Talk:Optical head-mounted display

Add smartglasses
Some aren't mentioned, like the K-Glass, ... See http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/30/which-smart-glasses-will-be-right-for-you/ http://www.wareable.com/headgear/the-best-smartglasses-google-glass-and-the-rest

Also, perhaps the DIY smartglasses also need mentioning: http://makezine.com/2014/07/16/diy-google-glass/ https://learn.adafruit.com/diy-wearable-pi-near-eye-kopin-video-glasses/overview http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-Google-Glasses-AKA-the-Beady-i/

2A02:A03F:12D6:D900:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw Lumus at CES - and then looked them up. Saw that they were mentioned here but decided to create a dedicated page for them. Will update here once its up.Azmaza (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok its up: Lumus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartglasses is a more extensive article containing much of this same information. The only unique section of this article is the "Comparison of various OHMDs technologies" TABLE. Maybe this Table should be put into: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display and this article should redirect to Head-up_display.

Deletion of "Notable Manufacturers" Section
Hello Roxy the Dog and MrOllie

I have two issues regarding your deletion of the entire "Notable Manufacturers" section. I believe your claim is: a) most of the explanation was written to advertise the listed companies and b) many of the listed companies are not actually notable.

For claim a), I do understand where you're coming from. However, as someone who greatly benefited from the article, I would like to point out that the "Notable Manufacturers" section is actually very informative and does provide a good list of the players in the market. Although I partially agree with your perspective that advertisements should be banned from the article, I would like to suggest that you let users have access to the article, as long as it is cited well and obeys Wikipedia's policies regarding Neutral Point-of-View and Conflict-of-Interest - our goal is to sort out advertisements, not to delete the whole section.

Regarding claim b), it would be very nice if you could provide solid evidence to back up your claim that many of the listed companies "are not notable at all". I'm afraid that your claim is extremely vague - I would understand if you could provide a solid definition of the word "notable" and sort out the companies based on that definition; otherwise, it is very difficult to agree with you.

Thank you very much in advance. I hope you take my suggestions into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gushichan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You can read about Wikipedia's definition of 'Notable' at WP:N. - MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * part of the lead says "but despite a number of attempts from industry, has yet to be commercialised." I dont think that we should have a notable manufacturers section for something that as yet, isn't marketed successfully, let alone a shopping list. Notable manufacturers have their own articles. Two experienced editors feel this way. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. However, your argument still sounds incomplete to me. The "General notability guideline", which I found in the link you provided, says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I believe most, if not all, companies listed in the "Notable Manufacturers" section satisfy this condition. The citations are good and the companies have received significant media coverage. If - although I hope not - you believe some contributors have done their work to simply advertise the company that they are affiliated with, the appropriate action that you want to take is to delete that specific section, not the entire "Notable Manufacturers" section.

More importantly, I believe that your argument that 'companies that have yet to manufacture products that can be commercialized cannot be considered notable' is extremely vague and ambiguous. Whether the company has the ability to commercialize its products does not decide its notability. I'm not sure how you came up with that condition, but it is completely illogical to say so. Think of SpaceX. Not commercialized, only does business with the US Government + a few other organizations, however with no doubt they are considered as a notable manufacturer in the industry. My point here is that what really decides whether a company is a notable manufacturer or not is the technological potential they have and the amount of attention from the public, not the ability to manufacture commercialized products at the moment.

Plus, if you were to argue that notable manufacturers have their own articles, you shouldn't have deleted the entire section - many of the manufacturers listed actually had their own articles. Gushichan (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOT (which I linked in my edit summary), we usually don't embed lists of vendors or manufacturers in Wikipedia articles. You'll note there is no 'Notable Manufacturers' listing on Car, Motherboard, Stationary bicycle, etc. On those few articles that do list a few brands in a history section or the like, they do not each get a section with a promotional paragraph. I also just noticed that the section you added is fairly similar to additions made by User:LetinAR_Intern a few months ago. Are you related to that account or the LetinAR company in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you find a specific content promotional, my opinion is that you delete that specific content while keeping the rest. I agree that Wikipedia is not "a means of promotion", but I still don't think the "Notable Manufacturers" section was entirely promotional. I greatly benefited from the section while conducting my research and I do want to keep the content for others who might also be interested in the topic.

No, I am not related to the account User:LetinAR_Intern/the company LetinAR in any way. Just to make things clear, I recently had to conduct research on the waveguide industry which is how I came across companies like LetinAR, Lumus, and WaveOptics. I was actually about to upload an explanation of the company WaveOptics when you deleted the entire section. (Lumus already has its own section) I hope this was a clear enough explanation for you.

I'd be very happy if you understand that I'm actually doing this for the greater good. What would I gain by promoting companies like LetinAR and WaveOptics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gushichan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, just stumbled upon this. As it is, there are numerous signs that this page is in trouble (hence the maintenance tags). In my opinion, if someone is going to spend more time on it, it should be to improve what's there. All statements are either supported by a single source, or no source - the first two sections are up in the air. "Recent developments" is a news clippings section (wikipedia is not a newspaper), etc... Adding a giant section on manufacturers only compounds the problems. This could be a very useful article about an interesting emerging consumer tech, I suggest we concentrate on having a concise and clear article that can be slowly expanded as the products reach the market. Robincantin (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)