Talk:Optician
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
1
[edit]A word analogy is not a good definition. Revolver 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I made the change, however, it may convey a bit of US bias in the terminology used. Edwardian 16:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Article Improvement Drive
[edit]Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Recent changes
[edit]Coren reported that material in the section on Canada was a copyright violation when I tried to refactor it into a new page. I think a lot of the other stuff in 'Canada' could be a cut and paste too.. I've asked if Coren could check it, if not I might come back in a few days and do something manually. Umptious 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Anyway, because of the bloat in Canada I've moved each nation's detail's to a separate section - which makes the core more readable, but also reveals how little is really here. Very poor article, needs more content and sources. Umptious 11:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I split Scientific Equipment Optician into its own article: it served no purpose here and the article is still over long. Umptious 15:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest re-write
[edit]I feel as though a lot of information was lost in the most current updates, or perhaps there is room for much expansion. I'll help add more to the topic if I can soon. Reason turns rancid 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Adding some equipment but not all is limiting; maybe we should start a linked page with equipment used by opticiansKitspoint (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitspoint (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oct 8
[edit]I removed an external link to what appeared to be a random private optician in India. This isn't the yellow pages
Why list selected companies in chosen countries?
[edit]I think it's bizarre to list just a few selected opticians in US/UK. Why advertise these companies and not others? Why not list every country world wide if you are going to do it at all? I'm sure wikipedia readers are quite capable of finding a service in their own country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.176.130 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The entire list actually has more problems than being selective, it goes against Wikipedia guidelines per WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. External links should contain further information re:what is an optician? I have removed almost the entire list because of that, it was just a directory of organizations. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This page is not on opticians, it may be make by an USA or UK company
[edit]A page on optician have to contain information on every optician in the world and on the scientific, so static, position of this working class. This page is on some optician and it's not complete in every way. I ask to move some pices of the page on others single page like optician (USA), optocians list (USA) ecc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.71.116 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Opthalmic versus dispensing
[edit]The first section of this is extremely misleading when it says that opticians are also called "dispensing opticians". I have long understood there to be two types of opticians - dispensing, who sell spectacles, and opthalmic, who are concerned with assessment of eye health and who assess eyesight. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Trade Associations Sortable Table
[edit]Spam or list of significant independent trade associations? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Entire section is opinion
[edit]The work environment section is predominantly without citation and primarily subjective. Doglover.Coton (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)