Talk:Big Four beauty pageants

Comment

This is incomplete details and inconsistent data from different source that does not included in this page. Please improve the page by simply edit the page.

Bear in mind that do not add information without any reliable source.

Thanks.

Poland

I realized when i was looking on how many times countries have won in the Big Four Pageants, I saw that Poland was not in the list although 4 titlehloders from the Big Four pageants were from Poland.

Miss Supranational

I do not think Miss Supranational is already a Grandslam pageant. Somebody included this in the template of Philippines. Please verify. --greenmarktea78 09:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktanoja78 (talk • contribs)

Now (which is early 2017), I believe Miss Supranational is already a major Grand Slam pageant. It achieved this status in both pageant websites Global Beauties and Missosology. Tower (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Same, I also think MS should be added as a major beauty pageants, we all know Filipinos want to rule pageants-related articles, and this page is not the exception. --Marcetw (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Header Nomination for Deletion for Discussion

I ask why do we need to delete this article? I see no need for this article to be deleted and I feel that it should not be deleted at all. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that had I found the AfD discussion in time I would have also said Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection

For a number of days, this article is now protected against all edits. I have requested this protection for two reason:

1. the repeated removal of maintenance templates without solving the issue
2. the repeated addition of a massive content fork. It is absolutely not necessary to have a massive list of winners of the four involved pageants. You have that information nicely presented in the articles of the four separate pageants. No need to copy that info here.

So, please, stop the disruption by the removal and the superfluous addition. But it would be a good idea to add independent, reliable sources (conform WP:RS) to the article after the protection period is over. The Banner talk 09:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Most successful

Hi Jjj1238 (talk · contribs), the list of winners pages of Miss World, Miss Universe and Miss International all give a list of the countries with most wins, as do other wikipedia pages such as the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners page, so what is wrong with listing the countries with most Big 4 wins on this page? L1975p (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it is fancruft and double information. The Banner talk 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You could argue that the table as it stands now (with just Brazil, Venezuela and Philippines) is double information. The section is about the most successful countries, and in terms of total wins the USA is the second most successful country at the big 4 pageants, and other countries have more total wins than Brazil. I also think it's better to list the countries in order of total wins. The paragraph before the table already tells the reader that Brazil was the first to achieve the feat of winning all four contests, yet we have a note below the table repeating that info, isn't that double information? L1975p (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is, and it is fancruft too. But the pageant-adepten will not allow it to be removed. So as a compromise it will do. The Banner talk 04:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think that many (most?) people, including casual observers, when going to the page about the Big 4 pageants, would expect to find information about the countries with the most number of total wins at the Big 4. As it stands, we have a couple of paragraphs telling the reader about the three countries to win all four, then we have a table that simply repeats that info. It is surely noteworty to mention somewhere on the page some of the other most successful countries. A table that also includes countries with more wins than Brazil (USA, India, Puerto Rico, UK), at least means the table is giving new information to the page, and not merely repeating the info found above the table. L1975p (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is verifiability. As long as the info you add in the article has reliable source (comply WP:RS), I'm not against to it. The countries that won all the titles of the Big Four pageants have reliable sources cited.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Big 4 or Big 5

Dear Wikipedians,

I think we should revise the idea of Big 4 pageants.

My opinion is that sources used to support the concept of Big 4 pageants may not be convincing enough. I see sources from China Daily, Chosun, VnExpress, The Jakarta Post, Channel News Asia, BBC, Reuters, AFP. These sources seem very credible at first. They are news websites which cover a wide range of topics (politics, economy, foreign relations) but actually, they rarely cover pageant news. When pageant followers want to read about the latest edition of Miss World and Miss Universe, they never go to these websites. Instead, most of them are familiar with Global Beauties and Missosology.

This leads to the next issue. Does a reporter from BBC or China Daily have enough knowledge to evaluate hundreds of beauty pageants annually organized around the world to select a Big 4. It is likely no. Instead, I believe the Big 4 concept was widely promoted by Missosology (source: http://missosology.org/big5/ranking/24630-big4ranking2015/) and mainstream media may rely on this pageant-specialized page to write with much confidence that there is a Big 4 in pageantry.

I restate my point that all current sources in this article may not be convincing enough to have a Big 4. The credible sources for determining whether a pageant is big or small should be pageant-related websites, such as Global Beauties and Missosology. They have covered pageant news for years with much regularity, unlike BBC or The Jakarta Post.

If we consider Global Beauties and Missosology as relevant sources of pageants, it leads to the question on the validity of Big 4. Currently, both websites claim that there is a Big 5 in pageants, not Big 4. Surprisingly, both of them recognize Miss Supranational as a big pageant, though there is no Wikipedia page for it.

• http://www.globalbeauties.com/blog/ranking/ (Global Beauties)
• http://missosology.org/big5/analysis/26145-miss-supranational-is-now-a-major-international-beauty-pageant/ (Missosology)

As a pageant follower, I suggest Wikipedians could have a new approach to determining big and small pageants based on national beauty contests. Some national beauty pageants send their top 3 or top 5 to the most respected international pageants. For example:

• Binibining Pilipinas 2016 sent their winners (from the highest to the lowest placement in the top 6) to Miss Universe, Miss International, Miss Intercontinental, Miss Supranational, Miss Grand International and Miss Globe.

• Puteri Indonesia 2016 sent their winner to Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Supranational.

• Miss Diva - 2016, a national contest of India, sent their top 2 to Miss Universe and Miss Supranational, while Femina Miss India 2016 sent their winner and 2nd runner-up to Miss World and Miss Grand International.

• Miss Universe Thailand 2016 sent the 1st runner-up to Miss Earth.

I believe that as the pageant world keeps changing, the concept of Big 4 needs updating.

Tower (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We can not include Miss Supranational since the pageant lacks notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. The article was deleted SEVERAL times.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how pageants are notable or not by Wikipedia guidelines. And please do not write in capital, I can read the word "several". I feel like you are angry with me and unwelcome my effort.

In addition, how can pageants like Miss Grand International, Miss Global, Miss Arab World or Miss Asia Pacific World are more notable than Miss Supranational? If Miss Supranational is deleted, several pages should also be considered for speedy deletion. I don't mind that all undeserving pages could disappear.

Why the page of Miss Supranational have been available in 9 different editions of WIkipedia without such problem?

You also deleted my contribution without responding to any of my concerns over Big 4 or Big 5 that I wrote. In my latest addition to the Big 4 page, I did not delete anything or claim that Big 4 was not true. I just mention alternating views from 2 different sources, they are not even my view.

Tower (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on wikipedia log history, Miss Supranational was nominated and deleted 5 times including Mister Supranational. Miss Supranational is not notable based on the consensus of Wikipedia editors and deleted by wikipedia administrators since no in-depth coverage of the pageant from reputable news agencies (unlike historical pageants such as Miss Universe, Miss World). User-generated websites such as Global Beauties and Misology are not considered reliable sources based on wikipedia policy. If you think that pageants like Miss Grand International, Miss Global, Miss Arab World or Miss Asia Pacific World must be deleted because they did not meet wikipedia's notability, you can nominate these articles for deletion and editors will decide their notability.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I definitely support the idea of rethinking a new major international beauty pageants: not even using number: Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International, Miss Earth, Miss Supranational and Miss Grand International. We all know that these pageants are the most followed ones. And we also know that the same users that are against it are the ones deleting the last two pageants mentioned articles. --Marcetw (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Not the "Olympics of Beauty"

Nobody calls the big four the "Olympics of Beauty". The reference used only uses the phrase in a headline and doesn't even repeat it in the article. It is hard to make sensible edits to the article due to the strong wp:ownership by a couple of editors. Volunteer1234 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed as unsupported by the referenced source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

IINFO, SYNTH

Nearly all the non-lead information is an indiscriminate list of facts and records from each individual pageant, instead of material that discusses the term or the entire group of pageants (failing WP:SYNTH). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. The article is about the Big Four pageants, and the information gives further detail on the Big Four pageants. Eliminating every piece of information that doesn't reference all four together seems nonsensical and an overly broad interpretation of WP:SYNTH. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not a SYNTH. This was already discussed comprehensively in the previous AfD of this article. The article did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. "A SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." In the article in question, the statements are verifiable from the sources with in line citations and even stated in quotations. The article cites plethora of reliable sources where the term "big four" can be found and various sources talking entirely about big four or simply go to google news search to find more. I would like to point out the following from WP:NOTSYNTH. SYNTH is not ubiquitous: If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. SYNTH is not a rigid rule: never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." Furthermore, SYNTH is not unnecessary: Wikipedia editors are allowed to use all of this synthesis, since they did not create it but are instead reporting what reliable sources have said. SYNTH refers both to a policy forbidding original research by Wikipedia editors by synthesis, and to such synthesis itself.--Richie Campbell (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Finland wrong year

For Finland, 1957 is incorrectly listed as the 2nd Miss Universe win. Finland won their second Miss Universe in 1975. Peru won in 1957. 98.15.201.213 (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy 14:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

First Miss International

Stella Marquez is not included in the First Winners gallery 136.158.7.216 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

Change "Until the crowning of Miss Earth 2022, Mina Sue Choi on November 29, 2022, 221 women have won the Big Four international beauty pageants." to "Until the crowning of Miss International 2022 Jasmin Selberg on December 13, 2022, 222 women have won the Big Four international beauty pageants.".

Change "December 13" to "Jasmin Selberg, Germany" Pongtsoyla96 (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

The article of Miss World 2022 page is moving in 2023, I need to change of the year. Rosalesmarco (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Big Six not Big Four Anymore

We need to change the Article. It's not a big four anymore. It's the "Big Six". Miss Grand 2022 alone has more views than Miss World, Miss Earth and Miss International combined. Penyuntinghandal (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this whole Big 4 term is just a manipulation by Filipino pageant fans who want to elevate Miss Earth and disparage pageants with much larger budgets such as MGI and Miss Supranational. This page should either be deleted or changed to "Big Six" as you suggest. 37.190.162.146 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Big Four Pageants is a made up by a group of online news that know nothing about beauty pageants Industry. Missosology (1999) and Global Beauties (1998) are considering Miss Supranational & Miss Grand as Major Beauty Pageants. The highest number of viewers globally are Miss Universe, Miss Grand, and Miss Supranational. Go check youtube Miss International are very boring show and do not deserves categorized as so-called major pageant. Penyuntinghandal (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Miss Universe

Someone needs to go in and change the President from Paula Shugart to Raul Rocha Cantú, as he bought 50% of the pageant earlier in 2024. There are many sources that can cite this. I cannot edit it at the moment, as I’ve not edited 500 times yet.

Cheers!

Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Eliminate Miss Earth from the Big Four

Currently, the contest is gradually deteriorating, making the public's image of beauty contests worse. Host bias, lackluster and meaningless activities to have a strong impact on the world on global issues such as climate change, greenhouse effect,.... Unable to influence the issue global dilemma. Limited financial capacity, loss of vitality. Filled with scandals that have lost the trust of fans, prize trading, sexual harassment, sexual abuse,... Maverick22ndFeb (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)