Talk:List of hairdressers

(Comment)

 * I have removed the prod tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Name change
People at this article's current AfD discussion have suggested that this article be renamed to List of hairdressers. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As the issue is already under discussion there, a second discussion here would be redundant and confusing. Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a notification per the tag I placed on the article, to notify editors who may click through to this page but not view the AfD. This wasn't intended to start a new discussion here. Perhaps the move tag isn't needed (I noticed your removal of it). Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 10:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been WP:BOLD and following the AFD's resolution, have gone ahead and renamed, and also revised the list to bring it in line with other list articles. Sad to lose the references, but those should be in the individual articles to show why those individuals are notable. Mabalu (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

List style
1) The term "celebrity" was problematic. I do not see any need for long lists of random stars, politicians, or royals following an individual's entry in a list. It makes the page confusing to read. Such information exists on the individual's page. Justifications should be kept super-simple - ie, "introduced the bob cut" or if they're associated with a studio, just name the studio, no need to reel off every star they've ever shampooed. 2) There is no need to reference every single name in a list to prove why they should be on that list. If they have a Wikipedia article, notability will ideally be proved on the Wikipedia article, so the fact the name is not a redlink (or, as a general rule, a redirect) is good enough for most people.
 * Happy to limit to 3 clients each, or with basic info. But you removed some nationalities/locations, which are important. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think this needs to be sorted by location then? I can accept a sub-list of "America" for hairdressers based in the USA, "Europe" for Europe-based hairdressers, but feel it confuses the matter to go into too much detail. For list purposes, all you really need is just enough info to know you have the right person or name, and everything else ought to be in the subject's article. I don't think it is essential to say upfront whether or not someone is Dutch, Estonian, or Venusian UNLESS the fact they ARE Dutch/whatever is a huge part of their public identity. I don't think listing individual clients (unless it is someone they are inextricably linked to) is essential unless it is someone whose link to that particular hairdresser is defining. Mabalu (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of that; an excessive proportion of the current list seem to be British, with all the early people French - at least in terms of where they were based, which is what I mean by location, not nationality - a very high proportion are/were mobile internationally. But knowing if someone was based in Paris, London, New York etc gives basic context, as does giving a client or two. Most lack any dates, though I have added a couple. I doubt many of the non-contemporary names will be familiar to most readers, and some context is useful. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As WP:LIST makes clear, lists are in no way exempted from normal WP referencing requirements. That most WP lists are unreferenced is a problem; they are not exemplars. It is useful and good practice to give a brief summary of the career.  Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief is the keyword there. Short but sweet is best - a couple of the bios here are overlinked and overlong. Carbosiero's is especially over-linked to the point of being a bizarre and random juxtaposition of politicians, superstars, actors, and ITV personalities. Why cannot it just say something like "a diverse client list including many political and showbiz figures" and anyone who wants to know who they are can just click through to the reference or the article itself? Mabalu (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Imo a sample of 3 is much more useful than a vague summary. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

3) I do query the value of list entries that are redirects unless the redirect is to an absolutely logical place. The Marcel Grateau instance bothers me as his role as inventor is open to question. The way he is cited here states it as fact, rather than showing it's open to question. In this instance I would encourage someone to revise the redirect page for Marcel Grateau into a standalone article on that individual, using the references, and then a simple link to that article would be valid on a list of hairdressers. 4) I also think the Charles Gregory Ross picture is not worthwhile. He may be a stylist, but it does not show him styling hair. It is basically some guy standing around with two models - could be anybody really, especially as this man has no article of his own. The other image is more appropriate because there IS an article associated with it. Also, IMDB is problematic. Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect is to an article based on his first name; imo this is fine. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the Marcel article more closely, I see that Woefflé is probably the same guy as Marcel Grateau, so I apologise for this and not reading more carefully, I saw the three different bold-linked names but assumed they were three different Marcels all of whom were claiming to have invented it. Do re-add him. Mabalu (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He's back Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine to lose it, though some other pic would be good. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest swapping it with the de Rumigny picture, which is actually relevant to one of the entries in the list and actually shows the process of hairdressing. Mabalu (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Found a much better one, if b & w. Works ok now I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Love the Vidal Sassoon pic but it is non-free media use so you'd need to rationalise its use for this article. As there is already the Rumigny picture, I don't think rationale would be accepted.

I've made some tweaks, re-ordered alphabetically (slightly OCD about that, sorry!). Can you double check the references for Errol Douglas? I looked through them and started removing that didn't back up the info in the feed, then realised that none of them appear to name Diana Ross, Naomi Campbell or Melanie Griffith as his clients unless it's in the link to the video, and due to a hearing problem, I cannot verify this. If it is just to show he is notable, one reference should suffice, either the Telegraph or the Daily Mail one seem the most RS. I removed the Yell link as it just went directly to Yell.com's front page. I also removed Grace Kelly from Denise McAdam's basic bio as it sounds like it was a one-off incident in 1976, and I feel regular clients should take precedence over one-offs, and clarified that it was the British Royal Family - which says all people need to know about her really. Hope the changes are OK? Mabalu (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Salon split
Is there some rationale for splitting the Salon section at the year 1960? This looks rather arbitrary. Hmains (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1960, or perhaps 1965, was pretty much a watershed in hairstyles. Before that the sequence is chronological and after alphabetical. I think this works well. Any objections? Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article that indicates why there is a split so readers have no clue.  Is the date important to hairdressers (this article) or hair styles (some other article)?  I believe all alphabetical would suffice. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we disagree then, because I think broad chronological groups are much more useful. This is not a directory-type list, like some. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of hairdressers. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120906065029/http://www.ok.co.uk/posts/view/38208/Celebrity-hair-stylist-Errol-Douglas-top-tips-to-holiday-proof-your-hair to http://www.ok.co.uk/posts/view/38208/Celebrity-hair-stylist-Errol-Douglas-top-tips-to-holiday-proof-your-hair

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)