Talk:Regular haircut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fashion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Created the page Regular haircut to describe the most common men's and boy's hairstyle for probably the past 150 years. The haircut is so common that no one had as of yet seen the need to expend the time to write an article. Hopefully the article will lead to a better understanding of the style, particularly the styles of tapers for the back and sides. MiltonPB (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a new section, Topping. Only detailed topping by shears methods; could be expanded to include details on razor cutting methods. MiltonPB (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Clear code causing huge white spaces[edit]

The code should be either {{-}} or {{clear}} but none are necessary. The images don't encroach into other sections and the big white spaces that result from the code are not worth it. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Now the images are bigger and so will encroach. A table is a solution. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I experimented quite a lot to align the photos with the text; it can be problematic outside of a table format. The table format while eliminating the white spaces seems a little out of place when scrolling down the article, or reading the article, probably due to the left alignment of the images. The table format broke numerous internal Wikipedia links from other articles, as well as external links, leading to the various styles of taper and the section has been edited back to the prior format. Since blade is the title of a subsection it was capitalized. There are two separate subsections "Guards" and "Blades." Thanks,

MiltonPB (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the table didn't seem to break anything at all. Please say what external and internal links it broke. Guards and Blades should really be Guards and blades, in my opinion. The images in the table seemed just fine to me. I really object to the white spaces now. I would like the views of others here so we can sort this out.
Page watchers: please comment below and tell us how you think it should be. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The internal links for the various tapers in the first sentence of Regular Haircut were broken. The Crew cut article links to short, semi-short and medium tapers were broken and so were the short, semi-short etc taper links in several other Wikipedia articles. I have seen Wikipedia haircut entries reprinted with hot links to the tapers in numerous places across the web including Facebook, Yahoo Answers, Amazon, and then those entries reprinted on additional websites. Thanks, MiltonPB (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I much prefer the way it looks with the table. Much clearer, neater, pictures more legible, and the data was more reader-friendly in format. Looking at the table format before MiltonPB's last revert, checking several random references, nothing seemed to be broken (on my browser anyway). So I'm siding with Anna Frodesiak here. Mabalu (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As much as I like tables, I am opposed to the use of a table in this instance at least because it makes the page unviewable on a mobile device. I'll poke at the article and see if I can come up with a compromise... Technical 13 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I can live without the table. It's the white space that's a problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak, what do you think about my recent change? We can discuss it faster on IRC if you wish (#wikipedia-en-help connect for anyone else that is interested). Technical 13 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I like it, although have to note that we do need a better image for the middle pic - for want of a classier expression, Marilyn Monroe's boobs kinda demand all the attention. Mabalu (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not bad at all. I just looked at it twice and it's really growing on me. Maybe we could also try staggering the images left right and so on.
We must decide here at the article talk about how the article must ultimately appear, not at IRC. That gives all a chance to weigh in.
Can we agree that the white space should not be part of the final appearance? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Support no whitespace. I might have also forgotten to mention, the images are links to the section that they represent. Technical 13 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Added back clear code to the end of the first section and a space to the end of the Blades section; since although the article's display in Firefox was fine without, it was not in IE. MiltonPB (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Linked above[edit]

The first link in the first sentence of the Wilkipedia Manual of Style to the Style Guide is also included in its See also section. For an article like World War II with hundreds of links in the body of the article that specifically deal with the topic of a certain sentence, it would make little sense to include the specific links in See also and if all or even one quarter were included would cause WWII See also to be so large as to have diminished value. For this article, where the limited number of links might be of general interest to anyone reading the article whether or not they read the short taper section which contains them, it makes little sense not to include them in See also, particularly when one considers that someone reading the mobile version, would not see the links at all unless the specific section containing the links were opened. MiltonPB (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Methods[edit]

There is a definite benefit to not having to scroll to the Table of Contents and having it visible when reading the lead paragraph; however, there is a large white space in the center of the screen when the lead paragraph is reduced to two sentences to allow the TOC to appear earlier. Here is a screenshot of the 3:27 July 23 edit:

http://i.imgur.com/AkBK2NJ.jpg

There is also a White Space prior to the 3:27 edit but it partially appeared at the bottom of the screen not in the center of the page one arrives at when sent to the article from a search engine. The lead paragraph prior to the 3:27 edit was not 2/3 of the length of the article as indicated at the comments to the 3:27 23 July Revision but 20.6% by word count, 395/1914. When reduced to two sentences, the lead paragraph is 80/1914 = 4.2% by word count. The text being labeled Methods is not really about Methods but rather a brief summary of the main elements: edging, siding, topping. This is expanded in the short, semi-short, medium, long and extra long paragraphs. The 6:12, 23 July edit addresses the TOC issue as well as the White Space issue. MiltonPB (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead section has once again been reunited. The lead section should be able to stand on its own as an overview; it should define the topic, establish context and summarize the most important points of the article and is the first section that most people read and many only read the lead section. The editor who has been separating the lead section and reducing it to two sentences at first stated that it was to allow the table of contents to appear earlier; then he stated that the lead consisted of 2/3 of the length of the article and was improper when it was closer to 20% of the length of the article, also stated that there was no white space issue after his edit and the issue is with display settings

Here is a screenshot of the 3:27 July 23 edit:

http://i.imgur.com/AkBK2NJ.jpg

The table of contents issue was addressed along with the earlier white space issue in the 6:12, 23 July edit and yet the same editor again disjoined the lead section, reducing it to two sentences and creating a white space issue, calling it a sections cleanup. The reconstructed lead is now around 17% of the length of the current article by word count. The editor who has been reducing the lead section to two sentences should discuss his reasons for doing so here. MiltonPB (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor JesseRafe has once again disjoined the lead section and reduced it to two sentences without talk page discussion, when there is an obvious difference of opinion with another editor, also the author of said lead section. JesseRafe lso deleted the new referenced Topping section in its entirety without any explanation whatsoever.

In the notes to the revision history, at his latest revert edit, JesseRafe asserts that a "lede" is "a mere introduction to the topic, see the MOS."


Yet Wikipedia Manual of Style states the following.....

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.[1])

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.


I believe the lead section falls within Wikipedia MOS guidelines. I do not see how reducing the lead to two sentences helps the reader's understanding of the topic or ability to read the article for comprehension at all, quite the contrary. The summary of the elements of a regular haircut in the lead section gives the reader who only reads the lead a decent knowledge of a regular haircut and greatly aids in understanding the rest of the article. In other words, if the lead is reduced to two sentences and then the reader goes to following sections without reading the rest of the lead, the summary of the elements of a regular haircut that JesseRafe places in the following section, which he originally titled "Method" and now titles "Elements of a haircut", the reader's ability to understand the following section on Tapers, comprising the elements Edging and Siding, is diminished. The section of the original lead JesseRafe has sectioned off as "Elements of a haircut" is actually a Summary of the elements of a regular haircut, regular haircut being the title of the article. The main elements of a regular haircut are Edging and Siding, commonly referred to as tapering, and which have their section, titled "Tapers", and "Topping", which has its own section, which JesseRafe deleted without explanation. On Wikipedia for mobile devices and on various mobile devices, only the lead section appears; the reader has to then separately open all other sections. Unless a reader opened the section JesseRafe titled elements of a haircut, he would not know it is actually a summary of the elements of a regular haircut that should be in the lead section and is essential to a fuller understanding of the other sections of the article.

I am also a little perplexed since in the Revision History, JesseRafe originally gave the location of the Table of Contents as his reason for reducing the lead to two sentences and transferring the rest of the lead to a section he originally titled Method....

"opening up lede into new sectionso TOC comes up earlier."


On JesseRafe's next revert edit he gave as his reason in the Revision History that the lead is 2/3 the length of the article when it was actually 20% of the length of the article by word count and not counting "See Also", "References", and "Bibliography". With the Topping section, the lead is 16% of the length of the article by word count.

"big white space? Problem is probably your display settings. Moved image, this is proper, lede that's 2/3 the length of the article is improper"


The reason for JesseRafe's next reversion was a "sections cleanup"


The reason for JesseRafe's latest reversion stated in the Revision History and in which he deleted the referenced "Topping" section without explanation is as follows....

"(Reverted 2 edits by MiltonPB (talk): That is *not* how a lede is used, it should be in its own section, it's beyond a mere introduction to the topic, see the MOS."

MiltonPB (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


On July 31, Editor JesseRafe has again reverted the lead section to two sentences without any talk page discussion on his part when there is an obvious disagreement with another editor. On July 25, he posted this issue on the Administrators Notice Board and was informed by two other administrators that the proper place to discuss this issue is on the article's Talk Page and that the editor in question had opened a discussion, and therefore, the discussion was closed on that board. Yet, the lead section is once again reverted to two sentences, without Talk Page discussion. My thoughts with regard to the lead section are explained above. MiltonPB (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't respond point-by-point to your charges above as I don't see how anybody could have the patience to try to read the poorly-formatted missive you wrote about this, and didn't see this post on Talk before because I don't watch the page. Aside from your evident "article ownership" and snarky personal attacks, the issue is that the lede is far, far too long. Especially given the total length of the article. On top of which, it goes into content, not introduction. It talks about the basic elements or methods of a haircut. That's not an introduction, that's fine detail and it should be in its own section. All I have done in my edits is create a section header so that the second paragraph would be in its own section as seems appropriate given its subject content. JesseRafe (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no way that you could not have known about the talk page discussion since it was pointed out to you not only by myself on July 24 but also by several other editors on July 25 when instead of discussing this on the Talk Page you chose to post this on the Administrators Notice Board. It was noted by several administrators that there was a discussion opened on the article's Talk Page which is the proper place to discuss this matter, and the discussion on that Board was closed. Regardless, a week later you chose to once again revert without discussion and have done so again without consensus. Approximately 70,000 people have read this article since it debuted on February 25 and apparently no one else has seen a problem with the length of the lead section which is about 20% of the total article by words. On July 23, you stated that the lead was 2/3 of the length of the article which simply was not true. The lead was 20% of the length of the article by word count. The disjoined two sentence lead is 4% of the length of the article by word count. Where in the Manual of Style is it stated that a lead section that is 20% of the total article length by word count is "far, far too long." The text that you are disjoining and calling Elements of a haircut is a summary of the basic elements of a regular haircut and entirely appropriate for the lead section. The Tapers section and the Topping section are the Elements that are summarized, that is where the fine detail resides.

Wikipedia Manual of Style does not state that the lead can only be an introduction, which you apparently believe and is at the heart of this discussion.

In fact Wikipedia Manual of Style states the following:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads.[1]).....The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Disjoining the lead section creates an article with a large whitespace which others apparently have issues. MiltonPB (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) MiltonPB (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)



The Lead and Taper sections have been edited. The lead section conforms to Wikipedia MOS lead section guidelines as an introduction and summary of the article. The most prevalent controversies that exist in the context of a regular haircut are whether the edge is tapered or outlined and the tools used to perform the haircut or more specifically, certain guys believing that a haircut should be designed using only specific tools. This is why information regarding these areas is included in the summary of the article contained in the lead section with consideration given to the reality that many will only read the lead section, and that according to MOS guidelines the lead should be able to “stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.” The lead section is approximately 14% of the total length of the article by word count and without counting See also, References and Bibliography in the total word count.


Anatomy of the lead section......

Introduction......

A regular haircut is a men's and boy's hairstyle that has combable length on top, a defined or deconstructed side part, and a short, semi-short, medium, long, or extra long back and sides.[1][2][3] The style is also known by other names including taper cut, regular taper cut, side-part and standard haircut; as well as short back and sides, business-man cut and professional cut, subject to varying national, regional, and local interpretations of the specific taper for the back and sides.[4][5][6][7]

Summary of the first two sections of the article, Tapers, and Topping....

The essential elements of a regular haircut are edging, siding and topping.[8][9][10] Edging refers to the design of the lower edge of hair growth from the sideburns around the ears and across the nape of the neck.[8][11] Siding refers to the design of the hair on the back and sides between the edge and the top.[8][12] Edging and siding, together or separately, commonly referred to as tapering, create a taper.[12] Topping refers to the design of the hair at the front and over the crown.[8][13]

Controversy regarding type of tools used.....

Edging comes first, followed by siding and topping.[8][14] Edging is typically done with clippers; siding, shears over comb; topping, shears over finger.[11][15] There are other methods that can be utilized including all clipper cuts, all shears cuts and all razor cuts.


Controversy regarding an outlined or tapered edge.....

Barbers distinguish between a two line haircut and a one line haircut.[16][7] Two line haircuts are standard taper cuts.[17][7] The hair is outlined around the ears and then straight down the sides of the neck.[17][7] The edge of hair growth at the nape of the neck is tapered to the skin with a fine(zero) clipper blade.[18][19] A one line haircut, often referred to as a block cut, has the edge of hair growth at the nape outline shaved, creating an immediate transition between hair and skin and connecting the outline from the right sideburn to the outline from the left sideburn across the nape.[20][7] The outline at the edge of the nape can be in a squared off or rounded pattern. A squared off nape can have squared or rounded corners.[20][7][21]

Summary of the last section of the article, Guards and blades...

Rotary, taper and edger clippers can be utilized when edging or siding a haircut. Guards and/or blades can be attached that vary the cutting length. MiltonPB (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Rejoined the lead section for reasons explained in detail above. MiltonPB (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Too many images[edit]

Once again, there are way, way too many images, in my opinion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I would use pictures with white backgrounds[edit]

I would use pictures with white backgrounds, well I mean maximum contrast backgrounds. So one can see the hair super clearly. Jidanni (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

"Regular haircut"? Never heard of it. Is this an American English thing? --Ef80 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Regular haircut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)