Talk:Artificial hair integrations
|WikiProject Fashion||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Somebody fucked up... this merged article fails to mention anything about "weave" until way later in the article where it pops up out of the clear blue. I clicked on a link on the "dreadlocks" page labeled "weave" and I ended up here... there wasn't even a note at the top of this article saying I had been redirected. I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't find any information about Weave in relation to Artificial Hair Extensions. Are they the same thing? Is "weave" a slang term only used in the Afro-American culture? I did a search on the page for "weave", and lo and behold somewhere in the middle the article just starts talking about weaves like we already know what that refers to. And don't give me that bullshit that everyone knows what "weave" means. I don't, that's why I ended up here. Please fix, or unmerge this fuck-up. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article is very mis-leading,but there is no service called hair integrations in the hairdressing industry. Likewise description of attatching should not sound like the building trade,using words as installing. The term is "to apply". There has developed a standard vocabulary that is now recognisable for the hair extension service and these words should be used. However it really needs a total re-write.( Ms Morag) 4th January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms morag (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Article needs a fairly large grammatical and internal link overhaul, as well as expansions on the one-line topics. Gila m0bster 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed two paragraphs of the article pertaining to the disadvantages of human hair used for extensions and the benefits of monofiber over human hair. The paragraphs were actually misleading and incorrect, and the monofiber comparison was a form of advertising. I've seen human hair worked with on countless occasions and none of the problems the article cited were true. Gila m0bster 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the monofiber part is fairly obviously copied straight from a website. I'll make an overhaul of that segment after I do research on it. Gila m0bster 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Made changes, added information from a professional standpoint under 'hair weave'. Some wording is akward, would appreciate someone editing. Nblinknpark41 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Nblinknpark41
Removed the neutrality tag, did a major overhaul of bias-ed material in favor of professional, unbiased, encyclopedic-type information. Article has a long way to go, but it is looking better. Nblinknpark41 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a lousy article. Not only is the title ridiculous, the tone is almost sarcastic, which leads me to question the veracity of the whole thing.
The entire article is written in a highly unprofessional manner, and no professional cosmetologist would ever refer to any of the subject matter as "fake hair". The most professional term is "artificial hair integrations". "Fake hair" makes a mockery of the subject matter and gives the impression of scorn and disdain towards the whole idea of wearing hair that isn't your own. For the record, 'artificial' covers both synthetic and human hair additions. I intend to try my best to move things around and edit as best I can, but I can't be the only cosmetologist on Wikipedia that knows even the most basic things about artificial hair integrations. I suggest the article be renamed Artificial hair. There's so much more about it than glamour. What about wigs for cancer patients? Locks of love? Alopecia? Medications and scalp disorders that involve hairloss, and common cosmetological remedies? There are so many tie-ins that can be made. The title really needs to change. Nblinknpark41 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Renamed. Nblinknpark41 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The products of the company "Hot Strands" are mentioned three times in three consecutive sentences (no other product is mentioned in the whole article), so I'll be bold and remove the sentences. If you disagree, please discuss! --Tail 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that the references, as well as external links to the company's page, were added by a single user, Susikenna, and that this is the only article he/she has contributed to.
- I didn't remove the external links, but I think that all of them also need revising, so that only the informative ones ar kept (if there are any). --Tail 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Not enough information
I've recently had hair extensions done, while on holiday in another country. They are real human hair, and look great, but as I didn't understand the language of my hairdresser, I don't know what type of extensions were done! I've recently gone to a salon in the country that I live, but they didn't have a clue either! I started searching the web, but none of the information is very helpful. It's defenitely not any of the types (weaving/braiding/ waxing, etc) mentioned on Wikepedia. My extensions are different. They were glued in and have a little plastic tube cover(or is it extra glue?) of approx 1cm. I think the information on hair extensions on Wikepedia should be updated by a more knowledgable person! My extensions would probably have to grow out in the meantime, as no one has the knowledge on removing them!
I doubt anyone who's posted information in the article is an actual hairdresser, who would actually *know* that the information in the article is crap. FYI. Nblinknpark41 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)nblinknpark41
Hey you I read an article about this type of extending in the belgian newspaper HLN years ago, it was new then, never knew if it broke through.
UPDATE by Hair Extension producer and importer: The system referred to above is called 'Shrinkies' or other brand names. Basically the I-Tip system, but then a little heat shrink tube is slid over the attaching glue bond, then heated with a blowaver to shrink the tube. Not a bad improvement to the standard Thermal(heat melted glue)systems, does result in a smoother feeling bond and may improve the lasting time of the extension bond, but doesn't avoid the associated 'glue removal' natural hair damage.
I added a wikify tag to the top of this article. The main reason I did is because the current layout (or lack thereof) makes it look like just a list and not an encyclopedia article. Robotman1974 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Toupee, or take Toupee content, replace current content and redirect Toupee?
The Toupee page was for a long time a fairly "fun" article with "OK", but not great content. It's now in fairly good shape, and is probably more appropriate than this article. Any ideas about what or how should be done to make this page tie to Toupee, or vice versa? Matthewdkaufman 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just add a see also link to toupee. RJFJR 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following links offering "resources" which were predominantly more commercial in intent. Their resources pertain more to exemplifying the particular services they offer or were thin on content:
mohairextensions.com - commercial
hairextensionsoutlet.com - commercial
redirected hairextensionguide.com from their commercial front page to their resource page
http://www.hairextensionguide.com/hairextensions.htm, deleted "Exhaustive" and replaced with "Thorough list of installation techniques and descriptions"
http://www.hairextensioninfo.net/ blog format with commercial index, thin on content.. "gothic hair extensions" and "hair" were resourceful in intent but aren't really the focus of this article.. gothic is a fashion subculture which i'm sure is represented adequately on WP, and the hair info was from WP.
hairtrade.com - commercial site, no tutorials apparent, contrary to claim
I'm adding the tutorial section from Doctored Locks (which was removed??). I'll disclose that I work for Doctored Locks, and our tutorial section is educational in intent and is of extremely high quality. While our store is accessible from the tutorials, it is not so in a manner which subverts the intent or utilitarianism of a tutorials page.
I propose that Hair weaves be merged into Artificial hair intergrations. I think that the content in the Hair weaves article can easily be explained in the context of Artificial Hair intergrations, and the Artificial hair intergrations article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Hair weaves will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Furthermore, for a University of Toronto group writing project my team and I will be making substantial edits to the Hair weaves page until March 29th 2012 so that it will fit nicely within the Artificial hair intergrations page.Kuteyiay (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Y'all fucked up... the merged article fails to mention anything about "weave" until way later in the article where it pops up out of the clear blue. I clicked on a link on the "dreadlocks" page labeled "weave" and I ended up here... there wasn't even a note at the top of this article saying I had been redirected. I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't find any information about Weave in relation to Artificial Hair Extensions. Are they the same thing? Is "weave" a slang term only used in the Afro-American culture? I did a search on the page for "weave", and lo and behold somewhere in the middle the article just starts talking about weaves like we already know what that refers to.
First of all I can't find the Section called External Links on this page. How is one created? Would someone create one?
Can I get some feedback if a video tutorial on applying hair extensions with tape that lasts four to six weeks would be appropriate in the External Links Section once it is created? It does mention products used in the video tutorial. It is very thorough and it is presented by someone who has been using hair extensions for over five years and has their own hair extension business.
The website is 52weeksofbeauty.com and the video's permanent name is 2013 Week 7.
The video is linked from YouTube.com from the YouTube Channel with the same name 52weekofbeauty.
Please advise me, it is a very informative video that is based on years of experience.
- Only if you have absolutely no connection with the production of the video. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This page is excellent -- thorough, concise, well written, and free of grammatical errors or confusing syntax. As a straight white guy, I'm a pretty good test subject -- that is, a good Wiki page ought to inform readers all together unfamiliar with the subject covered, and, after reading this page from top to bottom, I feel pretty informed. The only point on which I'm confused is cuticles and their direction: you refer to cuticles going "the same way" or not -- the same way as what? The editors of this page may want to make that part a little clearer, as I will have to go to an external source to figure that out -- so, as good as it is, this page has a little room for improvement -- for an utter layperson, such as myself, the directions of cuticles is mystifying and this page may benefit by a short section explaining cuticle direction relative to artificial hair integration (e.g., why is it more desirable to have the cuticles going in the "same direction?") Thanks Joeletaylor (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)