This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

AnthropologyLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theimportance scale. PharmacologyLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. BrandsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbrands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

A Cosmetic is something to make you look better/improve your appearance, shaving cream is a tool really, you use and get rid of it. It's not like something you wear to make you look better. Also, it says to lubricate the hair, well that's kind of vague, I suppose so, but the purpose of it is to reduce eliminate razor burn and make a more comfortable shave72.93.242.131 (talk)02:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the link at the bottom of the page have to do with the content of the article? If it is an important part of the understanding of shaving cream than should there be a section in the body of the article entitled "controversy" or something of the like?—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.168.203.249 (talk •contribs) 08:07, 17 June 2006

dangerous ? edible ?—Precedingunsigned comment added by2006 Kissson (talk •contribs) 10:04, 5 August

I think it's certainly relevant to the topic, if there is some belief/evidence that shaving foam is harmful. This should be left in, and if possible, expanded on. --Username132 (talk)12:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence from one guy on the Internet is hardly a reason to cry "controversy". I don't think that this article should be cited unless more evidence is forthcoming. Or should I say, ANY evidence is forthcoming. --Cernansky20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole text sounds like a joke to me. I was especially amused by this statement:

Shaving cream does something evil to the skin. It somehow weakens the pores and makes the top layer mushy and unresponsive.

I suggest we remove the whole "controversy" section, having no other proof than that suspicious webpage. I'll wait a while, and if nobody objects, I'll remove it myself. –Mysid^(t)16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I deleted it.--24.52.254.6200:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about shaving gel? I don't see what the point is? Is it just a gimmick? It seems like more effort to me. --Username132 (talk)12:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering this myself. Is there an advantage? Why was it created in the first place? 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the new gel doing as the sole picture, when cream is absent! Cream first, and perhaps should be the only picture in an article of this length. Please, rectify! I don't know these image uploading procedures and copyleft rules.Nastajus09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on shaving gel is faulty. It describes a gel that turns into foam upon application to the face, but the cited Canadian patent #027218 specifically describes a gel thatremains a gel when applied to the skin. —Quicksilver^T@21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Added information on U.S. Patent 5248495.—Quicksilver^T@21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be very pro tub-based shaving cream...JaMiE P08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between shaving cream, shaving foam and shaving gel. This article is more about foam and gel rather than shaving cream, which is really strange since there is a great difference in how they are made, what they contain and their performance.—Precedingunsigned comment added by81.231.83.143 (talk)00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaving foam and gel have nothing to do with Shaving cream. They are completely different products just as Shaving Soap is.Go to a real wet shaving site such as Straight Razor Place, Shave My Face, Badger and Blade and The Shave Den to find out.If you want an article on Shaving Gel- Create one - don't hijack another one.—Precedingunsigned comment added byRiveira2 (talk •contribs)00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this sounds like an ad for non canned shaving creams, justifying itself as a legitimate article by adding 'or so its is said/argued'.— Precedingunsigned comment added by69.134.20.47 (talk)03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the history section, there are two types of can listed as the "first", one in 1947 and another in 1949. Since there's a "citation needed" for the 1947 can, should that be removed for now, or can we just place it at the top of the section (instead of the bottom) until someone finds a citation for it?Myoglobin (talk)13:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onShaving cream. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20160610115055/https://www.gillette.com/glossary/en-CA/shavinghistory.shtml tohttps://www.gillette.com/glossary/en-CA/shavinghistory.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)05:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class pharmacology articles
• Low-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• C-Class Brands articles
• Low-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles