Talk:Shaving brush

[Untitled]

This page is missing some important facts about badger hair, detailed at http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showpost.php?p=8469&postcount=5

I think some of the additional detail should be integrated into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfield (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 September 2006

Article NPOV, advertisement for lifestyle choice

This article is a direct re-edit from a 'classic lifestyle' sales website devoted to wet shaving. There's a link to the website down at the bottom of the article embedded along with a few other links. My NPOV criticism here is regarding the anti-synthetic/boar opinion, which is unsubstantiated, and like the rest of the article, without references or sources. In addition, there is nothing here regarding the sourcing of badger hair. I find this ironic, because the article goes on at length over the various properties and grades of badger hair, yet fails to mention how the animals are hunted, farmed, and/or killed and whether or not there are any environmental issues to consider. All of these failings add up to an article that violates all of wikipedia's stated guidelines for content (verification, neutral point of view, no original research). I would support the correction of these flaws if anyone has the time and inclination to do the work. Strike71 18:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The only real issue Strike brings up, IMO, is that we need references here. I've added some information on the source of badger hair, as well as some references, after having done extensive research of, and correspondence with, brush makers/hair suppliers in China. Besides which, anyone who has investigated the world of straight razor shaving knows that badger hair is king. Also, it's only recently that any synthetic-bristle shaving brushes became available in the U.S. market at all. That's a very recent innovation and not likely to to thrive -- and before anyone cries 'POV,' this is the talk page. Also, I don't care whether someone thinks there should be mention of environmental issues with badger hair brushes. I can't imagine what such an issue would be, but if someone finds there is one and they can source it, go ahead and put it the article. As for the tone of the article, it accurately reflects everything I've seen published about shaving brushes, as well as my personal experience shaving with both bristle and badger-hair brushes. It may seem POV, but the POV is supported by plenty of industry literature and published user comment. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I've left one of the links, the rest weren't to anything specific to shave brushes. I'm very tempted to remove the last one as it is a link to a page of a vendor or (among other things) shave brushes, and something more neutral would be better. --Lijnema 08:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shave brush. 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://web.archive.org/web/20141007134725/http://wetshavingproducts.com/badger-hair-grades-a-primer/ to http://wetshavingproducts.com/badger-hair-grades-a-primer/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Shave brush → Shaving brush – Personally I've never seen or heard the term "shave brush" used outside of Wikipedia; the universally accepted name is "shaving brush". A Google Trends search shows "shaving brush" has been the more popular search term since 2004 and on average is 3x more popular. I also tried a Google Ngram Viewer search but "shave brush" isn't even a recognised search term. The "shaving" prefix is also more commonly used with other shaving-related equipment and cosmetics, such as shaving cream, shaving soap, shaving mug, shaving scuttle... --Veikk0.ma 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per common name/naturalness. Colin M (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.