Talk:Face powder

Setting foundation

Can anyone please write an article on this!

I don't understand what it means to "set the foundation". Can someone explain this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.25.63 (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Information on the process of setting foundation with face powder can be found in the 'Loose Powder' section under 'Modern Uses'. Hope that helps!--JenanneWiki (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section

imo this article should have a "History section" with images. Lotje (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have expanded the History section of the article by exploring the ancient and modern history of face powder. I hope it is beneficial!--JenanneWiki (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

The article says it originated in Egypt. I tried looking it up and can't find any reliable source that said so. If anyone can find any, It would be really helpful. :) NightFall60 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment on history

Not sure how to put up an alert, but in the Renaissance History section there is a mention of Victorian times (which are/is 20th century). I suspect it should read Elizabethan, but this is not my field. I think zinc oxides were used in the time of Elizabeth I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabenfelsen (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, @Raabenfelsen. I've changed the section heading to better describe the information in that section, and reorganized the sentences to chronological order. Hope that makes it clearer. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph reads like an ad..

'Mineral powder' <= This paragraph reads iffy in several ways. From the very first sentence, 'vitamin', really? The source article only mentions vitamin once, in context of what non-powder products might contain. Ingredient list, even a cursory search shows those are not the only ingredients used in such powders, and source(WebMD) only tells those are what these powders might likely contain. And the health benefits are dubious at a glance, like the writer had taken the source article's any mentions of possible positive effects and neglected in which context they were mentioned. Also no mention of the narrower scope of use explained at the end of the source article (limited range of shades, not as lasting due to lack of binders) I don't know, for me as a casual browser at least, this particular paragraph doesn't read very 'Wikipedia'.. ~2025-36724-54 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36724-54, that was added in 2020 by a student. I've reworked the text and removed all health benefits, since they're not supported by a reliable source for medical claims. Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]