Talk:Gillette Mach3

Page Name
Global "Mach 3" to "Mach3" (the trademarked name), edited first section for clarity. Need to continue to edit for clarity and to remove self-referential statements. Ziggles Metropolitan 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the page so it also reflects the trademarked name. Henrik 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the page move Henrik Joss 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The name is actually MACH3 (all caps), and the MACH3 Turbo is erroneously called the Mach3Turbo in the article. See this page (or the box it comes in!) for proof: http://www.gillette.com/en/us/Products/Razors/mach3-turbo.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.247.86 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

not concise enough
this is an immensley detailed article for something as simple as a razor blade. Are people really going to be interested in some of the topics mentioned such as how the rubberised grips are constructed? Perhaps this article should be made more concise.130.194.13.105 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. that's why I added an original research tag. The whole "Components" section looks like it was added by a Gillette employee. --Philo 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gillette razors are extremely complex and very interesting. Consider that every different type of razor has a different type of lubrication; the "MicroFins" attempt to lift hairs to get a better cut; the head and handle are designed ergonomically; and the Power series vibrates for no apparent reason (though in my personal experience, this makes it slide very much better).  What specific lubrication changes were made?  Are the lubrication claims challenged?  Are the razor heads aligned some specific way or just slapped on "However They'll Fit"?  The lubricating strip is ABOVE the blades and you get lubed AFTER the stroke, how does this help?  What do the MicroFins do when shaving with the grain, as they're not sweeping under the hairs to stand them up?  It looks simple enough, but razors can comprise of EXTREMELY complex technology.  --John Moser 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Some body from the Company
This article reads like it was written by someone from gillette - wikipedia is supposed to be an encylcopedia, not a place for company advertisements and marketing!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.104 (talk • contribs).

Reply
I wrote this article, and I can promise you that i do not work for Gillette. Quite the oposite! I'm a 17 year old student currently studying my A levels and do a Design and Technology : product design course. While on this course I look very deeply into the Gillette Mach3, I then decided to share my new found information.

Please feel free to change the article Joss 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your work. There's a couple of problems here, though: one is that a lot of your addition seems to be Original research, which we don't allow on Wikipedia. Another is that the article now reads more like a school report than an encyclopedia entry. I would suggest that we move your work to a temporary subpage (maybe Talk:Gillette Mach3/Components), and then rewrite some of it back into the article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now of course if he were to publish his paper on the Internet somewhere, we could reference it. --John Moser 16:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the worst article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, consisting mostly of complaints about the profit margin and details of the product. Since when is any of this information appropriate to a neutral encyclopedic entry? 74.14.127.192 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Indicator trademark?
Wait a second. They try to trademark the name "indicator" for an indicator strip? It's obviously not registered, but they can't be serious in thinking it's a viable trademark. It doesn't even qualify as an actual trademark. That's as if a brand of apples would be called "Apple" or someone decided to call the new automobile model "Car". &mdash; Ashmodai (talk &middot; contribs) 06:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

SNL
Sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live has had two commercial parodies of the Mach3: one from its very first season called the Triple Trac (which was made even before multi-razored blades were on the market) and one from season 25 called the Mach 14.

If the Mach 3 was first released in 1998, how could the first season of SNL have parodied it? Ameise -- chat 06:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
The Gillette comparison image on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mach3_razors.JPG appears to be a direct copy of http://www.gillettem3power.com/us/images/comparison/m3turbo_compare.jpg etc. At the very least, this image is mis-identified as public domain. Can someone verify this, and explain what must be done to rectify the situation? AaronWL 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ans: The Picture is advertising copy and has been used in many areas, including a posting at my local store at one time. That being said, advertising that is freely distributed can be, unmodified from it's original format and contet, w/o explicit permission provided the content is used for the informational purposes intended.

For example, a drug store may take that same content and post it over their razor section to provide information to their customers. They may do so w/o first securing Gillette's explicit authorization. JRuby 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and we use only free images, with a few exceptions. See WP:FAIR. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is freely available from Gilette marketing. Anyone may request a historical copy (or a current copy including the Fusion). JRuby 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FAIR. Last warning. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you seem to have missed in WP:FAIR"Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Explain your position otherwise I will return the image in question. JRuby 17:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Do not return the image in question. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The image was available free of charge from Gilette during the time it was produced. As such it does meet the standard. Explain your position without making threats. (As in, "Last Warning". Who made you final arbiter on the issue?  There is a discussion, and if necessary, an arbitration process.) JRuby 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Free" means free content, as in GFDL, public domain, certain Creative Commons licenses, not just "free of charge". Again, I refer you to the WP:FAIR policy &mdash; policy is the final arbiter, and it's clear: a free equivalent could readily be created, so we cannot use it. (And actually, while the non-free issue settles it, to be encyclopedic and NPOV, we don't really want to include Gillette's own promotional material in the article.) &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Shouldn't the picture that accompanies the article have the razor blade shown? After all, it's the most important part of the product! --Richj1209 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also that photo that shows just the disassembled handle is kind of ridiculous since it is not the handle that makes this product unique, it's the blade. I would swap out the handle pic for a close up of the blade. Cshay (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Gillette Mach3 razor from Indonesia, 2015-08-03.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gillette Mach3 razor from Indonesia, 2015-08-03.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 15, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)