Talk:Head & Shoulders

Comments

this article is a bit tilted (a definition, then an effectivity comparison, seems a bit like criticism... just a bit); but the information is correct, perhaps the article should be divided into sections.--164.77.109.210 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Head & Shoulders appears copper orange in the movie Evolution is because it is the intensive treatment formula. Rather than pyrithione zinc, it uses selenium sulfide for the active ingredient. Perhaps these two active ingredients should also be listed as such under the article ? 83.84.35.95 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears to be a clear breach of the usual conventions in that it is simply an advertisement board for Head and Shoulders and a range of other products

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-headandshoulders.gif

Image:Logo-headandshoulders.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-headandshoulders.gif

Image:Logo-headandshoulders.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sports

I believe for a time in the early-mid 1990s, Head and Shoulders sponsored NBC's NFL Live! postgame reports until the NFL Live moniker was dropped after the 1994 NFL season. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debut of Zinc Pyrithione

This article claims H&S launched the world's first shampoo with zinc pyrithione. I found no links nor references to validate that, and a google search turned up fruitless. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Revlon's ZP-II pre-dates H&S.--99.231.196.195 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrazine???

I've listened twice now and I swear that Head and Shoulders is saying that its "hair endurance" formula contains hydrazine? But look at the toxicity data as described in that article. I didn't think that sounded like a likely component for a hair care formula... Wnt (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World

In the UK now the shampoo is now available in seven different fragrances. So who says that capitalism doesn't produce any useful products? Smokey TheCat 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head & Shoulders shampoo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Head & Shoulders shampoo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Head & Shoulders shampoo.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy closed and not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Head & Shoulders → Head & shoulders – Since the brand name is always lowercase, I believe that the page should be moved to Head & shoulders per the article naming guidelines. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Only the logo is styled lowercase, their website is capitalised and so is it on the P&G website. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Actually, I believe "the article naming guidelines" that apply here are what are expressed in MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS, WP:AT, which (as I understand them) recommend to capitalize the brand names of particular products and to ignore unusual typographical styling used by brand name owners (at least unless the unusual styling is consistently followed in reliable sources). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Greg Kaye 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there's no reason to avoid following WP:MOSTM Red Slash 18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose it is not about "head and shoulders", it is about a proper noun, a brand, it is not the common phrase "head and shoulders"; the current capitalization uses capitalization as a differentiator from the common phrase. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the information contained is quite objective: Description, some history, and ingredients. Nothing particularly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.97.2 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one source that is not from P&G - and there is nothing - literally not one thing - that talks about the significance of this product. It is not an encyclopedia article, It is just a catalog entry or an ad. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with everything that Jytdog said. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerge

As mentioned above, this article was a brochure for the product, not an encyclopedia article. I merged it to the active ingredient and redirected this article and merged the content into the article on the active ingredient, which is what we generally do with promotional articles on specific brands of medicated products or drugs. User:BD2412 restored the article, and created a brief but very solid, and independently sourced encyclopedia article on the brand. I have no objections to this at all. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - of course, the brand and the product are often inextricably intertwined, even though in the case of something like a shampoo, the formulation can change completely over time while the brand stays the same (e.g. Coca Cola). I have no idea if or how this product's formula has changed over time, although (as now noted in the article) it has had dozens of variations which must have differing ingredients. bd2412 T 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity endorsements

193.201.132.244 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC) [1][reply]

I would like to show a list of all the celebrity endorsements and sponsorships carried out by the brand. I believe this is a part of the brand history and legacy. If it is relevant for sporting goods why not consumer goods? User jytdog deleted a list I painstakingly compiled citing the reason as Trivial - this classification is entirely subjective and lacks a thorough definition. looking at celebrity pages on wikipedia shows many such mentions of the celebrities appearing in commercials. it is often a breakthrough indicator of success for actors and sports people to be chosen as ambassadors.

What you write here has nothing to do with the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia. And again, your IP is registered to a PR firm, and you appear to be not following the WP:PAID policy. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see no reason to list the celebrity endorses for this or any other product, unless the endorsement itself garners significant coverage in reliable sources. Outside of such coverage, the fact that a celebrity takes a paycheck to hawk a product says nothing of encyclopedic note about that product. bd2412 T 14:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A list of endorsements was added to this article, and then removed by another editor. I agree with this removal. bd2412 T 11:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the section because it's a massive bloat to the article for little worthwhile reason - if celebtrity endorsements were somehow worthy of inclusion, we should just stick to the few notable ones instead of listing over a hundred(!) people plus the profession, year and gender(???) for each person. This makes a massive table that's of no encyclopedic use to anyone; again, if the section is somehow deemed warranted and not facilitating advertisement on P&G's behalf, the line of text before the table with a few examples is more than enough. RDXL (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]