Talk:Plague doctor costume

Quack Doctors
There is a persistent urban myth the Quack (false doctors) are so called because of these masks. I believe that the correct origin is 'quack salve' from the Dutch for medicine seller. Is this article not a good place to refute the myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical to me. Just come up with some references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

usage throughout Europe
The phrase "used in France and Italy in the 17th century" seems quite misleading, since the costume was far more widespread. Unfortunately I don't currently have access to any sources for this. Perhaps someone else can provide..? 92.17.31.160 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with the figures here given for the numbers of deaths in the two plagues. Although Naples was one of the biggest cities in Europe, in 1650, its population was under 200,000; depending on definition it might have reached 300,000. Rome would probably have been about half the population of Naples, certainly not much more than 150,000. The source given for these figures is a 1965 article about a C17 print, which in turn cites a 1905 study by Simpson. Simpson gives no source for his figures, but he is probably not writing about Naples but about the entire southern Italian kingdom with its capital in Naples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:9E2F:900:CDD9:D594:3A3B:700E (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Use in media
Wouldn't be nice a section which summarizes all the apparitions of the costume in media (books/movies/theater/videogames/etc...)?

My 2 ct's: the main character in this videogame wears it: https://shovelknight.fandom.com/wiki/Shovel_Knight:_Plague_of_Shadows — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeAl (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional resource
This excellent article (complete with sources) will no doubt be of use to whomever wishes to expand this page: https://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/mask-of-the-plague-doctor/ - 18:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge?
Wouldn't it be better to simply merge the content of this article into the article about plague doctors? It seems silly to have an article strictly dedicated to the costume Chariotsacha (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it has cultural significance so no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.31.211.196 (talk) 07:45, March 3, 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It does seem strange that there's an article on the costume itself when there's already a section for it on the plague doctor article. Jess Coppola (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a lot of duplicate information between the two articles.CharlieCandide (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO there's enough information here for a separate article, but main article should be used there instead of linking to this article inline to make it more obvious that there are more details available. It's normal for one article to include a summary of a few paragraphs while linking to another article for details. --Pokechu22 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good advice, I was about to combine the two but the costume section is pretty long and might dominate too much. I'll try to get both working together. CharlieCandide (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pokechu22 in this circumstance, while I did merge Plague Doctor contract with Plague Doctor. Upon further consideration this costume article can stand alone for further reading purposes.Chariotsacha (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"NECHARI" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NECHARI. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. BeulenPest and Tom Banwell
There's a paragraph on the section on steampunk cosplay that reads like an advertisment for Mr. Banwell and his costume designs, relying chiefly on primary sources and seemingly of little encyclopedic value. Shouldn't it be deleted? If secondary sources can be found, it should probably be rewritten and shortened anyway DommageCritique (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)