Talk:Aviator sunglasses

Serious Lack of Objectivity in Title[edit]

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)[reply]

I'd note that I questioned this earlier as well, (see further down the page) although there was a problem at the time with an ISP editor making odd edits. I would also express support for a page rename. Mabalu (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph engineering[edit]

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)[reply]

Development date[edit]

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)[reply]

"Kings of your Eyes"[edit]

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).

What the wobbegong are you talking about? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wearers[edit]

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)[reply]

I concur. You could pretty much just pull up any gossip/celebrity rag and print out a list of names in it. Chances are, most own at least a pair of Aviators. List a name or two of people who made it famous in the article, and call it at that. 24.23.104.235 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the other hand. Sometimes the person that popularized an item is very integral to a product's history and development. One of the first times I remember seeing a pair of aviators on a celebrity was during the movie "Cool Hand Luke". The leader of the chain gang is sometimes referred to as "the man with no eyes" - his trademark is always wearing a pair of aviator style glasses. I always judge a pair of aviators on how well they reflect (aka mirrored lenses), and it is due to this movie. Grabbing specific cases like this, or Douglas McArthur, is not the same as 'pulling up any gossip/celebrity rag and print[ing] out a list of names on it.' dhomstad (talk) 11:40, 8 Feb 2013 (UTC)

In Russian wiki, there's a large list of people wearing Aviators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.167.251 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, this is the English wiki, not the Russian one. What the Russian wiki does or does not have in their articles does not directly influence what any other language wiki should or should not include in their wikis. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more all wikis are alike, the better they will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.168.158 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are all aviator sunglasses made by Ray-Ban? If not, this article may be inappropriately titled.[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2015[edit]

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. No objections, and it seems a well reasoned request. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. Such a move will allow a timeline presentation of various brands offering the style. Of course Ray-Ban will continue to have a prominent place, but the general style needs more representation. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the first sentence says, this article is about a style of sunglasses, not a specific model. kennethaw88 • talk 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Need to globalize[edit]

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)[reply]