Talk:Blonde versus brunette rivalry

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Why This Page

The topic of this article had grown to take undue weight in the Blond article, so after posting notice for a week and getting no comment, I moved it here from there. I'm not sure that it's actually an important subject, but since some people put so much work into it, I didn't want to delete it. rewinn (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the headings.[1][2] For others, refer to these sections from the Blond article's talk page (starting from the first one about this topic to the last one) for more information on what Rewinn means; it's actually only one person who put much work into this content. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: Section that discusses rivalry in context of adult entertainment

Section that discusses rivalry in context of adult entertainment The proposed section would be nearly identical to the section added to this article when it was part of the article Blond Topics:

Irving Klaw’s fetish films the featured blondes and brunettes
Female wrestling, i.e., mud wrestling, that specifically pits blondes against brunettes
Adult themed videos that use a blonde vs. brunette construct

Two images will be used; same as when this was part of the Blond article.

Two topless women wrestling, but no frontal nudity (i.e., breasts) showing
Video cover of a strip tease VHS tape titled “Blondes vs. Brunettes.” The cover does not contain nudity, both women are fully dressed. No doubt the video itself contains nudity, but none of those images will be used.

I would not add the section until mid-April, giving at least 30 days time for feedback to this proposal.Vortex4id (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors explain how they have no comment to make.

This is possibly the stupidest article on wikipedia, so I have no comment on your proposal to converting it to a place where you can post your commentary on porn; I'm just taking it off my watch list and going someplace where the grown-ups are. rewinn (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, what a useless article. A rivalry over hair colour? Yawn. 88.104.51.153 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cut most of this as being primary-sourced to the back of a DVD box last year, but the "two topless women wrestling" image has been added back a couple of times by IPs since. It seems WP:GRATUITOUS when the article already has other images, and undue to be illustrating what seems an obscure aspect of the subject - the article has only one short blog-sourced sentence about wrestling. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Should I move this page to "Blonde vs brunette rivalry in America"? That sounds like a more appropriate name for this article. Epic Genius 16:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The other countries in the article include UK, Russia, Australia and France. Admittedly most of the info is about the U.S. But many articles are focused on the U.S. and we don't call them ["Name of article" in the United States]. I've undone the move since it disrupts many links. Why don't we let this stay as is and work to highlight other countries?Vortex4id (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. I suggest we defer a future move for at least 30 days. The article has had 5,000 views in the past month; seems to be popular. I will work on revising in April so it's not so American-centric.Vortex4id (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added & expanded the discussion of Russian Blonde vs Brunette chess matches. I have a few more fixes in the month of April that will establish a more international balance to the article.Vortex4id (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section about men?

Should there be a section about men with blond hairs and brunette hairs? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your observation, but I have never found any blonde vs. brunette rivalry information pertaining to men. If you can find notable sources, then go for it!Vortex4id (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images deleted

Would be nice if the images were not deleted but with regard to obtaining and documenting permissions, Wikipedia seems to keep moving the goalposts. Be assured that all the images were used with the owners permission and e-mails were forwarded to OTRS, but apparently that's not enough anymore.Vortex4id (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the images were deleted despite an e-mail having been sent to OTRS, then it probably means one of the following:

The uploader forgot to tag them with {{subst:OP}} and the OTRS team didn't have time to read the e-mail within a week
The permission was insufficient
The OTRS team was unable to identify which files the e-mail referred to

In either case, I suggest that the uploader asks for clarification at Commons:COM:OTRS/N. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OTRS ticket came thru for the DWW file, although not the Anastasia file. One of two ain't bad.Vortex4id (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blonde versus brunette rivalry. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page clarifying black haired women as brunette?

A lot of the examples cited (such as Archie) are actually about raven haired women vs blonde women. 2001:48F8:7049:C24:4583:8597:2982:8C18 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First source doesn't appear reliable

The first source in this article, cited three times, appears to be an undergraduate research paper published by the author's home college/department. No indication of undergoing any external peer review or anything. I think this should be removed as not being a reliable piece of scholarship. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinke's paper is an undergraduate research paper published in Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Languages, Cultures, and World Affairs, College of Charleston. Google search shows that Reinke is currently employed as the "Director of Gender Violence Prevention & Health Education" at Bowdoin College, Maine after having previously worked as an Adjunct Professor of Gender Studies at Arizona State University. Is her work as "reliable piece of scholarship"? Seems that it is, but what is the Wikipedia criteria? If we accept newspaper articles written by journalists with little or no academic qualifications, why wouldn't we accept this published undergraduate work by somebody who appears to be distinguished in their field of study? Don't know the answer to any of this, my Wiki expertise is an inch deep.Vortex4id (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]