Talk:Wig

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wig article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled

lol, where does it say that Elizabeth I wore a merkin? Bastie 15:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cleanup: what reason? This seems like a perfectly decent article. --Mashford 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article's layout is cluttered, and it's not very well written. It is also lacking detail (ok, so that's not for cleanup), but it needs a lot of improvement. Maybe the copyedit tag would be better. — Wackymacs 20:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFDed article redirects here

Toupé now redirects here, as per its failed AFD. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC) In a time when hygiene wasn't so good and natural hair often was infested with lice, perhaps shaving the head and wearing a wig was a way to defeat the vermin. Perhaps powdering not only improved the wig's cosmetic appearance, but also suffocated animals that may have taken up residence in it. Good wigs being expensive, wigs served, with other clothing to signal the wearer's social rank.[reply]

This article is messy

I'd like approval before trying to completely rewrite and reorganize this article. I would plan, of course, to retain all the information already in the article, but I'd like to add more and to reorganize the whole thing. I think this article could be much better. Berserk798 01:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 years later and it read as if a 14 year old wrote it... particularly the part about human hair wigs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.56.217 (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haberdasher, hatter, milliner, what?

haberdasher: one who deals in men's clothing (US) or in clothing trim (UK)
hatter: one who deals in hats, especially men's hats
milliner: one who deals in women's hats

Is there a word for one who deals in hairpieces? Or is that word taken? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wig stylist? I don't know, but that is a rather interesting question Dancehallqueen123 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW just WOW.

I feel like this page is an advertisement. In no way should there be links to the products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.211.112.192 (talk • contribs)

Agree, especially this bit: "The lace wigs are quickly becoming one of the most sought after wigs among wig wearers. The amazing realistic illusion ⋯" FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why no links to products?

If an expert on a topic is unable to benefit from his expertise then they consider it a waste of time to contribute. I agree that it would be a shame to fill Wiki with spam. If an expert on a topic is not allowed to link to products for sale that relate directly to the topic then how does this resourse get paid for? Time is money in this world. If that link to a product is proper, on topic and contributes to the value of the information then it should be there. If a topic is discussing a newly invented device then why not allow the inventor to post a link to their site where other's can buy it? I do feel that those not contributing should not post links to products. I did not see the product links but I would not blindly remove them without consideration of who and why they are put there. Imfinenu 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are wigs made?

The article should describe wig construction and its history. Unfortunately, I couldn't even begin to guess how they're made, so I can't help. -kslays 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wig Categories would be Helpful Too

The types of wigs available today would be useful information. I have been trying to find out what a "European Wig" is as opposed to other wigs available for purhcase.--Kg2007 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossderessers

One of the most commen uses for wigs today is for crossdressers, maybe some more should be written on that?--Wiggstar69 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jewish Women

I could find no evidence to support the statement that Orthodox Jewish women cut off their hair after marriage and wear wigs; it appears to be something of an urban myth. There's plenty of evidence that they are expected to cover their hair, originally to prevent any man other than their husband from seeing it, and that some do wear wigs over their own hair for this purpose. I have altered the paragraph to reflect this. Karenjc 14:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John XXIII College "Wig-off" (ANU)

Can someone please add up a section regarding this? I think it was removed as part of vandalism but it is a legitimate part of history. Also the mention of the "wig-off" that was on the page (before it was removed) was poorly written, and would need tidying up anyway. Thanks. 130.56.65.25 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Pictures

Is it just me or does this artical have far too many pictures? On top of this most of them relate to old uses and very few relate to new uses eg. crossdressers. --Wiggstar69 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm removing images that are of people that just happen to be wearing wigs. Pictures should be specifically of just wigs (or wig accessories), or of particularly charactaristic examples, or examples of historical signifigance. -Verdatum (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

I've tagged the article with a missing-information tag because it has nothing but a historical account of wigs. There's no information on current manufacture, use, styles, popularity, or anything else, making it an absurdly narrow work not relevant to anything but historical research. I see that I'm not the first person to raise this complaint. I hope that someone with basic domain knowledge can address this issue. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added what I know. I'd love to see a section about machine made wigs, but I know nothing about it, nor where I can find sources on the subject. The manufacture section could use some pictures on stuff like wig lace and wig hooks, but I don't have access to any non-copyrighted images. -Verdatum (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aspect of Wigs

One point not made here, is that the widespread introduction of wigs in european culture coincides with the spread of syphillis introduction into the continent at that time. Caribe indian archeaological remains show an 89% rate of syphillis in the tribes that columbus first had contact with.

Why this applies to wigs, is that in the secondary stage of syphillis, the hair thins and falls out. Noble women, who contracted this from their husband's patronage of infected women, had to come up with a method for hiding their condition. Just wouldn't do for the Queen to be seen with her hair falling out.. There are references, I just don't have them handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.240.42 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT too many Pictures

I do not agree at all. History is always a fundamental part of of any topic presented in an Encyclopedia. A visual presentation of the subject and its history is of high importance.

You may aiways add pictures on the contemporary use of the wig but do not remove the others. Warrington (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved new section to bottom per convention). My issue is not that history is unimportant. It is that the pictures involved are of bunch of people who just so happen to be wearing wigs. Many of them are paintings of people who happen to be wearing wigs, which conveys far less information than a photograph. If the pictures are specifically of the wigs themselves, then I'd have no problem with them. You don't need to include a picture just because it contains the subject at hand. Include a picture because it adds something specific to the article.

As a compromise, I suggest moving the bulk of these photos to a gallery format at the bottom. -Verdatum (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to show wigs from an early period, than you have to use the documentation wich is available , in this case the paintings about people who are wearing the wigs. Those wigs they are wearing, are probably distroyed or lost. I think that they are an important part of the article, wich, if you remove the pictures, will consist of a large amount of text without any visual historical documentation. Warrington (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I removed three of them, I hope that the rest ~is OK. And added one modern. Warrington (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous persons

So no attempt has been made yet, to add a section "Famous persons, wearing a wig". Maybe on this page a start can be made, so that first becomes clear, weather there could be one at all. Personally this user knows one (apart from those in historical Wig period):

Dick Advocaat, soccer.

And possibly:

VKing (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could mention Ricky Gervais' sitcom Extras? The bit where the mentalist goes, "I love everything about it! The wig, the glasses, the catchphrase - brilliant! Everything about it. The wig. The glasses. The catchphrase - brilliant! Oh the wig. The glasses, and the catchphrase... Yeah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.77.130 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't need such a section, it would be useless trivia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Chiefs

I think the article needs to be more explicit about what kind of 'native American headdress' is referred to as a wig by scholars of wig history. Is it the feather headdress that we see in stereotyped images? Or something else? LordAmeth (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'highly insulting' comment either needs some very solid documentation (who is it insulting, for instance?) or removal. It's rather opinionated for the context. Corgi (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Totally unsourced. Deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax

The article refers to a wig powder tax as being levied by the English government in 1795. Surely it was the British government by that time, wasn't it? Dawright12 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change, though to be honest I'm not 100% sure of the constitutional niceties here. From looking at the National Archives records, it seems that Scotland (for example) is explicitly mentioned in law where applicable, and there was only one Government at the time in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Notable Human Hair Wig Brands'

How does an unreferenced list of wig brands become notable?

Unless someone comes up with a plausible answer, I'll delete this section. It clutters the article for no good reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - already deleted them. I suspect WP:COI. Joja lozzo 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable wig wearers

At least one of the "notable wig wearers" appeared to be vandalism or an attempt at humor. I removed these. I added references for some of the other non-obvious claims. Some of the notable wig wearers do not seem to me to be worth trying to cite. For example, adding a citation to the claim that Lady Gaga is a notable wig-wearer would be nothing but a silly waste of time. I wonder if entertainers like Lady Gaga should be removed from the list: the list can't possibly be exhaustive anyway, and we are not helping the readers by stating that Lady Gaga is a wig-wearer. In contrast, Dilma Rousseff's wig is not merely interesting but actually newsworthy.

I was not able to verify some of the claimed "wig wearers". For example, I found some speculations that Lisa Bloom wears a wig, but no clear statement by any reliable source. I plan to remove any of these that are still uncited at the end of the year. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians?

Since we've mentioned that "ancient Egyptians" had "shaved bald heads," wouldn't it be a good idea to mention why they had shaved bald heads? (I, personnally, am dying to know.

Also, the embedded links in this paragraph are separated into "ancient" (which points to "Ancient Egyptians") and "Egyptians" (which points the page about Egyptians, ancient and modern). Since the only Egyptians for which this wig article is relevant are the ancient ones, I'm going to change the links to a single link that points to Ancient Egyptians. No, no, you don't have to thank me. rowley (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19th century wigs.

The 1892 book "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" mention that Herr Drosselmeyer wore a periwig made out of spun glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B580:80B:B140:9B7F:DE03:5911 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

This article says George Washington wore a wig, but the George Washington article says he didn't. Binarybits (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Synthetic wigs

No significant new content. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wig. 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/20120226000314/http://connect.in.com/grand-duke-constantine-pavlovich-of-russia/images-royal-russia-the-romanov-dynasty-the-grand-dukes-of-russia-1-936394761299.html to http://connect.in.com/grand-duke-constantine-pavlovich-of-russia/images-royal-russia-the-romanov-dynasty-the-grand-dukes-of-russia-1-936394761299.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merkins? Really?

Merkins really don’t need to be mentioned here. Who visits this article to get info about pubic wigs? 136.239.70.120 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Wigs

The citation no 5 (https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1.1&charenc=j) seems to be unrelated to the Assyrians using wigs, contrary to what its position implies and I have not been able to find any evidence that they did wear wigs, so I would propose removing them from that list until adequate reference can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BVK-bln (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African American wig use?

I came here because I wanted to know more about the history and contemporary practice of African American women wearing wigs, and I was surprised there was nothing about it. It seems like such an important cultural piece, could that be added? —AsterRoc (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]