Talk:Browline glasses

horned-rim glasses

this style can deservedly be called a "horn rimmed" style, its generally thought of as historical moniker noting the history of polished "horn" or tortoise shell, and has come to mean any style using materials that resemble the original look, even those with metallic accents. Personally, I've always believed the continued popularity of the term "horn rimmed" was due to the protrusions coming out to accommodate the temple bars, a consistent feature of t-shell/plastic/acetate frames. But either way, the term isn't mistaken. WiltonPyle (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

image of piercetheorganist

Come on, adding an image of yourself repeatedly to an article when others object? Are you serious? The image is poorly composed and has bad lighting. This is a tiny stub, and two images are more than enough. This is about illustrating the wearing of the glasses and their notability, and an image of Malcolm X does this better. There is no encyclopedic reason to include an image of yourself, and I find it rather immature. VanTucky ^talk 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, VanTucky, there's no Wikipedia policy saying anything remotely along the lines of "stub articles may only have X-number photos". The fact that you want something a certain way does not (a) make your opinion Wikipedia policy or convention, (b) make your opinion something I have any duty or obligation to respect or abide by, (c) make it okay for you to randomly go around and deleting photos from articles. I'm going to go restore the photo now -- the article is about browline glasses; photos of people (me included) wearing them are therefore appropriate for this article. Feel free to organize photos using the gallery tags -- but the fact that you feel Malcolm X is a more important person than I, or models browline glasses better than I, or you'd simply rather look at him than me ... these are not acceptable reasons for removing photos. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't add images just because they exist, we add them for illustrating encyclopedic topics. There are already images of people wearing the glasses, so more are not necessary. An abundance of repetitive images isn't recommended by policy either. There is no logical reason for including an additional image, especially one that is very poor in terms of quality. Of course there is no exact number of images in policy or guideline, that would be an absurdity. But when the amount of image exceeds the length of the article's text, then there are too many images. Removing repetitive images that crowd the article and are of poor technical composition is an acceptable reason. But since you seem intent on repeatedly adding an image of yourself to an article for no good reason, I am filing an RFC. VanTucky ^talk 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd fight this tooth-and-nail. But you're just so damn drop-dead gorgeous I can't bring myself to disagree with you. So I give in. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your sense of humor. VanTucky ^talk 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't joking. So I'm going to shut up and leave this talk page now, before you decide to do something like hack my computer and send a huge bolt of electricity through it to kill me. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding an image of himself to articles seems to be fairly common for this gentleman. Note: Organist. Although there is a very nicely composed picture of an organist, we have to tuck in another picture of Pierce the organist also on Organ shoes and Pedal keyboard and Electronic keyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.69.1 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)