28.55 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Photochromic, adaptive, or chameleons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.166.233 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See Photochromic lens Nsayer (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced POV section

Please stop adding a section called "When you should wear sunglasses" to the article. The section is completely unsourced, as well as POV. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Moalem research - link is to newspaper article should probably go?

I chased down the Journal of Investigative Dermatology and can't find any reference to a Dr Moalem or any research linked to sunglasses. http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=sunglasses&sp-p=all&pag-start=1&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=&siteCode=jid&sp-q-9%5BJID%5D=1&sp-advanced=true

So the article http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/8739/Sunglasses+raise+risk+of+cancer seems dubious in terms of value. Can't find any similar research either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderchalkidis (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

wet lens ? low light?

Can you explain what is a wet lens and how it helps to the morning bla, bla, bla? Then you can re-write this paragraph and re-insert it: "Clear lenses are typically used to protect the eyes from impact, debris, dust, or chemicals. Some sunglasses with interchangeable lens have wet lenses to protect the eyes during low light or early morning activities." And what is "low light" (low intensity? low angle?) 69.9.28.55 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not "wet", but "white" (clear) lenses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.176.220 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature

With the greatest respect, the term 'Spekkies' is rarely used for sunglasses in southern Australia. In fact, the term 'spekkie' usually refers to a spectacular mark (catch) of the football in Australian Rules football. Phil (Melbourne in southern Australia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.0.55 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth mentioning under "Other Names" that in India people call sunglasses "goggles" – especially large ones like the "Jackie O style". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenpatankar (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Teashade Sunglasses

I am curious about the history of teashades, which in what is written here seem to only suggest a psychadelic origin, however they appear to be closer in style to the 1930s style sunglasses (pre Ray-Ban more Foster Grant days). I can't say for sure, but it is suspect to me that within the history of sunglasses great mention is made to their prominence with Hollywood and Atlantic City in the 1930s, and yet there are no photographs or evidence. Coemgenv (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Leps wears teashades. In Ray Ban, they are called Round Metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.176.220 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see how this is relevant to my original posting.Coemgenv (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Teashade Sunglasses" = "Windsor" glasses (worn by John Lennon)

• Vintage Round Zyl Windsor Eyeglasses
• John Lennon’s Windsor glasses
• Guide To Round Windsor Spectacles
• WWII_British_Army_Spectacles_with_Original_Case_4.jpg
• "Windsor" BRITISH_ARMY_WW2_a.jpg

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

NHS glasses = WWII P3 glasses (worn by John Lennon)

• P3 glasses.jpg
• John Lennon Glasses - British National Health Service 422CJ
• John Lennon’s sunglasses, 1966 Japan tour, Frank Marshall & Co Auctions, Knutsford.jpg
• WWII P3 glasses WWII_U_S__Army_Issued_Q1.jpg
• Four Eyes: Eyeglasses and the WWII US GI
• 90th IDPG: Four Eyes: Eyeglasses and the WWII US GI

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

EN 1836 superseded

by ISO 12312-1:2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.58.27 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

During the late 19th century the United States Army,Boer Defense Forces and British Imperial Arny, issued eyeglasses with tinted orange/ brown lenses. These were semi- textured with a central smooth section of the lens. They were provided to Signal Corps Personnel to accompany the Heliograph, as direct focus on the eye of the sun's rays was necessary to operate the device. the frames were silvered.PintoMars (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

In recent years there has grown up a most pernicious and entirely unfounded belief that light is bad for the eyes. An organ which, for some scores of millions of years, has been adapting itself very successfully to sunshine of all degrees of intensity, is now supposed to be incapable of tolerating daylight without the mitigating intervention of tinted goggles, or lamplight, except when diffused through ground glass or reflected from the ceiling. This extraordinary notion that the organ of light perception is unfitted to stand light has become popular only in the last twenty years or so. Before the war of 1914 it was, I remember, the rarest thing to see anyone wearing dark glasses. As a small boy, I would look at a be-goggled man or woman with that mixture of awed sympathy and rather macabre curiosity which children reserve for those afflicted with any kind of unusual or disfiguring physical handicap. Today, all that is changed. The wearing of black spectacles has become not merely common, but creditable. Just how creditable is proved by the fact that the girls in bathing suits, represented on the covers of fashion magazines in summer time, invariably wear goggles. Black glasses have ceased to be the badge of the afflicted, and are now compatible with youth, smartness and sex appeal. This fantastic craze for blacking out the eyes had its origin in certain medical circles, where a panic terror of the ultra-violet radiations in ordinary sunlight developed about a generation back; it has been fostered and popularized by the manufacturers and vendors of coloured glass and celluloid spectacle frames. Their propaganda has been effective. In the Western world, millions of people now wear dark glasses, not merely on the beach, or when driving their cars, but even at dusk, or in the dim-lit corridors of public buildings. Needless to say, the more they wear them, the weaker their eyes become and the greater their need for ' protection' from the light. One can acquire an addiction to goggles, just as one can acquire an addiction to tobacco or alcohol.

Aldous Huxley - The Art of Seeing pg.29

Trent84 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Standards section error

Issue

The statement:

"There is no rating for transmittance protection for radiation of up to 400 nm ("UV400"), as required in other countries (incl. the United States) and recommended by experts."[10]

appears contradicted in the following paragraph, reading:

"The U.S. standard is ANSI Z80.3-2001, which includes three transmittance categories. According to the ANSI Z80.3-2001 standard, the lens should have a UVB (280 to 315 nm) transmittance of no more than one per cent and a UVA (315 to 380 nm) transmittance of no more than 0.3 times the visual light transmittance."

Solution

Rewrite the first quote as, "There is no rating for transmittance protection for radiation of up to 400 nm ("UV400"), as required in other countries and recommended by experts."[10] Nick Nardozzi (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014

The wiki article has the following: ""

http://wcbstv.com/seenon/UV.Rays.Sunglasses.2.234545.html is a dead link. I found the same article on another site. I request to replace it as the reference... the new url is @ http://purelife-glasses.com/100-uv-protection-sunglasses/

References

Harrisjohn107 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [2]. I have switched the two URLs. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Undone: if a link is dead, it's preferable to use an archive.org copy of the original source, rather than some copyvio on an affiliate-link spam blog that went up the same day as the edit request. I've dug out an archive.org copy and used that. --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A good catch, and explanation of why you did it. Thanks! Reify-tech (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

With rising awareness of the Blue Light Threat from natural and artificial light sources, there is patented technology to effectively filter blue light. Based on the human body's own defenses, Melanin + Ocular Lens Pigment is an adjunct perfected by Dr. James Gallas, with global exclusivity provided to "TrueBlue Lenses". Although there are other lenses that claim to protect from blue light, the TrueBlue lens filters the blue light spectrum like no other lens for superior protection against veiled glare, benefiting the lens and retina of the eye. Sdinc (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Healthcare professionals recommend eye protection whenever the sun comes out[2] "

This claim seems dubious and is at best misleading: The effect would be that humans, despite being shaped by eons of evolution to walk in sunlight, should wear sunglasses half the time they step out the door. Either strike this sentence or give a more accurate description of what the consensus for what circumstances are. I note especially that "Healthcare professionals" means next to nothing: The plural requires no more than two individuals, there are many healthcare professionals who have very little qualification in general, and those who are qualified in general are not automatically experts on the topic at hand. Do we have a joint statement by dozens of world leading opticians and opthomologist or by two school nurses?80.226.24.9 (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For the vast majority of those "eons" humans didn't live long enough for macular degeneration to show up. Evolution also failed to produce teeth that last past age 40 or so without modern dental care.

That said, the statement is strongly worded and gives a source with a passing reference to "experts". - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at improving the statement and the source.[3] - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Land vehicle driving" is messed up

It starts about how sunglasses can help improve driving safety at night, and concludes that they shouldn't be used! It then talks about dust and smog particles entering the eyes - ever heard of a windshield? 71.177.145.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

Provide a valid quotation for the statement of UV rays being responsible for cataracts.

This source says otherwise, Cataract and UV radiation Wolff, Simon Documenta Ophthalmologica, 1995, Vol.88(3), pp.201-204

Dr.steen (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing the Sunglasses page (I am new to this, see at least 2 errors, and just wanted to see them corrected)

I have no idea how to go about this...I've never edited Wikipedia before and this seems complicated. Just noticed at least 2 errors on the Sunglasses page that are minor, but still...wrong.

1. 1: Under "Teashades", marijuana is said to be an opiate. Chemically, this is untrue.

1. 2: Under "Wayfarers", the 1980's TV show "Moonlighting" is called "Moonlightning".

This was probably not worth my time, but as this is now used as a source of authoritative knowledge by many, such basic mistakes irked me. I still didn't find out much about cat-eye glasses and gave up reading this error-filled page.

Thank you. --SetonCram (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done And thanks for pointing these errors out. There is Cat eye glasses if that helps any, it's a rather short article. Cannolis (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016

A sentence in the section "Visual clarity and comfort" it states: "The glare is neutralized by blocking the vertical (magnetic) components of light."

The magnetic' and 'vertical' component of light are NOT synonymous. The magnetic component of light is not exclusively vertical, it can be, e.g. from the sun or any other unpolarized light source, in any orientation.

142.1.36.150 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I'm not the original requester, but I do agree with them. Really, the entire sentence is wrong. A polarizer doesn't block any single component of light (ie: the electric or magnetic component). It does block light based on the orientation of its electric field (usually, depends on the construction and nature of the polarizer, though sunglass polarizers discriminate on electric field), but the transmitted light still (necessarily) has both an electric and magnetic field component. This is described in some detail here: Polarizer#Absorptive_polarizers Given that the sentence above the one in question describes a little of what polarized lenses are doing, it may be best to just link the Polarization article itself again (it is linked in the previous section already) and leave it at that.

In order to conform to the template's requirement:

please change "The glare is neutralized by blocking the vertical (magnetic) components of light." to (nothing) -=Avilister=- 02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

In "Function/Assessing Protection" the caption of the Polaroid sunglasses picture is "Polariod Sunglasses". This seems to be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.147.110.247 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This error is still present: maybe it is time to drop the semi-protection. 2A02:1205:5019:1210:81B1:5334:FC2E:E9F7 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunglasses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www-organik.chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/08020000/user_upload/makula/optimiert_teil2.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www-organik.chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/08020000/user_upload/makula/optimiert_teil2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029162016/http://www.gratefuldeadsunglasses.com/historyofdeadsunglasses.htm to http://www.gratefuldeadsunglasses.com/historyofdeadsunglasses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

change dead link https://www.klinikum-karlsruhe.de/fileadmin/Files/makulahuenig.pdf to https://cocoleni.de/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/makulahuenig.pdf Cocoleni (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 14/03/19

The first paragraph states the AAO recommends blue-light blocking, however this article from 2017 suggests against it and evidence seems to be unclear. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/should-you-be-worried-about-blue-light Poketama (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Your stirring the alphabet soup here. We have the American Optometric Association (AOA, cited in the article) and the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO, your 2017 article).

From what I get from Effects of blue light technology, this seems to be developing science. That's immaterial here. We're talking about sunglasses and blue light, not blue light and health. If the AOA recommends one thing and the AAO poo-poos it, we merely say that and cite the sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

Remove "whenever a person is in the sun" it's superfluous, or add *wearing* to "The American Optometric Association recommends *wearing* sunglasses that block ultraviolet radiation (UV) whenever a person is in the sun" Thomas Pound (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Need more data

Need more information about the design's history made it. The year of each individual design Alhcua civilization (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)