Talk:Time for print

Unencyclopedic?

This article appears to concern a detailing of the modelling business, and is more suitable for passing mention in an article on the latter topic. Perhaps an article on modelling business terminology and procedures. BeteNoir 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not used commonly in the traditional fashion modeling industry, but it is common jargon in online model and photography communities (examples: www.modelmayhem.com, www.onemodelplace.com). I have adjusted the term for neutrality and accuracy.RichardTallent 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: For acronyms used in certain online communities, there are no verifiable printed sources, nor are there necessarily verifiable online sources defining the term. I could reference ModelMayhem and OneModelPlace as examples of well-know communities that use these terms, and any member of one of those sites could verify the accuracy of the definition, but there is no individual glossary page I can point to, and the best definitions and explanations are in member-restricted bulletin board postings. What is the best course of action for citation in these cases?RichardTallent 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One online source of information on the TFP is at http://www.newmodels.com/TFP.html TFP is jargon used exclusively in the online model/photographer community. It is not used in mainstream modeling. The article currently in Wikipedia on TFP is too specific about the nature of the agreements which fall under TFP. It also misstates what working models and photographers do ("testing" is quite common to "fill gaps in portfolios" and for other reasons). Further, the article claims that "test shoots" are at no cost to the model, which frequently is not true in the fashion and commercial modeling industry.

disagree, its extremely encyclopedic147.144.66.203 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google let me down, so I came here. I found the definition very helpful and see no harm in leaving it.

Actually, Roger Talley (author of newmodels.com) is a photographer and a former agent, and recently published a book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Professionals-Guide-Modeling-Roger-Talley/dp/0615146775). He is knowledgeable about both the brick-and-mortar industry and hobby/art modeling, and is a regular and tireless contributor to several Internet forums on the subject. His status as an expert is well-recognized in the relevant communities.RichardTallent

This page has been brought up for discussion here http://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=212110 and Roger Talley weighs in on the topic and the reasoning behind keeping this as an independent topic.70.121.227.220 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFP/TFCD is a term that is frequently used in the amateur modeling/photography field, and as the term developed online, there is not a sole "verifiable" source for this term. But that doesn't make it irrelevant or unworthy of definition. There are obviously people looking for the meaning of this term here, so, why not leave it and perhaps make it more neutral and not so specific. A site called Modellaunch has good definitions of TFP/TFCD and Test Shoot here: http://www.modellaunch.com/help.php - look under "Other Questions."

Just stumbled upon this page, kept seeing the acronym, definition was helpful. This is what wikipedia should be - an information repository about everything.

I've addressed the issue of confusion with "testing." Since there is no standard list of terms and conditions for a TFP/TFCD shoot, I added a list of issues that the model and photographer must come to an agreement on, along with a general idea of common practices. RichardTallent

The definitions and "rules" on this page are far too restrictive/defined, as the TFP is a barter between individuals, the terms are entirely up to those parties. Variables that can exist in this equation are experience/notoriety of each party (a TFP between a 20 yr. vet and a newbie is always going to, or at least should, favor the experienced trader in the terms set).

Your TFP conditions may vary GREATLY from my conditions, or from anyone else's. While the term TFP should be covered, the specific terms/conditions noted certainly do not, and are not comprehensive by any means (the very definition of encyclopedic). They are too narrowly defined to be considered the definitive set of rules (because in barter, the rules are made by the parties involved). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.243.170 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - TFP arrangements are much more fluid than this page suggests. I also agree with the part which you wrote but then deleted:

The phrase "They are usually arranged through the model's agency." is mostly inaccurate. Typically TFP situations are direct barters between photographer and model in online communities. A very small minority of "online" models deal with actual, legal agents.

The online modelling sites have been grappling with this one for years. I don't see a way that wikipedia's contributors can come to a consensus on it other than "it is whatever you want it to be" and then list the questions which each party might choose to worry about.

--ClickRick (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External references

I have cited one book (Macdonald) which refers to three modelling web sites. Of those three, one requires registration to read the forums. The other two have been named. If anyone wishes to add any more external web site links will they please ensure that it is justified by reason of being referred to directly in a cited reference for the article. Any other link will fail WP:EL. ClickRick (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being referenced by the reference used in this article is a reason why we should link to the sites. In fact, we generally avoid linking to forum sites and fansites unless the article is about that particular site. Please reconsider your revert, as these links do not help a reader develop an encyclopedic understanding of the "time for print" phrase. Them From Space 08:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pondering this question from multiple angles all day, and my gut feeling is that the article would be missing something important if there were no internet modelling sites named on it, given that the term is almost exclusively confined to that context. On the other hand, I fully grasp the difficulty in allowing a links section to proliferate out of control, which is why I proposed the line that I did.

As an alternative, I have looked at List of social networking websites which has an inclusion policy of writing the article first. That requires the web site to meet WP:WEB (which naturally brings in WP:V and WP:RS). The two sites I included almost meet that standard but not quite, and I can't think of any others which do (not yet, anyway), so if adopting the same approach here would be acceptable then I would be happy to go along with it.

ClickRick (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Those sites wouldn't belong in an "External links" section, but either a "See also" section, or they would be written into the body of the article and cited as references. I think the latter option is best, with a paragraph or so about how this term is used in internet websites. If the sites mentioned have Wikipedia articles we could and should link to them. Either way, the information would be backed up by a reference. Them From Space 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you're heading seems to point to an article entitled Internet modelling or similar. I don't have enough in the way of WP:RS to write that just yet but that would seem to me to be a more natural home for such site-specific article links to get used as references. How many people would have to agree here to that being the most appropriate way forward for it to count as consensus? ClickRick (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]