Talk:Model (person)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Model (people))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 Marketing & Advertising (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occupations (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Photography (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
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 project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Retailing (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-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.
 

Bent[edit]

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.

Section headings[edit]

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

This is the current structure:

History
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
Supermodels
Plus-size models
Glamour models
Gravure idols
Alternative models
Parts models
Fitness models
Commercial print and on camera models
Promotional models
Spokesmodels
Trade show models
Convention models
Art models
Salaries
Fashion models
Fashion print
Commercials
Runway modelling
Male models
Plus size models
Parts models
Fit modelling
Showroom modelling
Commercial print models
Glamour modelling
Promotional modelling
Art modelling
See also
References
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 wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Models_(people) 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Model (people). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Models and ethnicity[edit]

This page talks about the models since 1960 till now a days, the different type of models and their standards, how they have to look and the measures or the characteristics they need to have and how those characteristics places them in certain a type or category. For example, come of this categories are fashion models (models who work for the runways, couture, among others), glamour (type of models who sell sexuality), fitness, parts models (hand models, legs, etc.), among others. But it doesn't mention anything about the injustice towards some particular ethnic models. For example, models who fit the standards required for the job they are applying to sometimes they don’t even get taken in consideration because of their ethnicity. Most runway shows don't have on purpose more than one black model and rarely a latino model. In my opinion this is an act of racism and should be talked and resolved, many models struggle every day to get a job in the fashion industry because they are not accepted even though they have the necessary requirements to the job. In the last big fashion shows we could see that the models were mostly white and some asian, there weren't much latino or black models. This is something that is happening right now and should be added and talked with the purpose of creating conscience among people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8013:5DD0:7D08:9231:E60E:B9C2 (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus supports this move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Model (people)Model (person) – The article title in its current state seems to contradict rules laid out in WP:SINGULAR and WP:PARENDIS. In addition, the article actually was located at model (person) previously, but it got moved without much discussion. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support this move 2601:541:4305:C70:217D:EDD1:7C4:B1FE (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Those not familiar with Wikipedia conventions might read the proposed form as "model person." Shouldn't it be model (fashion)? Gulangyu (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, If it was "Models (people)", that would be fine, but Model singular should be "person." And the article is not just about fashion models, though it does lean heavily in that direction. Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Model (person), Support Model (fashion), "Person" doesn't exactly make much sense either whereas "fashion" makes abit more sense so I support the fashion one. –Davey2010Talk 01:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: So how do you deal with the second part of the definition "or to serve as a visual aide for people who are creating works of art or to pose for photography." which has nothing to do with fashion?
  • Move to Fashion model per WP:NATURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom; oppose Fashion model as the scope of the topic this article covers is wider than only models in fashion. In fact, Fashion model redirects to a section of this article. SSTflyer 09:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support returning heading back to Model (person) since a Model is a person, not a people.Glenn Francis (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Model (Fashion Model) since a Fashion model is a specific sub-catagory of Model of which a model may or may not be a part of. Glenn Francis (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and for internal consistency. Also, fashion model is a subtopic, so Fashion model or Model (fashion) would be inappropriate. Rebbing 03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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