Talk:Glasstron

Untitled
Thanks for the changes to the article, DESeigel. I was about to mark the article as a stub, I just wasn't sure what category to place it in. You beat me to it! I could have named the external link, but I just left it there temporarily, until I could find some better sources of information.

Perhaps I'm not the right person to write an article on this product, but I'm always disappointed when there's nothing in Wikipedia for a certain topic, company, or product, or when there's a link to an empty 'edit me' page. Wikipedia is one of those few information sources on products that isn't (usally!) a sales pitch - you wouldn't find this in Encarta or other traditional encyclopaedias.

I don't actually mind if this article or any other useful one is a stub - it's better than broken Wikilinks which give no information at all. Personally, I would archive useful stubs voted for deletion, rather than deleting them. Hide them - or even stubs entirely - from the rest of the encyclopaedia if you have to, but keep them. You never know who will need the information in the future, perhaps to write a better article. quig 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a pic of the glasstron on Sony's website here. I won't post it to the site, though because I'm unsure of the copyright status. There is no copyright information on the page (actually there is a links on the page to download a high res or low res version of the pic, so I doubt it's copyrighted at all). I will, however, leave it up to someone more knowledgeable in the area of copyright to decide whether or not it can be put on the article. If they do, I can post it, or they can to speed things up. --JTConroy88 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll just put the picture in the article, and if anyone thinks it violates copyright, they can take it down.--JTConroy88 07:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Best Picture
Thanks for the above person for posting an image of the actual glasstron glasses, even if it's from sony's site. Does anybody have a high resolution, or homemade picture that they could post? I think it would be a good contribution to the site so people can see it in the flesh, that way. Anyways, thanks!


 * There is a picture of it in the NATO document RTO-MP-058 on page 29 (KNI-5) 2A01:C22:A8F9:A00:C849:1DE8:BCA8:26F4 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Optical Illusion?
The article is okay, but what does it actually DO, and why is it in the Optical illusions category? --David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is confused
In the first paragraph it talks about the "Visortron" being different from "Glasstron". Then, in the list, the first entry is the PLM-50, which is the model name of the Visortron. So is it different or the same? Which one? --95.89.81.91 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)