Talk:Straight razor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Razor and HIV

Why there is no information about multi-use razors and the HIV and other blood transmitted s**t risk? That's the main reason they got banned, as far as I know. To the one who wrote the section about legality - please provide short note about the reasoning behind the ban. 194.30.179.66 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban?

While someone is at it; please provide some documentation on this alleged ban. As far as I can determine, there are only a list of sources to various places without such bans, this does not strengthen the claim that someone has instituted a ban for any reason.

Looking more thorougly, the NY Times article makes this claim unsourced, in a setting where it could very well be an urban myth. The citation from Toronto officials is difficult to place as a guideline or a law, but anyways only advocates sterilisation. The rest of the citations are from the areas where straight razors are supposedly allowed.

I'm adding a sprinkle of Dubious here. 80.203.121.249 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

they must have forgotten to ban them in Tx and NM because I have gone to barbers who use straight razors all my life. It is illegal for cosmetologists to use them without special training, but all barbers may use a straight razor and I have never known one who doesn't. My current barber in Portales, NM is the only classically trained female barber I have ever met, and she is great with a razor. I always go at least a day without shaving before a haircut so I can get a hot lather shave from her, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.115.229 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Gallery, Images, & Captions

There has been some edit-warring over the deletion of a lot of valuable information from the article regarding captioned pictures with explanatory text. These captioned pictures used to be spread all over in the article but user Nbarth put them together in a section of their own some time ago here. Yesterday user Duchamps comb moved them down after the see also section but I undid the edit citing WP:LAYOUT. Today the same user deleted the whole section citing WP:NOTREPOSITORY but these examples do not fall under that policy section so I added the section back. In fact if we have to invoke WP:NOTREPOSITORY we can invoke it for adding trivia sections like the one added yesterday. What straight razor Bugs Bunny used with Elmer Fudd is completely irrelevant to this encyclopedic article. But clearly the example section is germane to understanding the topic of the straight razor as user Nbarth remarked in their edit summary here. I would appreciate any thoughts and ideas from other users. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGSIZE, WP:CAP, WP:IG, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. This page HAS problems, the Gallery is in the middle of the page (very disruptive), it does not add any value (except frivolous information) unless you are a collector. The images have all been force sized up from 220px to over 300px in many cases. The image captions are WAY over inflated, to the point of absurdity.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not object to moving the examples, reducing the size of the images and even trimming the captions. But let's do it in a controlled fashion, not via wholesale deletion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the examples lower and trimmed some captions while decreasing the size of some pics. I will get back to some more trimming a bit later. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Drop-down gallery? I am ok with that. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing some of my points. The page has been much improved. There may be a better HTML code for a drop down list, with a larger title, edit that at will. Still some of the captions are still over-inflated, do what you can to address this. If you feel the "film and media" section is not needed please state why.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comment. As far as the trivia section, what can I say. WP:TRIVIA covers it all, but I will not spend time discussing its removal. These sections however do exhibit an uncanny ability to grow over time and become bloated with all kinds of trivia. So they need to be cropped from time to time. I am ok with the current code of the drop-down section and I will further try to trim the captions. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in (talk page), seeing as I originally made the gallery.

Seems the discussion is largely resolved (a gallery, trim captions, collapse to deal with v. long captions), but to state my thoughts:

Examples of historical straight razors are obviously helpful, as is captioning to note significant details; having them in a gallery (at the bottom) is less disruptive than having them spread across the article, particularly for discussion of details.

V. detailed descriptions are useful information, but should be placed on the image pages at Wikimedia commons (currently these have no descriptions – the v. long captions would make great descriptions there).

For captions, I’d specifically favor mentioning design details, but not details of the specific razor. E.g.,

The main advantage of such a large blade size is that it can carry lots of lather through multiple successive shaving strokes and it does not have to be rinsed as often as a smaller sized blade, if at all, for a complete shave

is useful, though could be made shorter (“Large blades carry more lather, hence fewer rinses and a faster shave.”)

OTOH,

The etching is very poor quality and the faint Best Brand logo indicates a generic Asian import. Some corrosion is apparent on the blade at the lower end of the shoulder, near the heel.

…is not very helpful on the article page, but is useful on the image page at Commons.

Also, dunno about layout, but having bigger images – say in two columns, with text on the side (rather than below) – would make detailed examination easier.

Thanks all!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nils for your excellent critique and comments. Also per your comment ...but having bigger images – say in two columns, with text on the side (rather than below) – would make detailed examination easier. I will try to see how this is technically possible. It sounds like a good idea. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm afraid the collapsible gallery may not be such a good idea after all, per MOS:COLLAPSE. Short story is, there are accessibility issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Future for help in the technical department. It is refreshing and a welcome change to see you involved in something other than ethnic disputes :) I guess we have to do some more work on this gallery. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the captions and since the captions now are normal size the pictures can now be reintegrated back into the article to illustrate the points made at the relevant sections, a function the pictures used to perform before the galleries were created. I understand that the overlong captions made the gallery option a necessary evil but now that the caption length has been trimmed considerably the gallery and its associated problems have been removed. Thanks to all for their great suggestions and especially to Future who took time away from the volcanic instability of ethnic disputes to offer his great suggestion which catalysed the reintegration of the pictures into the article. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of opinions for citations and unsubstantiated claims

This article is chock full of claims only substantiated by opinions. The claim that straight razors provide a better shave only cites two articles, both opinion pieces by old timers reminiscing about the good old days of shaving. The citation for the claim that one will never cut himself if he doesn't hold the blade perpendicular to his skin and pull lengthwise, besides being an opinion article, doesn't even make that claim, saying only that holding the blade perpendicular and pulling will cause a cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.166.192 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Really? It's a bit ridiculous. Unless anyone objects I will cut it down to three or four of the most notable items (e.g. Reservoir Dogs, Sweeney Todd, and ... actually maybe I will just delete it. I mean come on... 155.198.65.73 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These sections have a tendency to grow to absurd levels. Cut at will. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it whole cloth. It added no value at all. Rob Standefer ^talk 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A closed razor?

Could someone please see if they can provide an image of a closed straight razor, not just open ones? I ask that because there are several saltwater clams that are called "razor clams" because they resemble a closed straight razor in shape, and many young people have never seen one, so it would be useful to have an image of one closed. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look I found this image at Commons, although not completely closed: File:Navaja DOVO Solingen.jpg. Is that ok? If not I guess I have to take out my camera. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the second one you listed is good for what I want to be visible! Thanks so much Dr. K! Invertzoo (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention it Invertzoo. It was a pleasure. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are these statements contradictory?

"A straight razor with round point. Its high-gloss finish indicates metal plating usually associated with inferior quality." --Caption applied to image: No name straight razor.JPG

"Subsequent to grinding, the blade is polished to various degrees of gloss. The finest finish, used in the most expensive razors, is the mirror finish." --from Section "Construction" sub-section "Finishing".

This is another way of asking if a "high-gloss finish" is different from a "mirror finish". Arcanicus (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Spurious references to unreliable commercial resource

There are numerous references throughout the article to a vendor where the alleged information does not exist. My removals were reverted because "They contained the information but perhaps they have changed over time" If the information does not exist there, the references source is unreliable, and should not be referenced either.

At this point the article looks more like a marketing tool for a commercial entity, rather than providing correct information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.57.184 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Links rot over time. Please see WP:LINKROT. But we do not have to remove them because they can be repaired through the internet archive. So I have repaired the link you tried to remove through the Internet Archive. It is here. And I do not agree with your assertion At this point the article looks more like a marketing tool for a commercial entity, rather than providing correct information on the subject. since the information in the link is factual and technically correct and is used in a neutral manner. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So, why do you find a content written 10 years ago that currently only exists in the history of the internet authoritative in any manner? Things change over time too, not only through link-rot. For example every single Thiers-Issard razor in current production is made by a new steel alloy c135. The sheffield-steel they stopped using 5 years ago is no longer in use. Furthermore Thiers-Issard has smaller production of Dovo, and extrapolating from their marketing materials to what the industry norms are is silly (cf. finishes/decorations).

As far as correctness of the information - the article you are referencing explicitly contradicts the statement "Sharpening is usually not completed during manufacturing, instead being done after purchase." The three major manufacturers Dovo, Thiers-Issard, and Boker claim that their razors require no further sharpening, yet the post-factory sharpening of these razors in brand-new condition is not only the accepted norm in the straight-shaving community, but also common practice at every major vendor.

There are number of published books on straight razor shaving from 1700s to the 1960s that can serve as references, instead of a 'webpage somewhere on the internet from 9.5 years ago with no references whatsoever' and I think they should. Here's an example of two chapters from one of the earliest books La Pogonotomie.

24.58.57.184 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to updating the information. We can mark the use of Sheffield steel as historical and add the new details, including material from the link you provided. On the other hand certain information about razor grinds is still valid in the web archive reference so not everything has to change. Also keep your statements civil please. For example, your statement extrapolating from their marketing materials to what the industry norms are is silly. is unnecessarily belligerent and also incorrect. First there is no "extrapolation", we can always attribute the information to refer to the specific practices of Thiers Issard as an example of what a leading manufacturer does. Second the "marketing materials" have valid technical information which can be used to refer to their products. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hollowness, Belly, and Stability

I'm having trouble understanding what part of the blade is being ground and in what way. From the images on the page, and across the internet, it looks like all blades are hollow ground, even if they are said to be flat! Is that something one can see? Is the whole form of the blade ground, or are we just talking about the ~0.5mm cutting edge? Is that big fat ridge at the spine part of the blade, or is it just a stop to prevent it from spinning through the scales and cutting your hand open? Is there a 3/4 hollow grind? When we say 1/4, 1/2, and 4/4 or full hollow, how does that place the belly on the blade? Is that even what it's referring to? Does it become more hollow as the belly nears the cutting edge, or the spine? The article says it is inversely related, but inversely related to what exactly? I found [this picture in the wildernet] and it seems to clearly show the "belly" of the blade better than any of the images on this page- could we get an image like this for the page to illustrate the subject better? I had no idea what the article was talking about until I saw that picture. And how does hollowness and the position of the belly affect sharpness? Does it even affect sharpness? The section which discusses its impact is also confusing to me. If it becomes more stable as the belly gets closer to the spine, how would a blade's edge wear down to the belly sooner on a less hollow blade? Wouldn't it have farther to go? That section also fails to explain the effect on sharpness of a flat-ground razor, stating only its stability and "feel". And if a full hollow blade has its ridge close to the center of the blade, why do most cross-sectional images of them show it 1/4 of the breadth from the cutting edge? And I can't find anything about a triple bevel razor. I don't even know what that means. I don't even know what the bevel refers to. --75.156.183.98 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I think the caption for the lead image is a bit ridiculous. It uses words that I as a reader new to the subject don't understand and (I presume) goes into detail that's completely unnecessary for an image in the lead section of an encyclopedic article. I also gather from the words I did understand that the depicted razor is supposed to be a very high quality one, and possibly quite expensive since it's decorated with gold. This combined with the uninformative description makes the image presentation feel like a sales pitch or (Personal attack removed) to other collectors instead of something intended to educate the reader.

I don't see many faults with the image itself, apart from the somewhat distracting background pattern. Although I think a picture that also demonstrates something other than just the device itself - like its use or other tools needed to utilise or maintain it - would be preferable. --Veikk0.ma 18:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It uses words that I as a reader new to the subject don't understand and (I presume) goes into detail that's completely unnecessary for an image in the lead section of an encyclopedic article. This comment means that you didn't bother to read the article. Every single term in the lead image description is explained in the article. The description of the lead image is intended to summarise some of the technical content in the article and to pique the curiosity of the reader to learn more about the subject by reading the article. I fail to see how enumerating the technical descriptors of a blade amounts to a sales pitch or that it is worthy of a base personal attack which I took the liberty to remove per WP:NPA. Dr. K. 02:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of jumps (and how can I stop this from being archived!?!)

Because of my real life limitations, I will periodically put suggestions on talk pages for other people to consider. I am completely pro-archiving, but I doubt somebody will use the information I found within the next 20 days and yet the whole reason I make these posts is my disability does not allow me to be reliable about finishing or following up. Nobody looks at archives to find things to do!

But anyway, I was interested in the word "jimps" mentioned in this article and I found a post that discusses the etymological origin of "jimps" and "jimping." It references some decent sources, so all somebody will need to do is 1. verify those sources exist and 2. the content is what the post represents it as, and then 3. put in a referenced note in any article mentioning the terms on their origin.

See this StackExchange post, especially the response by coleopterist that mentions the Oxford English Dictionary and a specialized source. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)