Talk:Artificial hair integrations

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 13:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

wtf does "3a hair" mean. it appears twice in this article with no explanation, probably bc somebody plagiarized it from some other source that DID explain the meaning but the person doing the copy paste was too lazy to realize they'd left that part out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1002:C4B8:EDF1:FF38:B8C5:E5C9 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Somebody fucked up... this merged article fails to mention anything about "weave" until way later in the article where it pops up out of the clear blue. I clicked on a link on the "dreadlocks" page labeled "weave" and I ended up here... there wasn't even a note at the top of this article saying I had been redirected. I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't find any information about Weave in relation to Artificial Hair Extensions. Are they the same thing? Is "weave" a slang term only used in the Afro-American culture? I did a search on the page for "weave", and lo and behold somewhere in the middle the article just starts talking about weaves like we already know what that refers to. And don't give me that bullshit that everyone knows what "weave" means. I don't, that's why I ended up here. Please fix, or unmerge this fuck-up. 75.62.135.42 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is very mis-leading,but there is no service called hair integrations in the hairdressing industry. Likewise description of attatching should not sound like the building trade,using words as installing. The term is "to apply". There has developed a standard vocabulary that is now recognisable for the hair extension service and these words should be used. However it really needs a total re-write.( Ms Morag) 4th January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms morag (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyberlocks redirects here, but is not mentioned. I don't know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.45.137 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a fairly large grammatical and internal link overhaul, as well as expansions on the one-line topics. Gila m0bster 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed two paragraphs of the article pertaining to the disadvantages of human hair used for extensions and the benefits of monofiber over human hair. The paragraphs were actually misleading and incorrect, and the monofiber comparison was a form of advertising. I've seen human hair worked with on countless occasions and none of the problems the article cited were true. Gila m0bster 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the monofiber part is fairly obviously copied straight from a website. I'll make an overhaul of that segment after I do research on it. Gila m0bster 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Made changes, added information from a professional standpoint under 'hair weave'. Some wording is akward, would appreciate someone editing. Nblinknpark41 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Nblinknpark41

Removed the neutrality tag, did a major overhaul of bias-ed material in favor of professional, unbiased, encyclopedic-type information. Article has a long way to go, but it is looking better. Nblinknpark41 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

rename?

Maybe we should move this to Hair extensions or something similar?--Sonjaaa 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a lousy article. Not only is the title ridiculous, the tone is almost sarcastic, which leads me to question the veracity of the whole thing.

The entire article is written in a highly unprofessional manner, and no professional cosmetologist would ever refer to any of the subject matter as "fake hair". The most professional term is "artificial hair integrations". "Fake hair" makes a mockery of the subject matter and gives the impression of scorn and disdain towards the whole idea of wearing hair that isn't your own. For the record, 'artificial' covers both synthetic and human hair additions. I intend to try my best to move things around and edit as best I can, but I can't be the only cosmetologist on Wikipedia that knows even the most basic things about artificial hair integrations. I suggest the article be renamed Artificial hair. There's so much more about it than glamour. What about wigs for cancer patients? Locks of love? Alopecia? Medications and scalp disorders that involve hairloss, and common cosmetological remedies? There are so many tie-ins that can be made. The title really needs to change. Nblinknpark41 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Renamed. Nblinknpark41 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about this article but we need to create both the pages. One page about "Hair Extension" and the other on "Artificial Hair". I think the present topic of "Artificial Hair Integrations" should be redirected to "Hair Extensions".––PrasenjitChowdhury 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrasenjitChowdhury (talk • contribs)

Hot Strands

The products of the company "Hot Strands" are mentioned three times in three consecutive sentences (no other product is mentioned in the whole article), so I'll be bold and remove the sentences. If you disagree, please discuss! --Tail 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the references, as well as external links to the company's page, were added by a single user, Susikenna, and that this is the only article he/she has contributed to.

I didn't remove the external links, but I think that all of them also need revising, so that only the informative ones ar kept (if there are any). --Tail 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not enough information

I've recently had hair extensions done, while on holiday in another country. They are real human hair, and look great, but as I didn't understand the language of my hairdresser, I don't know what type of extensions were done! I've recently gone to a salon in the country that I live, but they didn't have a clue either! I started searching the web, but none of the information is very helpful. It's defenitely not any of the types (weaving/braiding/ waxing, etc) mentioned on Wikepedia. My extensions are different. They were glued in and have a little plastic tube cover(or is it extra glue?) of approx 1cm. I think the information on hair extensions on Wikepedia should be updated by a more knowledgable person! My extensions would probably have to grow out in the meantime, as no one has the knowledge on removing them!

I doubt anyone who's posted information in the article is an actual hairdresser, who would actually *know* that the information in the article is crap. FYI. Nblinknpark41 12:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)nblinknpark41

Hey you I read an article about this type of extending in the belgian newspaper HLN years ago, it was new then, never knew if it broke through.

UPDATE by Hair Extension producer and importer: The system referred to above is called 'Shrinkies' or other brand names. Basically the I-Tip system, but then a little heat shrink tube is slid over the attaching glue bond, then heated with a blowaver to shrink the tube. Not a bad improvement to the standard Thermal(heat melted glue)systems, does result in a smoother feeling bond and may improve the lasting time of the extension bond, but doesn't avoid the associated 'glue removal' natural hair damage.

Wikify

I added a wikify tag to the top of this article. The main reason I did is because the current layout (or lack thereof) makes it look like just a list and not an encyclopedia article. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Above comments referred to a vandalised version. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Toupee, or take Toupee content, replace current content and redirect Toupee?

The Toupee page was for a long time a fairly "fun" article with "OK", but not great content. It's now in fairly good shape, and is probably more appropriate than this article. Any ideas about what or how should be done to make this page tie to Toupee, or vice versa? Matthewdkaufman 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add a see also link to toupee. RJFJR 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Resource Links

Removed the following links offering "resources" which were predominantly more commercial in intent. Their resources pertain more to exemplifying the particular services they offer or were thin on content:

mohairextensions.com - commercial

hairextensionsoutlet.com - commercial

redirected hairextensionguide.com from their commercial front page to their resource page

http://www.hairextensionguide.com/hairextensions.htm, deleted "Exhaustive" and replaced with "Thorough list of installation techniques and descriptions"

http://www.hairextensioninfo.net/ blog format with commercial index, thin on content.. "gothic hair extensions" and "hair" were resourceful in intent but aren't really the focus of this article.. gothic is a fashion subculture which i'm sure is represented adequately on WP, and the hair info was from WP.

hairtrade.com - commercial site, no tutorials apparent, contrary to claim

I'm adding the tutorial section from Doctored Locks (which was removed??). I'll disclose that I work for Doctored Locks, and our tutorial section is educational in intent and is of extremely high quality. While our store is accessible from the tutorials, it is not so in a manner which subverts the intent or utilitarianism of a tutorials page.

baccaruda66 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Hair weaves be merged into Artificial hair intergrations. I think that the content in the Hair weaves article can easily be explained in the context of Artificial Hair intergrations, and the Artificial hair intergrations article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Hair weaves will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Furthermore, for a University of Toronto group writing project my team and I will be making substantial edits to the Hair weaves page until March 29th 2012 so that it will fit nicely within the Artificial hair intergrations page.Kuteyiay (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged with Hair weaveKuteyiay (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Y'all fucked up... the merged article fails to mention anything about "weave" until way later in the article where it pops up out of the clear blue. I clicked on a link on the "dreadlocks" page labeled "weave" and I ended up here... there wasn't even a note at the top of this article saying I had been redirected. I read the first few paragraphs and couldn't find any information about Weave in relation to Artificial Hair Extensions. Are they the same thing? Is "weave" a slang term only used in the Afro-American culture? I did a search on the page for "weave", and lo and behold somewhere in the middle the article just starts talking about weaves like we already know what that refers to.

And don't give me that bullshit that everyone knows what "weave" means. I don't, that's why I ended up here. Please fix, or unmerge this fuck-up. 75.62.135.42 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

silicone

Changed 'silicon' (a hard semiconductor element) to 'silicone' the polymer which can used as an adhesive... 71.139.164.10 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions

First of all I can't find the Section called External Links on this page. How is one created? Would someone create one?

Can I get some feedback if a video tutorial on applying hair extensions with tape that lasts four to six weeks would be appropriate in the External Links Section once it is created? It does mention products used in the video tutorial. It is very thorough and it is presented by someone who has been using hair extensions for over five years and has their own hair extension business.

The website is 52weeksofbeauty.com and the video's permanent name is 2013 Week 7.

The video is linked from YouTube.com from the YouTube Channel with the same name 52weekofbeauty.

Please advise me, it is a very informative video that is based on years of experience.

Thanks,

Christy Allysen 52weeksofbeauty (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Only if you have absolutely no connection with the production of the video. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cuticle "directions?"

This page is excellent -- thorough, concise, well written, and free of grammatical errors or confusing syntax. As a straight white guy, I'm a pretty good test subject -- that is, a good Wiki page ought to inform readers all together unfamiliar with the subject covered, and, after reading this page from top to bottom, I feel pretty informed. The only point on which I'm confused is cuticles and their direction: you refer to cuticles going "the same way" or not -- the same way as what? The editors of this page may want to make that part a little clearer, as I will have to go to an external source to figure that out -- so, as good as it is, this page has a little room for improvement -- for an utter layperson, such as myself, the directions of cuticles is mystifying and this page may benefit by a short section explaining cuticle direction relative to artificial hair integration (e.g., why is it more desirable to have the cuticles going in the "same direction?") Thanks Joeletaylor (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusing

Raw hair is hair that also has not been colored or processed in any way. This includes steam processes. Some consider this to be less evasive and not actually processed as the raw or virgin undergoes a multiple day steaming process to create long-lasting curls or wave patterns without the damage of chemicals. This process guarantees consistent curls and waves that has a uniform texture. Premium raw or virgin hair has had absolutely no processes of any sort including steam done on the hair. This is essential as true premium raw/virgin hair has a naturally occurring texture that when matched to the owner of the raw/virgin hair extensions creates a look that is unbeatable in look and feel.

So does raw hair get steamed or not? Apparently raw hair is not processed in any way including steam processes but you just spent a giant run on sentence in the "raw hair" section talking about steam processes.

--100.10.70.144 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lace fronts

The "lace fronts" section starts with the phrase The most recent development in weave extensions are lace fronts. I don't think that any encyclopedia article about a subtopic should state that the subtopic is the most recent development within the field. What happens when the article is updated with a newer development, or what if the claim is based upon erroneous or incomplete knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C43D:3A1E:7B04:D3EA:BD38:8E39 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artificial hair integrations. 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/20130916082922/http://site.houseofbeautyworld.com/blog/2013/08/06/human-hair-weaves-origin/ to http://site.houseofbeautyworld.com/blog/2013/08/06/human-hair-weaves-origin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405141334/http://columbianewsservice.com/2013/02/americas-booming-market-for-human-hair/ to http://columbianewsservice.com/2013/02/americas-booming-market-for-human-hair/

https://www.themewsbeauty.co.uk/do-you-know-where-your-hair-extensions-come-from.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statused (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I dont see any issue with the articles specificity

This is a huge market as the third world develops. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 05:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bonding-and-sealing-extensions.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

several changes

The name change to something along the line of "hair weave (technique)'".

One thing would be adding some history on the term "hair weave", by giving background about the creator of the technique Christina Jenkins as a new wiki page.

I would separate the technique from the product. Therefore, the information in the article that goes into color and texture would go into a different page "hair extensions". Furthermore, all of the information on shampooing and styling would be removed as it has nothing to do with the technique of "hair weave". Essentially, there would be other links and pages added so that each entity is clear and connect at proper points. This article may be a bit over informed and not clear enough for someone foreign to the concepts of either the technique or product or hair "weave", separating the two could go a long way.

Kwatso20 (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Futura

Pointing out that this section was copied and pasted from this source. Should I rewrite or look for another source altogether? LashyLady (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)