Template talk:Human hair

Updating the other template

I'll wait a day to update Template:Human hair. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no rule that states that only one name for a style can appear in the list of hairstyles in the human hair footer. These are common names for very common haircuts worn by literally billions of guys. Guys in general are not very knowledgeable about different styles and may know a style by one name but not know it by another name. If a guy looks at a list of styles that allegedly contains the hairstyles listed in Wikipedia and does not see the style listed by the name he knows, he assumes there is not any information in Wikipedia on that style. The purpose of this list is to help people locate information on hairstyles so there is no reason why the alternate English language names for extremely common styles should not be listed in the list of styles. This is somewhat similar to taking a position that since a card catalog in the library has the books listed by their subjects, there is no need to list them by their titles. In this case the name under which the Wikipedia article appears is the subject and the alternate names are the titles. The issue is that many guys only know the title they are familiar with and do not know the name the article appears in Wikipedia, the subject. There are differences in names between the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, not to mention that there are also those who are not native English speakers who read the English version of Wikipedia. If alternate names for very common male styles cannot be listed, the list of styles has diminished value. It is not clear what is meant by the comment "piping from colloquial names is very confusing." so I cannot comment directly to that . Thanks! MiltonPB (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point. The thing is that you are visually replacing the common name with a less common name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how anything is being visually replaced; several names are commonly used for a style so several names appear in the list as should be the case since the point of the list is to help find information on styles with articles in Wikipedia, a reference resource, or if that is not the list's raison d'etre, then what is the point of the list? Also, what is a more common name in the United States is not necessarily a more common name in the UK, Canada, Ireland or Australia. The only reason it is more common is because three hundred million English speakers live in the US and the population of the other named English speaking countries is not even half the US population, but that has little relevance to a guy who lives in Liverpool and has never been outside of the UK. It would seem that if anything is replacing something, visually or not, it is only including the most common US name for a style in a reference resource regardless that it might not be the most common name in the UK, Australia etc; that is replacing the indigenous British, Australian etc name for a certain style with the US name. Thanks! MiltonPB (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point again. So, do you want the template to have several common names that go to the same article? I saw at least one that you created. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Also, if you want piping, then what you're saying is that the visible link is more common that the actual article it pipes to. Is that right? Because if it is, then shouldn't the article itself be moved to the more common name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the alternate names should lead to the article of the style that the alternate name describes. The point being stated regarding piping is not clear; there are numerous piped style names in the list aside from the ones I added that were deleted. If the name of the article in Wikipedia is not the most common name it is due to the most common name not being available since it is already in use in Wikipedia; for instance, the person, posting while not logged in, who deleted the names I added to the list added the piped name Crop for Crop(hairstyle) since, Crop, is not available for the hairstyle on Wikipedia. Thanks! MiltonPB (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I must be getting slightly retarded. I'm having trouble understanding what you write. If you want to have different common words for certain haircuts that go to the same article, like [[Butch cut|Burr]] and [[Butch cut|Short brush cut]], that's fine with me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)