Talk:Nail polish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Blue[edit]

193.122.23.66 added a mention that blue is the most attractive polish colour for men. It's not clear if men find it most attractive on women or on themselves. Anyhow, I couldn't find any trace of a scientific report having found that blue is more attractive, and since I have serious doubts that such a report exists I have removed the mention. Please cite sources. --Valmi 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Invention[edit]

"Nail polish was first invented in ancient China.", because: 1. Historical nail polish is already being dealt with in another paragraph. 2. Nobody knows for sure who invented the very first nail polish. We cannot simply say that China was the first just because our ealiest records come from China. --Neg 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, usually that is how we find out. We assume that it's the oldest until we find something else that's older. By that logic, nobody knows for sure who invented the first anything, because there could be an earlier person (or record) who invented it who we are not aware of. The snare 04:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a secondary sexual characteristic[edit]

I removed nail polish from this category; it's nonsense. Nothing applied to the body is a sexual characteristic, secondary or otherwise. Pastafarian Nights 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense removed[edit]

I have stripped this article of much contentious speculation. I don't think we can really make assertions about men who wear nail polish carrying a "social stigma", for instance, and the previous version tied itself in all sorts of messy semiotic knots which generally confused the issue. There is absolutely no way you can say stuff like "Reddish and pinkish shades of nail polish represent femininity in most cultures and can make the wearer appear more sexually attractive", especially not without references.

The article makes it clear that nail polish is a product used mostly by women, and the examples of men who wear indicate that its use by men is countercultural without any need for judgmental speculation.

Moreover, I have removed waffle, such as "Sometimes people paint their nails a color that will match their clothes, but others tend to paint their nails to match what color they think represents their mood." Sure, and some will paint it to match the carpets, and some to match their car, and some because their name is Scarlett/Blanche/Primrose/whatever. Good grief, we really do not need a list of reasons that people might choose certain shades of nail polish, or this article will go on forever! -- TinaSparkle 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: History[edit]

I have to dispute the claim that nail paints started in Japan and Italy. Numerous archaeologic sources actually trace nail paint to Egypt, from the Middle Kingdom. Henna bark was one of the first pigments satisfactory to the task, and it is still in use as an ingredient today, some five millenia after the first successful experiments by the wives of high-ranking Egyptian officials. Of course, the Revson brothers did give it an acetate base for permanency, which Revlon brought to market first and other companies soon adapted to their processes. - B.C.Schmerker 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the present text says: "appears to have begun with the Japanese and Italians". The wording should rather be: "in the areas corresponding to present-day Japan and Italy" -- neither the 'Italians' nor the 'Japanese' existed in year 3000 BC... --Jorgengb 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Nail polish may have originated with the Chinese in 3000 B.C.", but "The Japanese and Italians are thought to have been the first ones to use nail polish." Something is wrong with the implication that the Chinese make it first but that the Japanese/Italians used it first.

Either combine as some form of "either the Japanese/Italians/Chinese may have made it first" or clear up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.163.163 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The current section still seems dubious without more concrete sources. Is the Chem Eng. article supposed to account for the entirety of the historical blurbs? Would appreciate more info on how nail polish was discovered (or at least suggested) in historical context. What documents/artifacts/whatever suggest it is true? -- SENorred 17 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

wtf wikihow?[edit]

I am turning here because the discussion section on wikihow is pretty much exclusively disses to the ideals of whoever wrote the article. In the article it says:

"When buying black nail polish, claim it's for decorating your nails. Make a point to buy one other color as well, and talk of how you are going to dot your nails with whatever color you bought."

The misspelling of "colour" aside, I don't understand this. Is there some second, arguably DEVIANT use for nail polish? Hit me back o ye party people. Colour is spelled color in american english grey is spelled gray savior instead of saviour .(I dont know why .I'm american but i spell it all the britsh way)

I think nail polish can be used for "huffing," but I'm not completely sure of this. But, I will have to tell you that the word "color" was not misspelled there, sorry to say. There are two acceptable spellings of the word in the English language "color" and "colour" and it typically depends on where you are from as to which one is correct - for example, in the United States, we spell it "color."128.194.26.248 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The advice was because black nail polish has historically sold primarily amongst the gothic subculture. Hence why CVS only has one brand and type of Black nail polish, 2.50 cent Sally Hansen, as part of the Xtreme Wear line targeted to kids with minimal cash or time for nail maintenance. So yeah, the only deviance is one of social nonconformity, especially because black nail polish sells well among men comparatively. As for huffing, pretty much all nail polishes and removers have toxic solvents. I've worn black nail polish from the sally hansen line, and it has comparable ingredients to other colors, like pink.--24.91.98.99 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a good section on the various types of nail polish remover, as well as any possible safe alternatives? When nail polish goes on, sooner or later it will have to come off, yet, the article affords almost no time to this lengthy and generally rather toxic practice.--24.91.98.99 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a year and still no "safe-alternative" section? C'mon all ye with knowledge! Chinawoman (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Brands[edit]

This listing seems very unencyclopedic. If it were comprehensive it would entirely overwhelm the article and it seems to provide little useful information to help user understand nail polish. Is there some rationale for its inclusion? -- SiobhanHansa 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there hundreds of brands? It could help people gain an undestanding of what different kinds are like, if they are described. The snare (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are hundreds of brands. See for instance this list - there are a lot of duplicates and a few incorrect entries but there are still hundreds. I don't think different descriptions of the brands themselves would be particularly encyclopedic. As far as I'm aware there is little actual difference between the polishes themselves - it's all about marketing really. If there are good sources for some of the brands that show they are unique in a significant way that might make for good encyclopedic content. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting - could you give an example of what a "completed" brand entry might look like?
On my talk page you suggested linking to the brands - Linking externally to all the different brands is not in keeping with our external links guidelines as it basically creates a directory which is against our policy. For brands that there are Wikipedia articles for we might link to them by including an appropriate category in the "see also" section (categories are generally better than listing in the article as they are automatically maintained). -- SiobhanHansa 01:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section tomorrow unless someone provides a reason for it staying. -- SiobhanHansa 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added new sub section[edit]

I added a new sub section which could be expanded to improve the article. If you know any other famous brand for nail polish, perhaps it should be added to expand this article. Perhaps also add which cultures prefer which colors/designs as well as which countries/cities are trend setters? Maybe even go as far as to, if you are a fashion guru, compile a table of which colors/patterns/design were popular in which countries at which times. I admit I am mostly clueless about this and just know Dior and Chanel, because I buy it for my girlfriend. Capital Markets (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Industrial grade remover[edit]

What is the implication of "Nail polish manufacturers are known to use industrial grade nitrocellulose covertly to save money, as it is half the price of the nail grade nitro."

Does something bad happen? Piano non troppo (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ammonium hexafluorophosphate?[edit]

"However, some nail treatments contain ingredients such as ammonium hexafluorophosphate." Can anyone elaborate on what this implies, for those of us who aren't sufficiently familiar with chemistry? The phrasing suggests that it's something negative, but the article on ammonium hexafluorophosphate is uninformative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.101.232 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Gel in this article[edit]

I've removed the paragraph on Shellac - this is a brand name of a new, thinner gel. There are many brands, but the paragraph made it seem as if Shellac was the only one. It also read like advertising copy. The section on gel does need expanding, preferably without a focus on one brand.Suzisabella (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorporate Shellac under Gel[edit]

Although Shellac is a brand of CND, it is a similar type of gel. It has been described as a hybrid of the gel manicure. It is not as harsh as the gel manicure and is an alternative to the manicure. There are other version of the CND product but nothing has compared to the success or quality as the brand Shellac since they have worked on the formula for five years.[1] Rachelmarchellemines (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Rachelmarchellemines

References

Vandalism[edit]

It appears we have some vandalism within the history section. Regarding Cleopatra and her color preferences. I'm going to remove that soon. Does anyone think this article should be protected? It appears to be a frequent victim of vandalism--User:mmaple 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.15.69 (talk)

So, in history, I learned today, that nail polish was invented in a vending machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.187.130 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Shellac section[edit]

The following content was removed from the article because it was a clear NPOV violation:

===Shellac===

CND Shellac is a true innovation in chip-free, extended-wear nail color. The original "power polish", CND Shellac combines the ease of polish with incomparable high-gloss shine and extended 14-day wear. With CND Shellac there is no nail damage, because there are no drills or nail surface filing required. CND Shellac is a professional use only product that cures under UV light, and is easily removed in just 10 minutes. The polish is one of the hottest trends and some call it a manicure miracle.

APerson (talk!) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, APerson. I just started looking at this article tonight and see that it could use a lot of work, but seems rather POV/spam-free at this point. I did add warning under external links not to add commercial or other spammy stuff... Are you interested in nail polish per se, or you were here not b/c of nail polish interest, but rather, b/c you're a spam/pov/vandal/etc fighter? JDanek007Talk 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I actually have no idea how I ended up looking at this page, although your second explanation is more correct. I probably clicked the random article link by mistake, ended up here, saw the section, and moved it.
In terms of the article quality, the biggest danger at this point is contributors adding POV content about a particular nail polish, although it could be argued that the "Safety" section seems to have a slant against nail polish. APerson (talk!) 01:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
haha oops! I built out the "Safety" section earlier tonight, APerson! I don't feel any ownership over the article and I'm not emotionally invested in what I contributed tonight, though...so if there's anything easily fixed that's obviously in need of editing or removal, please feel free to slash&burn. I wasn't sure how much detail to go into w/r/t the dangers of inhaling nail polish fumes or dust since occupational hazard is a factor that's not really present for most nail polish users (vs profi nail techs, I mean). Ok, must away! Cheers! JDanek007Talk 05:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be good to get some history on females and nail polish[edit]

It looks like a lot of the gender aspect has been removed and that's fine if it was speculation. I think it's interesting that over the last 100 years, females predominantly painted their nails and only recently with heteronormativity, itself a neologism, being challenged on many facets, has it become accepted much as it had been in the past.

At least, I'm assuming that in ancient China there wasn't a gender bias one way or the other.

I'd be interested in knowing why, in the modern era, females painted their nails but males largely did not (read: if someone has a citable source, it'd be cool to add that info to the article). Shiggity (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

general quality of article[edit]

A lot of this article reads as very unobjective and disorganised, and in some places is barely even legible. For example the first paragraph, aside from the first sentence, is mostly unsupported claims about 'types of chemicals' and then something about 'points' that doesn't make sense. I think the article needs a major reworking with a coherent introduction writing, and the information about competition within the industry and the substances within the products be discussed under appropriate headings, with proper references to back them up.

"Nail polish (also known as nail varnish) is a lacquer that can be applied to the human fingernails or toenails to decorate and protect the nail plates. The formulation has been revised repeatedly to enhance its decorative effects and to suppress cracking or flaking. Nail polish consists of an organic polymer with various additives.[1] After many years of use nail polish can weaken your nails. There is also another type of more advanced nail polish technology that is called gel nails. It is a more luscious, thick, and vibrant nail polish. There are many types of chemicals inside nail polish and should be used with caution. Another point about the industry of nail polish is that there are many nail polish brands that are competing to have the most business. In nail salons there is also a lot of completion between different nail brands and which is the cheapest, the most vibrant, the most expensive, or the best. The term " nail polish" can be defined as regular nail polish or as gel. Many people think of regular nail polish when they hear the term nail polish but scientists are making so many discoveries that it's hard to nail this whole cosmetic industry on one point." Zyrcona (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it was supposed to be a witty play on words, where nail here is like "Nailing them to a wall [with a hammer]", and point as in "A single point of argument". Not that understanding what they were TRYING to do makes it more valid. BUT, it looks a lot like it was taken from a magazine article. My question is why do they have to specify "human"?!? I know girls who do their purse dog's nails... -- Billy Nair (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2016[edit]

A protected redirect, Nail polish remover, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#redirect [[Nail polish#Nail polish remover]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Nail polish#Nail polish remover]]

{{This is a redirect|from subtopic|to section|printworthy}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Embrace neutralisms! Paine  00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 01:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, xaosflux!  Paine  02:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative to Nail polish remover: Peel off Base Coat[edit]

Hello, I'm usually writing for the german Wiki and was looking for a neutral source about the existence of peel off base coat as alternative to nail polish remover, which is why I checked the English article and was surprised not to find any information about it in here either. Maybe an English native speaker has more luck than me, looking for such a source, and is interested in adding this information to the English page, so I could reference it, when I'm adding it to the german page. :) Regards, --Oasenhoheit (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

History?[edit]

Can anyone expand the history for the early modern to modern period? I'm interested in the 18th century, in particular.

Also a moment's web searching shows up 1932 and Revlon as being a pivotal moment in nail varnish (modern paint technology gets applied to cosmetics), but as the sources for this as all poor quality bloggish, I'm loath to add it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Graf's Hyglo nail polish paste[edit]

The Graf's Hyglo nail polish paste reference is unsourced, but the "ninth century" caught my eye, as it seemed unlikely. A quick google search showed images that are clearly 19th century in typography, so I imagine it was a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.0.38 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Toluene, dibutylphthalate, etc[edit]

As per the discussion here - please discuss why such a detailed chemical breakdown and analysis is necessary on a page about nail polish, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think most of the ingredients section is appropriate, in the same way that an article on the car could include mention of its main constituents- engine, drivetrain, suspension, bodywork. However, I think the diagram of nitro cellulose is completely unnecessary, and I also think the section is too prominent- it could go much further down, maybe just before ‘environmental concerns’. The article is fairly short, so it’s not as if including an ingredients section creates pressure to leave something else out.
Gravuritas (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the latest edit by Talormryan gives undue weight to the chemistry. Mention of ingredients is now sprinkled across sections on ingredients, human health, and environmental,effects, with ‘toxic trio’ distributed across the article and human effects mixed up in environmental,effects. This is a mess, and, apart from the section on ingredients itself, I now agree with CR that this is too much. Suggestion to Tmr: self-revert.
Gravuritas (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Shellac and SNS[edit]

You can't even mention them because there's a certain company that makes them, and no one else does. So any time any company only makes a particular thing you can't evne mention it, eh? Even though they are distinct processes. 173.76.164.40 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't mention them until other people do. Once your pet product has been mentioned in reliable sources and mainstream media, you are free to add them (and the references) to the article - unless you have a connection to the company in question in which case you have a conflict of interest and should instead make mention of the product and sources on the talk page, and ask that the potential additions are reviewed by uninvolved editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)