Talk:Temple fade

Untitled

This page needs to be changed to "Blowout_(hairstyle)." Hairstyle in this context is one word... 98.149.102.44 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. davewho2 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Globalize

This article makes a reference to "the northeast". Of what? Indeed, we can easily fix that specific issue, but the article lacks a global perspective. What about similar and perhaps influential hair-styles from outside of the northeastern United States? Surely they deserve mention. KLP (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

Any article on a hairstyle should have a picture, don't you think? Bwrs (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Added with this edit. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does "Blowout (haircut)" redirect here?

When millions upon millions of women go to the salon for a blowout, they're not getting a fade. They're getting their hair straightened with a blow dryer. Rosekelleher (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, and I've looked into it. Apparently, the blowout hairstyle is a (process to get) sleek (smooth and glossy) hair, for longer hair (mostly used by females), while the blowout haircut is hair with short sides and a long top (mostly used by males). Sources for the style include "A blowout is the process of [...] to achieve a smooth and sleek style. The overall idea is to get shiny and manageable locks without the help of other heat-styling tools." ( by L'Oréal) and "'With blowouts, your service is usually done with a round brush and blowdryer.' Done this way, the blowout gives a fluffy and voluminous effect." ( by Refinery29). Sources for the cut include "A blowout is a type of men’s haircut that is cut and styled to appear as if the wearer was just hit in the face by a gust of wind." () and "The blowout is a popular short sides, long top hairstyle." (). --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How is Jesus Christ in the "See also" category?

I don't think a low taper fade is related to Jesus. Deltapug (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request for UK popularity reference

Please consider adding the following sentence to the end of the paragraph mentioning “UK, France, Germany and Spain” in the History section:

It is also widely adopted in the United Kingdom, where barbers commonly pair the low taper fade with longer, textured tops to suit both professional and casual styles.

This provides neutral, factual support for the UK reference and expands on the styling trend.

Thank you! Amaxingva (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no "History" section in the article, nor is there any paragraph mentioning "UK, France, Germany and Spain". This is likely an AI-generated edit request, which is not permitted per WP:LLMTALK. Day Creature (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@DayCreature I just wanted to flag that there is in fact a paragraph mentioning "UK, France, Germany and Spain". It is the last sentence of the 4th paragraph under "Overview". Calling the section the wrong name is a mistake anyone can make.

I do agree with not making the edit on grounds of it being potentially WP:UNDUE to single out a particular country to add details about popularity and local styling, and also the source is potentially not WP:RS. However, this does still seem to be a legitimate and well-intentioned edit request.

Please be cautious with accusations of AI-generated content and WP:AGF. SI09 (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my request. I understand the concerns regarding formatting and sourcing. You're right — I mistakenly referred to the paragraph as being in the "History" section when it's actually the last paragraph under "Overview."

My intention was not to give undue weight to one region, but to add factual styling context for how low taper fades are worn in the UK, where the trend has grown significantly. If it helps, I’m happy to revise the wording to make it more general and balanced, or suggest including a sentence about international variations instead. Appreciate the feedback and learning opportunity — still new to editing here. Thanks again! Amaxingva (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Amaxingva Yeah, please do! Once you have an updated draft you'd like to propose, please feel free to reopen this edit request and someone will review it and either make the changes or give further feedback as necessary.

In addition to the bits about UNDUE, I want to clarify my point on WP:RS a bit better. It's generally best to avoid sources that seem self-published or like blogs. It's probably not the end of the world to use a source like that in an article like this (not overly controversial), but it's not ideal. If you can find a more robust source, it would be better. More info on what makes a good source at WP:RS.

And just a general note for any future contributions you might want to make to Wikipedia: although this page has a bit more scrutiny and a bit more of an approval process given its protected status, please never be afraid to edit boldly (whether on this page or others). It's perfectly okay to mistakes. Someone will catch it when it happens and let you know what went wrong. Sometimes, they may even be able to help fix it.

Happy editing! SI09 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

References