Talk:Size zero

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Size zero article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Textile Arts Mid‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile 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.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Page should be kept. Size zeros are a relatively (last 20 years or so) new concept in women's fashion, and some people (especially men) may want to read up on it. Additionally, I invite the initial wikipedian who added the afd tag to voice his or her objections to this page, so issues can be discussed openly. It's disingenuous to nominate a page for afd and leave no comments.--PCStuff 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "leave no comments"? The AfD template clearly states:

"Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Yet you decided not to even look at that page. And then you accuse somebody of nominating an article for deletion and giving no reason, when you haven't even looked for it? -- Smjg 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry, my mistake. I will add my comments to the relevant page. --PCStuff 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

As I begin to mention in the ill-fated AfD nomination, the figures here are incongruous with the figures on US standard clothing size. To consolidate the information from these pages:

Dimension/Size	0	6	8	10
Bust	31.5	30.5	31.5	32.5
Waist	23.5	23	24	25
Hip	34	32.5	33.5	34.5
Back-waist length	n/g	15.5	15.75	16

Just compare the figures. They just can't be right. -- Smjg 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradiction explained and kindly meant advice

Hi, Stewart, it's nice that a guy pays such close attention to women's fashions! You clearly have a keen attention for numerical details, but you may have missed the proviso in the header of US standard clothing size saying that those sizes are no longer used by retail clothing companies. That's why there's no contradiction here: clothing of a given "size" can be quite variable in the US. The center cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. ;) Willow 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a Brit that pays such close attention to American fashions! :-) Thank you for the clarification. I've edited the article to make it clearer. -- Smjg 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it might be nice to write to the main authors of an article, asking for clarification, before putting their article up for deletion. Although there's lots to be done on our respective articles, it does seem rather severe to target them for deletion, don't you agree? Willow 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean clarification on why they think an article on this is necessary? I agree, it would be nice if people warned each other that an article is about to be nominated for deletion; however, the sad truth is that it too often doesn't happen. There have been far worse AfDs than this on articles to which I have contributed significantly, and I have seldom received a warning, let alone before the nomination. -- Smjg 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page's Existence

I'm glad this page wasn't deleted, because I just got here and found it helpful. There's more talk about size zero in the news, with Prada and Versace drawing up a "plan of action". Don't know how to write it up without just ripping off the newspaper article though: (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2062494.ece). Also, celebrities like Kate Winslet and Billie Piper are speaking out about it, so I'd say it deserves a page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6166951.stm http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds40613.html?rss

81.131.50.80 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad for the same reason. There is entirely too much inclination to delete pages on WP. Once a page is deleted, its history disappears, too. Don't like a page? Just quick delete it! David spector (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 195.147.182.178 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size Zero in UK Sizes?

Can someone please clarify how big size zero is in UK sizes? This page and the sources it cites claim size zero is equivalent to size 4. However, the 'clothing sizes' page seems to suggest that the UK equivalent would be size 2, as does ITS sources http://www.usatourist.com/english/tips/womens-sizes.html

can someone please clarify this, and correct whichever page is wrong?

I think they are both wrong.

First of all, size 2 does not exist in the UK (Gap does not count as they use US sizing). The smallest UK size is a 4 and that is only available from George@Asda, TopShop and Miss Selfridge. The measurements are approximately 30-23-32 for a UK size 4 (according to Miss Selfridge). However a US size 0 these days is most definitely bigger than this and appears to be closest in measurements to a UK size 6.

Hollister size 0: 31.5-24-34 Abercrombie size 0: 31.5-24.5-34.5

Miss Selfridge Size 6: 31-24-33 TopShop Size 6: 31-24.5-33

Conversion websites are usually way off. It's best to actually go and check out different size charts to compare measurements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee226 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically US Size 0 is more like UK 6-8 when once compares the clothes themselves. Though I recently saw a US size 00 pair of jeans that were identical to a UK 10. --94.195.129.125 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cole

According to the main Wiki page on her, while still underweight, she is a size 4 which would make all the information in this article regarding her irrelevant. But not only is she the wrong size to be featured in this article but it contradicts itself when it says that the World Health Organization classifies anybody with a BMI of 18 or lower as unhealthy and then goes on the say that a woman with a BMI of 16.1 (H: 5'10", W: 112 lbs.) can be presented as an example of good health. I think the reference to her in this article should be removed entirely.

Also a healthy BMI according to the World Heath Organization is 18.5 not 18. Though it seems insignificant, it proves to be an important distinction. For example, for Lily Cole to have a BMI of 18 she would need to gain 13.5 lbs. which would put her at 125.5 lbs., for a BMI of 18.5 she would need to gain 17 lbs. and be at 129 lbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeoo (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cole, Size 4

Thank you, C777 (talk · contribs) for providing a reliable source for Lily Cole being size 4. Given this source and the lack of sources that point to her being used as an example of a size 0 model, I believe mentions of her should be removed from this article entirely. Neitherday (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1950's woman verus today's woman hip size.

It says on the main page that the average 1950's woman was 5ft3 with 34/35 inch hips. I don't believe this was correct, it was more like 5ft3 and 38 inches for the hips and today's woman averages 5ft5 with 41 inch hips. The main problem however is that women's waistlines have gone from about 27 inches to 34 inches so they are less pear/hourglass shaped and more apple shaped....not healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.127.97 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on size 0 being average

The whole section was uncited and I do not believe it is true looking at this. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=house+wife+source:life&start=21&sa=N&ndsp=21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.2.244 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides... the average weight for a woman in 1960 was 127.7 lbs at age 20-29, 138.8 lbs at ages 30-39, 142.8 lbs at ages 40-49. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf Without evidence, I'm pretty sure no woman weighing that much can fit into a size 0 pants (by today's standards). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.2.244 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"huge wave" - is that the best way of describing how someone very thin created publicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I think this article needs a criticism article, for the effects that fashion and media have on woman to be skinny. Portillo (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a body type, not about fashion model's sizes and the media. It is irrelvant and should not be included in the article. --98.92.27.65 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only source cited in this Wikipedia entry does not confirm the evidence it is cited to support, specifically that as a result of a newfound focus on issues pertaining to concerns about the size and health of models that five models were barred from taking part in a runway event. Kloth98 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMI

I looked it up in the Wikipedia article for BMI and it said that everything under 16 is considered starvation status.

-- Linda An (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC) What does the BMI section have to do with the rest of the article anyway? BMI isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and that section doesn't discuss how it relates to clothing sizes, it's just a random fact stuck in the middle of the page. It either needs to be removed or rewritten to explain how the two are related and how it's relevant to this page. 109.149.76.20 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed misreference

Under criticism on the second paragraph a Daily Mail article (reference number two) was cited to support the claim that "The World Health Organization, doctors and women's groups are concerned that the use of underweight models sends out dangerously wrong signals to girls who look at models as role models." None of that is mentioned in the alleged article. I couldn't find anything on the online citing the WHO making that statement so I removed that as well. Unless somebody has proper references for any of this this whole paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie666 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight / off-topic

The current article spends just a few lines discussing the actual size and then spends far more space on criticism, healthy ideals, the adventures of one individual model, and similar. In addition, this extended discussion does not seem to relate to the clothing size, but either to a metaphorical use or having do direct bearing at all.

I strongly suggest that the article be cleaned-up and/or divided into two or three articles (possibly the clothing size, the metaphorical use, and the bigger issues). Alternatively, that the article be deleted and the respective contents merged into more general existing articles around clothing sizes, body image issues, ...

In addition, of the three images included only one depicts what might be a size 0, making their illustrative value low or their presence directly misleading. Only the size 0 image should remain.

Even trying to assume good faith, I am strongly tempted to assume that there is agenda pushing going on. 80.226.24.9 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Size zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2006/11/skeletons-on-the-runway-the-size-zero-debate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]