Talk:Model (people)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fashion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Occupations (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Occupations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of occupations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Photography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Retailing (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This entire piece seems to be bent. Whoever helped write this wasn't trying to contribute but to leverage some twisted view. Clean it up and out.


From the averages given (weight and height) it seems that just the average model (Both for bikini models and supermodels) has starvation (BMI's calculated for the minimum height 1.73 m and the average height 1.79 m of the former and the min 1.65 m and max height 1.73 m of the later with their given average weights 50 and 45 kg)(talk 04:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC) No comments whatsoever? Well... Calculate the IBM yourselves... You will get something like 15.605 (rounded to three decimal places)... Well below the healthy 18.5!!!!!! Undead Herle King 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Specially selective "purge" didn't made sense, someone must clarify this!!! Undead Herle King (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


I changed the picture from the Indian model to the Victoria's Secret model because the Indian model's picture is blurry and difficult to make out. I am not stuck on the VS one, but I think it is much better than the out of focus, poor angled shot of the Indian runway model. AriGold 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, but I reckon we should go the other way, for two reasons:
  1. The runway picture is free, the VS one is debatable fair use.
  2. The runway shot is more about modelling, the subject of this article than the lingerie shot is. Pcb21| Pete 20:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In his younger days, Quentin Crisp was in fact for many years an artist's model. (His sole source of income, if I remember correctly).

I found this on

Quentin Crisp's career as an artist's model is documented in his autobiography, The Naked Civil Servant, yet written and photographic documentation of his life's experience as a model does not exist. [1]

--Ed Poor

directory list removed[edit]

i have taken the list of people who are models but better known as other things. why? because modelling is not a directory listing- this is information about modelling. it just doen'st make sense to list these people in front of other models who earn millions more than these people do.

here is a backup incase some people want to put it somewhere else though:

  • In fact Tricia Helfer is a well known supermodel. She won an international supermodel competiton, whose past winners include Cindy Crawford. She has recently returned to fashion, as host of Canada's Next Top Model. Lil Flip246 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


To balance things out, there should be a photo of a male model on this page, too. DiePerfekteWelle 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Could someone please working on balancing things out a bit? Thanks. —Mears man (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

what does this mean?[edit]

Non-professional models who appear on the list of women's magazines on which any magazine's name is, are known by the name of "reader model."

I can't quite make sense of it. It may need fixing? I am not sure how. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the sentence. If you can figure it out, feel free to copy-edit it and add it back. --Muchness 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Should we make a seperate page for Fashion Models???? Lil Flip246 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

if you think one is nessisary and you can define and explain an encyclopedic article on the subject go for it and create it. Qrc2006 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea anymore. Anyways, I have a new idea. We should make seperated categories for fashion models. So fashion models have their own category, foot models their own, child models their own, and so on. Lil Flip246 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You made that suggestion ten days ago, below, and no one has picked up on that being a good idea. Remember all of the other categories that you had deleted. Wait for others that agree. Doctalk 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Under "Types of Models", we now have 1.1 Fashion models 1.1.1 History of fashion models 1.1.2 Criticism of fashion models 1.2 Fitness Models 1.3 Hip Hop Models 1.4 Bikini Models 1.5 Fine Art Models 1.6 Body Part Models. The subcategories "History of fashion models" and "Criticism of fashion models" make the list difficult to follow. Should fashion models be a category on its own and "other types of models" lumped together? Also, should the fashion models category be split by subheadings into commercial and high fashion?Guava 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


i find this article rather sexist allthough this is somewaht subjective, since the article appears incomplete and in need of additions and history even with what there is the word man or male only shows up once and its in referance to a male actor or spokesing a product. ill add pics of fabio and the carlson twins in anattempt to put men on here, anyone wanna help put in some more text? anyone think there should be a page for Male Model? Qrc2006 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

not really necessary in my opinion. It's understandable that the balance would lean toward women, but there should be representation of male models. Doc 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. A quick scan (three years after these initial comments) produces only two mentions of male models, no discussion of body issues (and hair issues!) for men, and no images. Also agreed that the balance will inevitably tilt toward women, because that an accurate representation of contemporary culture. But I like this article's approach to the subject overall. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, you would think there is no such thing as a male model! Discussing different types of models (fashion, glamour, fitness) and then having a picture of a woman for each one just makes it seem like modeling is practically an exclusively female enterprise and by gendering it even sexualizes it in particular way...-- (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Models Category[edit]

We should seperate fashion models from other types of models so it won't confuse the reader. We should make a seperate category for fashion model, to seperate it from other types of models. Lil Flip246 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Lauren Jones[edit]

Why is Lauren Jones given as an example of a swimsuit model? This is most likely promotionary, as there is no reason to reference her over other models. Removing the link.

models linked to anorexia?[edit]

I didnt know what to call the title comment, but I'm shouldn't there be a section of how models seemingly make the wholw " thin is in statement? I don't its 2:30 a.m ill come back on this. Hopfully you guys know what im saying "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra modeling link[edit]

I was told to post here for external link suggestions. I would like to suggest my website as a additional reference. There are tons of tips and advice for people interested in becoming a model. There is also an inexpensive modeling course available for download.

Model infobox[edit]

One of the editors working on Bollywood movies is using the model infobox for a number of actresses. I object vehemently to the use of this box, and come over to this article, and linked articles, to see how it was being used here.

The box states as fact these items: weight, measurements, dress size, shoe size. Just what are the sources for this information? I don't see any references anywhere. Furthermore, these items are being treated as if they are FACTS true for all time ... when in fact weight varies constantly, as do measurements. Dress size is completely meaningless, thanks to vanity sizing, and shoes sizes can vary too, depending on weight fluctuations. Why are we stating unsourced ephemera as eternal truths?

Above all, why are we putting this info up at the top as if it were the most important thing about models? Other biographical articles tell you when and where the subject was born, his/her occupation, etc. NOT dress size. This is trivializing a whole class of people.

I'd like to talk to folks here before I take this up at Biographies of Living Persons. Zora 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Organization of page[edit]

The page's organization and titling doesn't make sense. Almost all categories are under Supermodels, when clearly they belong under Types of models. The crticism sections shouldn't fall under a particular section unless it is a criticism of that section. Currently, "Criticism of fashion models" falls under no category called "Fashion models" - a new category needs to be created, or this one amended to be more general or changed to reflect the category. --DavidShankBone 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not worldwide requirements[edit]

I believe the requirements to be a model are different for every country. For example, 5'8" may be the norm for Europe and/or America, but it's rare to see a 5'8" woman in Asia. In Asia, I'm guessing the requirement would be like 5'4"? Someone needs to edit that. ― Sturr ★彡 Refill/lol 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements?[edit]

I'd like to make the following suggestions:

  1. Flesh out the criticism - there is far more that can be used here, and we have a good photo of a an anorexia-ish model.
  2. What about a gallery of models?
  3. We should think of a work-around to solve the ceaseless model additions. Perhaps a List of famous models?
  4. More refs and citations.

--David Shankbone 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

criticism article[edit]

I skimmed around the fashion category/articles as well as the model articles and found very little as far as criticism, which seems pretty ridiuclous to me -- especially considering the recent ban of overly thin models in Spain. There is PLENTY of controversy surrounding the modeling & fashion world and it seems very POV to hardly mention it at all. I expected to find an entire article devoted to the subject. I'd really like to see a wiki-savvy editor tackle the creation of such an article. I don't trust myself to make knowledgable edits, much less write an entire article!

Additionally, I don't really understand the "see also: size zero" link on the criticism section. I really don't think the two are directly related enough to warrant such an inclusion. I think we all know that 0 is pretty tiny, and the 0 article itself hardly expands on the information in the section that links it. -Jett Rink (not signed in) 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from saying that because volunteers haven't put in the work to create something, that it's POV. We're volunteers, and we work on what we want to work on. Since you are handing out assignments, you could have made all the same points without making accusations. --David Shankbone 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC) ==

Race issue[edit]

I'm aware that there are many great models of African descent e.g. Naomi Campbell, Alek Wek, etc. but it doesn't mean that this issue does not exist. I think this should be included. This is as important as the underweight issue. Number1spygirl 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

African American[edit]

Regarding Race issue, I don't think African American is the proper term because not all black models are African Americans. Number1spygirl 11:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


The image used for the entry model is currently the same as the image for the entry supermodel. This can't be too enlightening. -The Gnome (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

another model dead[edit]

there is also an israeli model that died i couldnt get her name but it said it so in google when i put model dies...she should be considered too. (i mean putting her name with the models that died...) Lucia (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image being changed[edit]

People, please discuss here why your image is better than the other person's. Don't just keep reverting each other because that is not very constructive. SWik78 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It could have something to do with the fact that beauty is highly subjective. And...oh...maybe subjective discussions about what is most beautiful don't belong in an encyclopedia? Maybe words like "supermodel" didn't originally have any meaning, but pretentious models would like to create a meaning, so as to claim they are more important? Maybe. Just maybe. (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gisele Bundchen image[edit]

As nobody is willing to agree on which image to use, and nobody has been willing to do anything other than edit war, I have applied the fairest solution possible, which is to not use an image of Gisele Bundchen at all. I have removed the Bundchen image(s) entirely, and moved a picture up from further down the article. Further edit warring over this image will see accounts being blocked. I suggest you do not test me on this. Neıl 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea! All problem is because Opinoso started an edit warring, he wanted to change the picture, I saw him writing about a picture with Gisele Bundchen on catwalk, I agree with this suggestion. Isn't fair take out a Gisele's picture just because Opinoso wants starting an edit warring. I think that everybody will agree with a pic with her on catwalk, as "Gisele Bundchen4.jpg" or "Gisele Bundchen6.jpg". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipedista (talkcontribs) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We want Gisele Bündchen, the most famous model alive, on main picture again !!!!!! Wheneverwherever (talkcontribs) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello users! I'm together on the fight! Gi-se-le! Gi-se-le! Gi-se-le! Gi-se-le! The best supermodel ever seen! Gisele rocks! Cantarevolare (talkcontribs) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK! I did what everybody wants!


I have uploaded a bunch of professional-quality model photos from a fashion photographer that probably could be used in this article. Perhaps one of these: [2]. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely Biased[edit]

This article needs to be expanded beyond mainstream modeling and it's standards. This article should include more indepth information on plus size, BBW, "alternative" modeling (nude/fetish and non-nude - ie. Suicide Girls, Gothic Beauty magazine etc.), etc. I also noticed alternative modeling being linked to "fetish modeling", which is not exactly correct, as not all alternative modeling is fetish modeling. With such a variety of types of modeling out there, you can't really put a standard on how a model should look (ie. the body type section). You might want to mention that this may be the mainstream modeling standard, but also include the fact that many other forms of modeling varies (a lot of types of modeling that are not mainstream include body sizes of all kinds for example). If no one else who may be more dedicated to improving this article feels up to doing it, and include the proper references, I will.JanderVK (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Cosmetics and Hair-Coloring Models[edit]

Please mention cosmetics models who are more known for their faces or lips or eyes being associated with cosmetics, hair-dye or other hair-treatment formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfulmouth (talkcontribs) 08:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi there,

THere is a problem for modelling and modeling on the english wikipedia... If I type, "Modelling" I get on the Model (person) page... but if I type "Modeling", I get into the Scientific modelling page... And as far as I know (but I'm not a native speaker) both modelling could be writen with one and two "l"... It's confusing... Do somebody have I idea to solve it ?

Thank's in advance, and thank's to wikipedia contributors which make it so efficient...


Note that as of June 2013, both modelling and modeling point to the same disambiguation page (Modeling). FYI... - dcljr (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Male models and homosexuality[edit]

I believe there is an above average rate of homosexuality amongst male models. Now, all that is needed is a source for that statement and it can be added to the article.--Proxy for Gene Flow (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Different Measurements[edit]

The measurements of models male are incorrect in spanish version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kate Moss?[edit]

I find it extraordinary that Kate Moss is neither mentioned or pictured in the entire article. Is this a political statement of some sort? Also, a link to How To Become A Model could be of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Tuki Brando.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Tuki Brando.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean Up[edit]

This article is an absolute mess. Models and Modelling should be 2 complete different articles. Perhaps, someone with more authority could do that.

This article should be about different types of models and nothing else. You can keep the salary section but most of the information is really inaccurate. I deleted the agency section because it doesn't belong here. It has its own article and has nothing to do with the definition of model and different types of modelling a model might work as.

Also, promotional Models article should be merged into this section. It doesn't need its own article. The same goes for Fetish Modelling. The only type of modelling that should have its own article is fashion modeling and it doesn't even have an article.

I added to the history of fashion modeling but I feel it should have its own article.

Also there is no such thing called hair dye models. The models that appear on the box of hair dye are fashion models.

(Sid1977 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

Art Model[edit]

I have taken an interest in the article on Art Models, which is my area of interest as an artist for 40 years and an art model in the past for about ten.

Given that all of the other types of modeling have the form Type Model, e.g. Fashion Model, Lifestyle Model, etc., I do not understand why Art Model links to an article entitle Model (art). Art Model or Life Model are the recognized terms in the arts community for anyone who poses for an artist.

I also do not understand why nude modeling redirects immediately to Model (art) rather than the Nude Model disambiguation page. Anyone searching for nude modeling is likely to be looking for glamor models.

I think the reference to male erections under the section Art Model here is not worthy of special mention, so I plan to remove it. The topic is covered in the linked article.FigureArtist (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Glamour Models Eurocentric?[edit]

I noticed that the first paragraph of this section enumerates the places glamour models might appear, including Playboy, which debuted in 1953. However, the next paragraph states "It is widely considered that England created the market for glamour modeling when The Sun established Page 3 in 1969,[49] a section in their newspaper which now features topless models." So, even though Playboy (and other periodicals)had been successfully creating a market for glamour models for over a decade, The Sun is responsible? I checked the source link to see if I was missing something, but it's dead. Should this be reworded to maybe increasing popularity of glamour modeling, instead of creating it? (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Sheriffjt (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)



Do you find this image useful for adding it to the article? Or maybe some other similar image. Cogiati (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? NO AND STOP SPAMMING. --Niemti (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, she is Anastasia Rousaki (Αναστασία Ρουσάκη), also known as Absinthia Stacy, from Klefton. Xristidis (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Section headings[edit]

The section headings currently in use on the page are highly redundant and (therefore) confusing.

This is the current structure:

Early years
The 1960s and the evolution of the industry
The 1970s and 1980s
The 1990s to present
Glamour models
Types of models
Fashion modelling
Runway modelling
Plus-size models
Glamour models
Gravure idols
Alternative models
Parts models
Fitness models
Commercial print and on camera models
Promotional models
Trade show models
Convention models
Art models
Fashion models
Fashion print
Runway modelling
Male models
Plus size models
Parts models
Fit modelling
Showroom modelling
Commercial print models
Glamour modelling
Promotional modelling
Art modelling
See also
External links

Note how "Glamour models", for example, appears in both the "History" and "Types of models" sections, and then "Glamour modelling" appears under "Salaries". Similar things could be said of most of the other types of models. Also notice how the naming of subsections under "Types of models" and "Salaries" is inconsistent — a mixture of "X models" and "X modelling" subsections are found in both sections. This is very confusing. At the very least, we should use "X models" only under one section and "X modelling" under another. Or, better yet, just merge the salary info into the appropriate subsections under "Types of models" (and use only "X models" for subsection names). I may "soon" start implementing the latter solution myself, unless someone has a better idea. - dcljr (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd to have the "Glamour models" subsection under "History," but beyond that, I'm okay with the way the "Types of models" subsections are organized and that the topic of salaries is independent, as it's a legitimate topic in its own right - although all those headings in the salary section is overkill when you consider some of them are only one sentence and sourced to a dubious site.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree; came here to make a similar statement. In addition, I find the sub-headings which are nothing but refs to other articles less than enlightening, except to point out that the whole TOPIC (meaning at least half a dozen pages) probably needs serious attention. Many of those sub-heading redirects could just as easily be "See also" or ideally incorporated into the text flow of the related paragraph. For example, I specifically fail to see the distinction between Glamour modelling, Gravure idols (except that they seem to be Japanese glamour models,) and Pin-up girls (which is one of those contentless, redirect-only subheads I'm objecting to.) I feel as if anyone who came up with a different term decided to fork off a new sub-head instead of including the term with other, related terms in the appropriate paragraph. If I wasn't so busy I'd just be bold and take an axe to this article for some major surgery.--Eliyahu S Talk 05:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Move of page from Model (professional) to Model (people)[edit]

This was done for a number of reasons. wikimedia uses the address Many high profile models have other professions such as Sports person or Singer. Many models do modeling as one off jobs, For example Kate Middleton was a model even though this was not her profession. Many models such as art models are pulled into the work even if it has little connection to their truer vocations. The Wikipedia page for model has sections such as:

  • Model (abstract), a model made of the composition of concepts, that thus exists only in the mind
  • Model (economics), a theoretical construct representing economic processes
  • Model (physical), a smaller or larger physical copy of an object

In all cases the most general terms are used Gregkaye (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be "Model (person)"?  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Request separate page related to models involved in fashion and advertising[edit]

Could this be done? Model (fashion and advertising)? or other title/s? I had wanted to make a link from a page relating to a character that adopted the role of fashion model a part time basis but was only able to link to this more general page which includes info on: Fetish Models, Plus size models, pinup girls, promotional models, glamour modelling each of which also have individual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talkcontribs) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there would be separate pages for this. Fashion modeling is generally for advertising purposes in the first place.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)