Talk:Natural skin care/Archive 1

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived (no consensus) an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc (?) 10:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Natural?

This article links to nature, but the concept of nature is a broad sense of the material universe including artificial human-made ingrediants. This practise requires a name more specific, such as non-artificial skin care or spontaneous skin care. Who named this concoction so badly? Tyciol (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetics#The_second_sentence_of_this_article_needs_serious_work

September 2007 talk page?

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

This article has the above tag at the top, yet there was no topic started on this talk page for Sept 07 to discuss original research, unverified claims, and doing further research. This topic can be for that I guess. There was previously an 'unreferenced' tag for 2006 but that seems to have been removed at some point. I have found that the 'original research' tag was actually added prior to september, it was dated that way because that is when a bot found it. See here. Whoever originally tagged it, please state your objections and let's try to get this article fixed up. Properly sourcing and referencing it will make it deserve to stick around and avoid deletion debates as it seems to have been the target of previously. Tyciol (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I removed the skin types listing which seems to have been directly lifted from the page that was ref'ed. If the copyright violation was in the other direction, revert, but it seems unlikely. BillMcGonigle (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article remediation

The article is at AfD. This has prompted it being restructured. It's "early days" but I think this is an article we can keep. I won't get this all done in one go. It's going to take several days (or longer) of intermittent work. Clean up, add in, clean up, do it again. The proposed upgrade path is:

• 1: the text is a visual mess as it gets restructured

• 2: clearer summary (with references) of regulatory aspects -- this better than it was, but is still not optimally worded or referenced;
• 3: a broadened handling of consumer perceptions and preferences -- there's a slew of additional references out there about this
• 4: tightening up the alternative medicine aspect -- needs to stay brief
• 5: expand cautions section -- underway
• 6: collect the science research into a new section -- again keep brief -- underway.
• 7: at some point, the references need to start being trimmed selectively

FeatherPluma (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Script render error

I am about to revert JzG's edit, but the purpose is not (repeat NOT) to revert the edit. The edit has produced an inexplicable misscripting error. Here is the problem: [[File:Script rendering error 20150825 FeatherPluma.png]]. As soon as I have undone JzG's edit, I will immediately reintroduce the essence of the edit but see whether an edit field that does not cleave the ref tags avoids the misscripting. (It's a wild guess that that is the issue). FeatherPluma (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that worked. Makes me sort of happy. No, I do not really understand what is going on. But my hunch is cleaving two ref tags and melding one tag's head with another tag's tail is visually neutral, but produces a code misfusion product. Maybe something to do with invisible checksum in the tags at a deeper level in the tags. From the subtheme of the message I'm guessing there's a tag dictionary that tables the wiki tag cross talk. If anyone knows, I'd be interested. Or maybe I'll fire up a sandbox and experiment. Or look it up somewhere. Anyway, the edit essence is faithfully redone. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have unable to replicate the scripting error by seemingly doing the same process in a sandbox, so I really, really do not understand it. Perhaps there were other keystrokes between opening the edit file and closing it, that engendered the error. However, the problem has been corrected in the mainspace rendering. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article / subsection name and position in organizational tree

Hi, Deli nk / courtesy flag also to Bondegezou who has commented: (this reply was initially placed on the AfD page, but has been moved here to avoid clutter on the AfD page, and to further edit and add to my reply).
Deli nk, Thanks for your opinion and for presenting an option that you'd prefer if the article were kept.
Brief summary: I have no immediate objection philosophically to your suggestion as one way forward but I do think other organizational approaches, stimulated by your idea, are better yet. I explain in detail and offer 4 other options.
Longer answer: Although skin care does redirect to cosmetics, it is not a synonym redirect, but is more precisely a subsection redirect to cosmetics#skin care products. Emphasis: products. Which is precisely the wrong place for the contents of natural skin care. The relevant literature and sources I have been working with speak in a somewhat limited way about products, which is consistent with the FDA absence of a legal definition as to what factors, elements, or considerations could definitionally delimit a "natural" product category. (As an aside, it is worth noting that even the FDA in its safety advisory to consumers does use the term natural - see it's use in the quote in the article. And note also that the official International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) conventions mandate Latin for natural ingredients and technical names for synthetic ingredients.) Instead of products, the thematic focus in the literature is on several things: natural ingredients and their potential activities; customer preferences and perceptions; on botanicals in "actual" skin health rather than "appearance" cosmesis; the desirability of dermatologists to engage in meaningful communication with consumers and patients about their use of, and questions about, natural botanical ingredient activities; significant, encyclopedically-notable concerns about efficacy and safety. These are the themes now showing within the article, and the literature uses a vocabulary and idiom that lacks significant congruence with cosmetics.
Saying this a different way, and apologies for stating my understanding of your position - I hope I am doing so accurately - I think I understand your position as pointing as a matter of linguistic logic to "natural" as a simple adjectival modifier of "skin care". You thus see natural skin care as a subset of skin care. I think this is mistaken. What I see in the literature (this is not my doing, and it's not my fault, it's just how the literature speaks to the topic) the adjectival modifier is not used in a narrowing way (i.e. as a subset exclusionary differentiation criterion) but, instead, in one of the other ways that language can use adjectival phrases, as a terminological inclusion placeholder (i.e. as a broadening criterion that permissively enables pulling in other similar themes such as traditional, alternative, holistic, and perceptual aspects). Natural skin care is functionally being used as a denominator node for discussing the broader concepts that I enumerated previously. (Concepts are precisely what we usually say encyclopedias are about.)
Based on the cited literature, it would be very peculiar to attempt forcibly shoehorning a broader concept into a subset of an already narrower concept. (Put the feet in socks that are too small, and then placing the socked feet in even smaller shoes. And then trying to run a race, explaining how your feet feel.) At this point it's become quite clear (to me) that conflation of natural skin care to skin care is unwieldy from several perspectives. Wikipedia article size considerations most certainly will apply. Thematic domain and vocabulary doesn't line up.
I see several different ways options to address your concerns, listed in my descending order of preference:

• 1. defer renaming the related articles. Focus on getting this article into better shape as the first priority. Rename articles when several of them have been cleaned up (this one, and those which are tagged as having unreferenced subsections / citations needed content; OR/AND
  
• 2. rename cosmetics as skin care, and invert the functional direction of the redirect. Modify the organization of the existing subsection which has the {{Main}} pointing to natural skin care and clean up the adjacent content. This would have several advantages: we end up with a broader name and topic content for the skin care article; avoid bringing dubious energy to the "other" thoroughly blurry definitional boundary between general personal skin care and cosmetics (which I would not know how to set about defending, and which is why there is presently a redirect); avoid any pointless escalation or intense focus on "natural" versus synthetic ingredients (and "natural" versus "commercial" medicine); keep two rather than ultimately ending up with three articles; and attain a practical spinoff of a vastly simpler micro-editing workload. OR/AND
  
• 3. rename [[natural skin care]] to [[natural ingredients in skin care]] or to [[natural ingredients of cosmetics]] (there is a ingredients of cosmetics article). I do not like these lengthier titles but they are more precise; OR/AND
  
• 4. rename [[natural skin care]] to [[natural cosmetics]]. This addresses your objection of an (apparent) subtopic without a similarly named master page. Although this term has been used in the literature, it is not used frequently, so I do not favor this.

Thanks for stimulating ideas and discussion.
FeatherPluma (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you've done marvels with this article and do not have a strong view either way on the above issue, so happy if you go with your first preference. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cosmetics encompasses more than just skin care and related products (nail polish, mascara, etc. are cosmetics, but not skin care), so simply renaming [[cosmetics]] to [[skin care]], per your suggestion #2, doesn't really work for me. I agree with you that suggestions #3 or #4 are unwieldy and aren't improvements. So I'm coming around to your first suggestion. However, in my mind, the best ultimate solution would be to have a general article at cosmetics and a subarticle at skin care which would encompass all the content about both "skin care" and "natural skin care" (and their related products) without trying to make some kind of distinction related to the blurry line between the two. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Subject to further input, I am reflecting my perception of consensus as far as the particular aspect addressed here: article remediation for now, with a view to subsequently revisiting article(s) naming and organization. Article reconstruction tag remains; AfD continues for now.FeatherPluma (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deli nk: I have also moved in this discussion toward your position. Would you approve (for now) if we keep natural skin care and convert skin care from a redirect to its own article? If I make this change, it will increase the work needed on these articles, but I can see that the broadened scope is conceptually an improvement. (Just as you have pointed out that cosmetics has aspects that are broader than [[skin care]], so [[skin care]] has components which are broader than [[cosmetics]]: there is incomplete overlap both ways. And [[skin care]] is not entirely coincident with dermatology, although I would suspect that there will need to be careful referential cross-hatting between these.) Some possible sources are being added to the Talk:Skin care page. I will make these changes if you agree, and we can close out this dangler? FeatherPluma (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deli nk: Courtesy update. I am going to go ahead with my most recent proposal, subject to your / others rollback option, which I welcome if appropriate. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)