Talk:X-Ray Specs (novelty)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)