![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Why has this page been protected for so long without a reason being accessible? I believe that this page has been doctored by Ray-Ban company so that they can keep the title as "Ray-Ban Aviator" rather than the significantly more appropriate and objective "Aviator sunglasses". Far from being unique to Ray-Ban, aviator-style sunglasses are produced by MANY companies in the glasses/sunglasses industry. Perhaps they one time had a patent, but today they are most definitely not a product unique to that business. To that point, the term "Aviators" has become something of a pop-culture phrase due to the many cultural/subcultural associations that they have come to have over time, which further pushes it away from the Ray-Ban brand. You are unlikely to hear people refer to them as "Ray-Ban aviators", but rather simply "aviators". I strongly urge someone with the relevant authority to remove the protection and change the name. This is highly significant as it questions the objectivity of Wikipedia as whole, and may suggest that biased parties (namely Ray-Ban) have intentionally changed this page for their own reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.185.199 ( talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The line about Randolph engineering is as far as I know correct, but not in the citation give, which also looks unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.128 ( talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody clarify the date on the development here? They can't have been developed by Ray Ban in 1965, for Douglas MacArthur to wade ashore wearing them 20 years previously!! Arejaypee ( talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the qualia for getting the fact that Aviators are the Kings of your Eyes added to this page? Do studies need to be cited? Is there a particular authority that can be appealed to?
I can understand the revert based on lack of citation, but I'd like to get it added legitamately(sic).
The list of people who wear them is ridiculous (and not least for the reason that Rob Halford isn't there, but Sam Totman is). It's pointless, and should probably be removed. -- Grindlyth ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section. There is no reason to have a list of two people, especially when one is already mentioned through the page elsewhere. Unless there is a list that more explicitly talks about who made the style famous to begin with, supported by a source, there is no reason to list everyone that wears an extremely common style of glasses. Grimmeh ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Aviator sunglasses" would be an appropriate encyclopaedic title for this style of eyewear. I don't believe they are exclusive to Ray-Ban so the choice of title for this article perhaps gives undue weight to one manufacturer, rather than focusing on the style of glasses. I would therefore suggest moving this back to Aviator sunglasses and not making it sound as if Ray-Ban is the only manufacturer of this style, although obviously they must be mentioned and acknowleded. Mabalu ( talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Who knows whether all aviators are or ain't no raybans? But everybody all over the world knows all raybans ain't no aviators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.175.53 ( talk) 12:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, and it seems a well reasoned request. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Ray-Ban Aviator →
Aviator sunglasses – This has been informally raised a couple times before with little interest. I'd like to ask for general opinions on this. It seems to me that aviator sunglasses are very much a specific style of eyewear, and the article currently makes it sound as if they are a Ray-Ban patent/exclusive design - which I'm pretty sure is misleading, I've seen plenty of aviators that aren't Ray-Ban. Singling one manufacturer out in the title seems promotional, particularly as there doesn't seem to be anything VERY distinctive about Ray Ban Aviators that makes them markedly different from other aviator sunglasses. Given the potential for the move to be contentious/challenged, I'd like to get feedback first.
Mabalu (
talk)
21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This article ignores the rest of the world. Royal Air Force anti-glare spectacles were in use in 1941. I don't know if they were developed independently of Bausch and Lomb. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 03:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Why has this page been protected for so long without a reason being accessible? I believe that this page has been doctored by Ray-Ban company so that they can keep the title as "Ray-Ban Aviator" rather than the significantly more appropriate and objective "Aviator sunglasses". Far from being unique to Ray-Ban, aviator-style sunglasses are produced by MANY companies in the glasses/sunglasses industry. Perhaps they one time had a patent, but today they are most definitely not a product unique to that business. To that point, the term "Aviators" has become something of a pop-culture phrase due to the many cultural/subcultural associations that they have come to have over time, which further pushes it away from the Ray-Ban brand. You are unlikely to hear people refer to them as "Ray-Ban aviators", but rather simply "aviators". I strongly urge someone with the relevant authority to remove the protection and change the name. This is highly significant as it questions the objectivity of Wikipedia as whole, and may suggest that biased parties (namely Ray-Ban) have intentionally changed this page for their own reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.185.199 ( talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The line about Randolph engineering is as far as I know correct, but not in the citation give, which also looks unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.128 ( talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody clarify the date on the development here? They can't have been developed by Ray Ban in 1965, for Douglas MacArthur to wade ashore wearing them 20 years previously!! Arejaypee ( talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the qualia for getting the fact that Aviators are the Kings of your Eyes added to this page? Do studies need to be cited? Is there a particular authority that can be appealed to?
I can understand the revert based on lack of citation, but I'd like to get it added legitamately(sic).
The list of people who wear them is ridiculous (and not least for the reason that Rob Halford isn't there, but Sam Totman is). It's pointless, and should probably be removed. -- Grindlyth ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section. There is no reason to have a list of two people, especially when one is already mentioned through the page elsewhere. Unless there is a list that more explicitly talks about who made the style famous to begin with, supported by a source, there is no reason to list everyone that wears an extremely common style of glasses. Grimmeh ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Aviator sunglasses" would be an appropriate encyclopaedic title for this style of eyewear. I don't believe they are exclusive to Ray-Ban so the choice of title for this article perhaps gives undue weight to one manufacturer, rather than focusing on the style of glasses. I would therefore suggest moving this back to Aviator sunglasses and not making it sound as if Ray-Ban is the only manufacturer of this style, although obviously they must be mentioned and acknowleded. Mabalu ( talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Who knows whether all aviators are or ain't no raybans? But everybody all over the world knows all raybans ain't no aviators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.175.53 ( talk) 12:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, and it seems a well reasoned request. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Ray-Ban Aviator →
Aviator sunglasses – This has been informally raised a couple times before with little interest. I'd like to ask for general opinions on this. It seems to me that aviator sunglasses are very much a specific style of eyewear, and the article currently makes it sound as if they are a Ray-Ban patent/exclusive design - which I'm pretty sure is misleading, I've seen plenty of aviators that aren't Ray-Ban. Singling one manufacturer out in the title seems promotional, particularly as there doesn't seem to be anything VERY distinctive about Ray Ban Aviators that makes them markedly different from other aviator sunglasses. Given the potential for the move to be contentious/challenged, I'd like to get feedback first.
Mabalu (
talk)
21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This article ignores the rest of the world. Royal Air Force anti-glare spectacles were in use in 1941. I don't know if they were developed independently of Bausch and Lomb. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 03:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)