Talk:Widow's peak

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Widow's peak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

this

this is not true

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

Widow's-peak → Widow's peak – The new page title is the more common form. Can't perform the move myself since the new page title already exists as a redirect to the current title. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support does anyone aside from us (WP) hyphenate it? (Google search) --Lox (t,c) 21:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photograph

I think the illustration photograph is particularly poor, in that the subject seems to have a more or less straight hair line. There could surely be a better example of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timb0h (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 May 2006.

I agree, the current photo is a poor choice.--Atlantima 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. LDHan 01:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

isnt this also called a devils tooth?

no. Skiendog (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual

"Widow's peak is a trait that is associated with baldness. Persons who possess the trait develop baldness before others without the trait." Says who? Is there any evidence for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.0.238 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bald guys may appear to have a Widow's peak after their hair begins to recede. It looks more like a big U to me. I think there are 2 different Widow's peaks.

217.42.236.20 (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction

Not sure if there should be a section for it. Eddie Munster, for example. Шизомби (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novels written in the Roman era of Bath - do you mean historical novels situated in Roman Bath, or actual works of fiction from Roman times (called "novels" for goodness knows what reasons)? Feketekave (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta, and Raditz are examples of an intense widows peak in a fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.185.42 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Savage should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.141.213 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is really silly to go into fictional characters. I mean, where does it end? What does it add? 71.74.125.162 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people

Is this worthy of an encyclopaedia? Perhaps it should be a list of people notable for having a widow's peak?--91.84.179.225 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't be there, and as you can see, I removed the list here and stated why I was removing it, and it was re-added with absolutely no explanation whatsoever. The list is inappropriate for the reasons I described, and I have removed it again. Acalamari 17:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon discovering this article just today, I was very surprised it did not list any notable living people who have widow's peak as examples. The absence of this seemed to suggest that only fictional characters have widow's peak. I'm re-adding the list, suggest paring it down instead of completely removing it if you think it detracts from the article. Or we can have a vote! (but no edit war, of course :-P) --Bcjordan (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a list of people who supposedly have Widow's peak? (In fact, I support removing the fictional list too, as it's not needed either.) In addition to it being unsourced, original research (how many people on that list really have Widow's peak, or do people who add to the list "assume" they have it?), and likely violating our biography of living persons policy in parts (most of the people on that list are living persons, and as I said with my second reason, how do we know they really have Widow's peak or is it just assumed from looking at some of them? If so that's original research), the list will only keep getting added to, and will end up getting extremely long no matter how much we try to cap it (already it's way too long). As 91.84.179.225 said above, it would be better if the list contained people who are notable for having Widow's peak: none of the people on that list are notable for having Widow's peak as far as I know. Acalamari 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should look at 'what links here' to see who is notable for having a widow's peak. This would give us Ray Reardon, Anne of France and Lisa Marie Varon. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list of notable people with Widow's Peaks woukld be useful, even if just for visual reference. BodvarBjarki (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I added a link to a TV Tropes list of villains with a really cheezy title, so that's at least a partial solution. The tropes are always a good ~~dumping ground~~ place to send readers for potentially endless pop culture lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.155 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to see a list of famous person's with a widow's peak here, also. Skiendog (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to Elvis Presley should be removed. I've looked at a number of pictures of him and I don't see even the remotest indication of a Widows Peak. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:9380:B8B:507:200C:EDE6:EB3A (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this article

I have copy-and-pasted this article to my user page so I can work on it. When I am done, I'll merge it back onto this page. It usually takes me 4 to 6 weeks to revamp an article. Bettymnz4 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference section is missing from this article. Can someone find it? I've been MIA for about a year and would have to re-educate myself on how to do this.

This article attracks vandals from (I assume) public computers; the Reference section got deleted somewhere along the line.

Thank you.Bettymnz4 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Reference section?

Can anyone do this with little-to-no-effort on their part? I've been MIA for a year and would have to re-educate myself on how to troubleshoot this.

Someone(s) from public computers have fun with this article!

Bettymnz4 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- WikHead (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

paul ryan

shouldn't we at least say that it's paul ryan (not just "man with...")? 194.95.117.68 (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i just deleted his picture period, its inappropriate and kind of biased to have someone involved in the current election in the united states on a wiki page that for one isn't the best example of a widows peak, and also will most likely only be used as a joke, its not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRB9586 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another widow's peak

good illustration. widow's peak clearly visible in "mephistopheles": http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Page_004_%28Faust,_1925%29.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.117.68 (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Fictional People

Because the "Notable People" section only lists Real People, nothing wrong with that, and Fictional Villains yet nothing about Heroes, I'm adding Doc Savage, famous Pulp Fiction-era hero. Not sure how well this picture would look in the article itself, so posting here first for opinions. — Love Robin (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor references

The sole reference for "In film this trait is often associated with a villain or antagonist" appears to be the single use of the adjective "villainous" in a collection of newspaper puns. Surely this is not good enough. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" it is a dominant inherited trait."

One of the reference (3) say otherwise.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.83.38.167 (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear/contradicting information

This might be the single most disorienting comment I've ever had to write.

Two sources each imply wildly differing accounts of widow's peak rates between sexes: one reports 81% for women and the other reports 3% for male medical students. However, the listed celebrities are a pretty even mix. I see several possible interpretations of this situation:

1. At least one of the studies is of poor quality. 2. The studies used different definitions of a widow's peak. (There being so much as a possibility of this being true is a nightmare.) 3. The widow's peak is an astonishingly good indicator of success in men. 4. The lack of a widow's peak is an astonishingly good indicator of medical school attendance. 5. The time gap allowed widow's peak rates to change.

Having more sources to work with would definitely help, but as far as I know, the two studies conducted are the only ones of their kind, because Google gives me nothing and I can't find any other information except for what is assuredly a school project: https://coggle.it/diagram/WC2vGPbTpxc84FR1/t/widow's-peak

I don't know if it's actually right about anything, but I do know that the only source it cites is this Wikipedia article for a single piece of information (which it even goes on to claim is wrong).

Okay, so I did find this: https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythwidowspeak.html (turns out this is already cited on the article itself)

Well, it seems that the hair salon study was pretty poor. The medical student study may be better, but I don't even know if there's any level of scrutiny for ascertaining a widow's peak. I'm sort of curious why the study focused specifically on analyzing about 1,000 male students when they could've analyzed a 500 male/500 female mix. As for McDonald's study himself, it's just "I looked at a lot of pictures before seeing a widow's peak", which gives us little useful data. Is "a lot" 10 or 100 or what? It is unknown.

https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA441456126&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=23157992&p=AONE&sw=w

Our next source, from none other than Gale, reports around 15–16% for the southern Nigerian Isoko people before cutting off and demanding to know the school we attend. So, here we have three sources with percentages that are orders of magnitude apart. I'll keep going.

https://ispub.com/IJBA/3/2/12638

42%. That's about half of 81% and triple 15%. No source thus far has lined up even remotely with any other.

You know what? I give up. I invite others to continue my research. For me personally, this whole thing has been a wash. At least I'll always know that there are other people to improve Wikipedia with/for me. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]