Talk:Buzz cut

message: This page contained generalisations which may apply to some western countries but should not be assumed to be true everywhere. I have reworded some sections, but the article is still written from a western (North American) perspective which is likely not to be the case in other parts of the world (particulrly in terms of popularity etc). The article does not describe the popularity (or social conotations and stigmas) of the cut in some countries. The degree ogf pupularity among women varies widely among different cultures and the section is problematic. In terms of Western cultures it is the exception rather than the rule and any popularity is relative. -- Grummbles 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I removed a part that claimed that most buzzcuts are cut with a "number 1". Firstly, this is jargon, and should be explained (known as a grade 1 in the UK and other parts of the English speaking world), and secondly, it is my experience that a "number 1" is the most radical type of buzzcut and that most buyzzcuts are cut with a # or maybe #2 guard. And while I'm at it, buzzcuts aren't even known as buzzcuts in some parts of the world. In Australia they are known as crewcuts, and I dare say that they have different names in different parts of the world. -- Grummbles 12:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Why do people get buzz cuts? Is it the sound of the clippers? Is it because it's low matenance? Or maybe it's the fuzzy feeling it has on the fingers after being freshly cut. Who knows?
I do a buzzcut becaue I got tired of paying $14 for a haircut. I do like the feeling of the freshly cut. I like the low maintenance. A shaved head is NOT a buzzcut, and is the most high maintenance of all, because it must be shaved almost every day. My buzzcut lasts for at least 2 weeks. Then, I just do another one.
:It costs nothing and is very practical. --Joffeloff 23:25, 14 January 2007
 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Why isnt there a picture of a woman on here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.32.187 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 

message: It would be nice if we could get a pic of a woman with a buzzcut on here, however I realize that said picture would be hard to find.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of a woman.... 

message: I added the expand template.  The article needs some major expansion although I think it's long enough to not be a stub.Etineskid (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Template 

message: merging into head shaving is a good idea,as given that headshaving and buzz cutting are very simalar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.164.250 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge into headshave 

message: Following unexplained reverts to my edits, I will expand on the reasoning for my aforesaid edits.
1)The article as I understand it from the title is about a “Buzzcut”, a term which I take to mean a very closely cropped hairstyle covering the whole head, differentiating it from other short cuts such as a flattop or a high and tight, the three collectively falling under the more general term of crew cut. Therefore it is incorrect to have an opening line in an article specifically about buzzcuts to read “A buzz cut, flattop, induction cut or wiffle is a very short haircut” when wikipedia article space itself differentiates the styles. If an editor thinks that they are the same then that editor should combine those articles into one (good luck with reaching a consensus on that one).
2)“Floyd's City Barber Shop in Mount Airy was said by the Reader's Digest to be the best place in the USA for a buzz cut in 2006.” It's hard to know where to begin with this one. Subjective? Unencyclopedic? Blatant promotion? Uncited? We have to start somewhere though, so to quote the article itself “The cut is usually performed using hair clippers without a comb guard.” Ergo, this is a style that is almost entirely generic, wherever it is performed in the world and by whomsoever. Any tiny differences between such cuts will be down to the clippers used. Do Floyds make their own special clippers? I honestly don't know, but I would bet large sums on them not doing so. So why is this the best place in the USA to get a haircut that one could get pretty much identically in any hairdressers in the world? Is it because it has a nice view? The staff are friendly? You get a free hot dog thrown in? I have no idea. But are any of these relevant in an encyclopaedic article about a style of haircut? No. Nonsense like this needs to be culled. As for the citation, I note that the link takes us to page 1 of a 128 page Google scan of a local newspaper which if one were prepared to trawl through for long enough one might find a local interest article in turn citing the Reader's Digest. Possibly. To be honest, life is too short to trawl through page after page for second hand citations for entries that are ultimately valueless.
For the benefit of those who like to communicate through the medium of wikipedia guidelines rather than ordinary intercourse, my reasoning for the removal of this single line of text can be best summed up as: WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:PROMOTION, WP:V. danno 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out to be North Carolina so I've disambiguated it. danno 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Colonel, I appreciate your conciliatory approach and will endeavour to respond in like manner. I entirely agree that the two styles in question (buzzcut and flattop) are most certainly very similar and their differentiation is to a certain degree subjective, as our respective sources have ably illustrated. For what it's worth, I see no real reason why all of these styles shouldn't be combined under the umbrella of the Crew Cut article with each having its respective sub-section given their similarity and obvious shared roots (no pun intended) and the fact that as standalone articles they are all fairly weak and with little obvious potential for valuable expansion. However unless/until that has happened (and consensus would appear to be against it unless we can create some kind of kick-ass combined article), I think that it makes little sense to have this article stating that they are the same whilst another article states that they are not. As you say, neither of us are particularly expert in the tonsorial arts so a protracted debate between us on the subject would appear to be a waste of wiki resources. danno 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained reverts 

message: (A buzz cut, flattop, induction cut or wiffle is a very short haircut.[1])
Here is what should be stated....
Buzz cut is used in two contexts:
1) To describe a variety of short hairstyles cut primarily with electric clippers that emit a buzzing sound, hence the name. Those styles include: butch, brush cut, crew cut, flat top, forward brush, ivy league.
2) An amateur cut butch haircut. A style where: a) all the hair on the top of the head is cut to one short length with guarded clippers or b) the hair on the top of the head is cut to one short length with guarded clippers and the hair on the back and sides of the head is cut to a shorter length with guarded clippers.
The rest of this article should only discuss the word buzz cut used in the second context.
(The cut is usually performed using hair clippers without a comb guard. The sides are cut closely and then the top is either shaped or cut to the same short length all over. The cut takes just a few minutes to perform.[1] A buzz cut can make the face look more defined. The buzz cut is popular among men and women who want a short, low-maintenance hairstyle. Far fewer women than men get their hair clipped off.)
(The cut is usually performed using hair clippers without a comb guard.)
The first sentence is just plain false. A buzz cut when the word is being used to describe an amateur butch  is usually not performed without a clipper guard on a clipper. If a barber cuts a butch, it will be performed without a clipper guard because a barber has professional rotary clippers that have blades that snap on and off and cut to the exact length without a clipper guard needed to regulate length. When a haircut is performed with home  clippers without a clipper guard attached, the haircut is not usually referred to as a buzz cut but as a clipper shave. An amateur butch is cut with a clipper guard on the clippers. 
(The sides are cut closely and then the top is either shaped or cut to the same short length all over.)
This statement fails to distinguish the context in which the word buzz cut is being used. An amateur butch, which is what this article is about, is cut one length on the top of the head. 
(There are many different variations of buzzcuts.)
Not needed, since this article should only be discussing amateur butch haircuts. The variations involve the different clipper guard lengths used to cut the top, back and sides. 
("One variation leaves some bangs (fringe) so they can be spiked upwards using gel or other hair products.")
Not true since this article is only discussing amateur butch haircuts. 
(With side fades, the side hair slowly fades shorter and shorter until the hairline ends, or the shortest clipper number is reached.)
Fade is just a slang word for taper or it describes a very short taper cut between #00000(0.2mm) and #000(0.5mm) which are the lengths that "fade" clippers cut at without a guard attached, by flipping the taper lever. Side fade is not a term in general use and is redundant. 
(in some cases, clippers are used to shear the hair short on the sides and back of the head, resulting in a short haircut, but not the classic buzz.[citation needed])
The point being made by this sentence is unclear. There is no generally acknowledged "classic buzz."
(A flattop is similar to a buzz cut, with the exception that the hair on the top of the head is not cut as short, and is deliberately styled to stand up.)
There is no similarity at all between a flat top and an amateur butch other than both are in the realm of short haircuts. An amateur butch is cut one uniform length on the top of the head  and totally conforms to the skull shape. A flat top does not conform to the skull shape, and the hair on the top of the head has tremendous proportional differences in length. 
(The longest part of the hair in the flattop cut is the front, being one to two inches in height. It is cut to be flat, resulting in a haircut that is square in shape.[2])
This is not needed since this article should be about amateur butch haircuts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiltonPB (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edit  Needed 

message: Is there a reason why wiffle automatically redirects to Wiffle Ball? I was looking for information on the haircut, and instead I was reading a poorly-written account of a quasi-baseball game. ;) I ended up having to do a search ON GOOGLE to finally end up at THIS page (as a wikipedia search brought me, again, to the Wiffle Ball page). Could someone maybe fix the redirect of 'Wiffle' to go to THIS page instead, or add one of those 'if you're looking for the haircut called wiffle, click here' to that page?  Maybe I should post this over on Wiffle Ball too...  Kailey elise (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiffle automatically redirects to Wiffle Ball? 

message: The induction cut appears to be a specific use case of the buzz cut. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, on the grounds that while it is certainly a subset of buzz cut it may be independently notable, just as other types of buzz cut: butch cut, crew cut, flattop, and Ivy League. Klbrain (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed, given the uncontested objection. Klbrain (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Induction cut]] 

message: According to policy, a gallery should "collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made."  Having twelve similar photos of men with buzz cuts is not useful.  Ideally, the article would have one high-quality photo in the lede; if a gallery is necessary, it should illustrate some sort of contrast; i.e., genders, ages, ethnicities, etc.  Otherwise, this starts to look like a "list of people with buzz cuts" article, which also directly violates WP:GALLERY. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking off my 3O hat, let me just weigh in with this. The gallery here is ridiculous and is the tail wagging the article dog. Though I think it's a somewhat close call on the question of whether WP:GALLERY is violated, I think that it does violate it. But even if it does not, it does not improve the article and it should be removed. That's my !vote towards a consensus to resolve the question of whether it ought to stay or go. If it does stay, and the permissions on those photos allow derivative works, those images should be cut down so that it just shows the haircut without anything more and the names or identification of the individuals wearing the haircut should be eliminated; it would then illustrate just variations on the haircut - which is the importance, if any, of the gallery for this article - without implying importance due to the identity of the wearer (analogous to the idea of reliability not being inherited). If some importance is to be ascribed to the identity of the wearer, perhaps the advocate for the gallery could start a fork article, "People who wear buzz cut haircuts". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the size of this article, I don't think a gallery is warranted at all.  I've amended it to two photos; I don't see how those two photos fail to convey to the reader what a buzz cut looks like. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the term accompanies multiple styles which the gallery conveyed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only different in styles I could see in that gallery was (1) Wrestler Cody Rhodes had a slightly longer buzzcut and (2) Brian Yang (badminton) has bangs with a buzz cut. The former is a bit blurry, and the latter is even blurrier and an awful crop.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive images in gallery in contravention of [[WP:GALLERY]]