Talk:VR HMD mount

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect.

November 2014

To establish the notability of this sort of device, let's get some references for the article. The text also needs significant cleanup.

I also think that having two acronyms in the article title is not reader-friendly. How about moving to full words? Runner1928 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed PROD

I've just removed a PROD on the grounds of " obvious neologism: subject adequately covered elsewhere already"

I don't think this topic is an "obvious neologism". It's certainly close to it and there's a risk of failing WP:DICDEF. However I think there is encyclopedic scope to be had from this.

I certainly disagree with, "subject adequately covered elsewhere already". If it is, it's not somewhere I've seen it.

So what is here and how do we go forwards to making a workable article out of it? I think the point is (and why a merge to Oculus Rift would be bad) is that home-made VR mounts are basically a bad idea, or at least difficult to do well. An Oculus Rift is complicated, getting the optics to work is hard, especially for people with presbyopia. So there is, IMHO, scope for an article that gives a reasonable explanation of the issues involved and how they're addressed. This is way beyond DICDEF or the "mere neologism" standpoint.

This is not a good article. If it can't be improved, then I can understand why it should be deleted for failing our quality standards (and note that per many past AfDs, we don't have any quality standards). I think it deserves the chance of more work though. Certainly referencing to WP:N isn't a problem: there's any amount of hackspace footling going on out there on the lines of "Make an Oculus Rift for tuppence with an Android tablet and some sticky-backed plastic".

Google Cardboard is a related article and exists because anything Google does immediately generates a vast footprint. If anything's to be merged though, it's actually more encyclopedic to merge that transient and product-specific article into a broader article on the principles involved instead.

The article title is unintelligible, so if anyone can think of a better one, then have at it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]