Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fashion talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2008 - December 2008) - Please Do not edit!

highlights/remaining issues from 2007 discussion

I archived all the 2007 discussion because it seemed like no one was talking about it, but here are some highlights and unresolved issues others might want to take up later.

If anyone else wants to add important things here have at it... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

model vs. supermodel

I see all sorts of models described as "X is a [Brazilian/French/etc] supermodel" in the opening sentence of their articles. I think this is POV and unnecessary, and it would be better to simply refer to them as models. Is there any support for this? I'd prefer to be able to cite community-wide discussion when making these changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: Without a citation for such a reference, I agree that should be demoted to simply "model". I mean, what is a supermodel, anyway? Do they exist anymore? Anna Wintour said they were dead, and probably did more to make that happen when she shifted the focus of Vogue covers to celebrities. It's an inherently subjective term that is too often applied to anybody's favorite model regardless of her (and it is always "her") status within the profession and the fashion world. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would go even farther and eliminate this in the intro even when there is a reference, preferring instead to name concrete achievements. Tons of models have been called a supermodel by someone at one point or another, but that doesn't mean that their "supermodel status" (assuming such can be established by a single citation) is relevant to the intro. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. Even though I've been guilty of it at some point (I created Morgane Dubled's article with the supermodel tag - mainly because there was a huge models list on the supermodel's article at the time), I actually think supermodel is a very bold statement and mainly a thing of the 90s : there should be only a handful of models considered as supermodels ie. models that the general public knows and recognizes as one. That, however, is very hard to quantify even if a few names obviously come to mind (Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss). Other than those lucky few, I don't think even very succesful models can be considered supermodels. As a general rule though I would advocate to change it to "top model" instead of "model" since as I've stated before, everybody and her sister calls herself "model" as soon as they've been in front of a camera. Thiste (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Objective Commentary

I've noticed that for most fashion companies, brands, designers ,editors, and ## that we don't really have any "commentary-type" information. For instance Miu Miu is the lower-cost branch of the Prada company. Oscar de la Renta is primarily targeted at older women (30+). BCBG Max Azria goes up and down every year. Kenneth Cole used to lead NY FW but doesn't anymore. Chado Ralph Rucci (just added) was the first American line ever to be invited to Paris Haute Couture. Does anyone on the project besides myself have some year-to-year knowledge of the industry as a whole? Obviously it has to remain fairly objective, but simply stating statistics or lists shouldn't be the focus of this project. We need some good history. LaVieEntiere (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We need all the editors we can get. Daniel Case (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sample InfoBox

Prada
<<Company Logo>>
Original Designer Miuccia Prada
Current Designer Miuccia Prada
Type Privately Held
Clothing Ready-to-Wear
Opened 1913

Assessing articles

I am assessing articles for the project to reduce the backlog. Anyone can join. Miranda 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have assessed enough articles. But I did try to add pictures to companies that didn't have pictures. miranda 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
it's less than 198 now. miranda 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
~114 now. I think that's enough articles for me to assess now. miranda 09:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

categorization - fashion vs. clothing

The situation with the categories is very bad and confusing right now. Is there support for merging the categories to be "X clothing and fashion" (or "Clothing and fashion in X"), etc.? That way we don't have to battle over what's traditional clothing vs. modern fashion, and everything is in helpful categories. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These are the nationality categories, right? If this is so, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There's the nationalities, and then there's also "History of clothing", "History of fashion" and "History of costume" generally... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that for categories. Individual articles I'd want to think through the implications. - PKM (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Labrador Fashion

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Labrador Fashion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Labrador Fashion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Fashion Week

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chicago Fashion Week, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Chicago Fashion Week. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this because there is no national coverage of this event and it does not appear to be a notable fashion week. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the US, only New York's Fashion Week is truly notable at the moment (and probably for quite a few more moments, too). The others are creations of the local Chamber of Commerce. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd go that far... The LA fashion week gets decent press and perhaps Portland is notable as well because of it's unique eco-fashion focus. (Portland's probably not notable from a fashion perspective but perhaps from an environmentalism perspective.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New category?

I noticed that one of the categories to which Natural Wonder (Revlon subsidiary brand) was to be assigned is not yet up: Category:Cosmetics brands. Are there enough Articles so tagged to warrant creating the Category as stated? - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Search on the phrase and see. I'm sure we have enough articles to support a category if you wish to create it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone identify these fashion show attendees?

I just got a flickr user to release a whole huge set of photos taken outside a Hermes fashion show under a CC license. I've been picking through them and identifying people as I can, but there are * lots that I don't know. I'm sure many of these people are just various socialites and minor writers, but there may be some good editors and such buried in here. Please have a look! (This list removes a bunch of duplicates from the set, as well as people I already could identify.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask David Shankbone for some help. He's shot fashion people before for us; he may know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LVE -> LaVieEntiere. Looks like a lot of photogs and mag assistants though, no heavy-hitters. LaVieEntiere (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Or ask Mike H. miranda 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Recognized a few of them, some others ring a bell but couldn't put a name on them... too bad. Thiste (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

chambray

As per [1]. Does anyone know if chambray is another word for cambric, or if it is something slightly different?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

What is going on with these? There have been some odd and rather inconsistent-seeming changes being made. Have these been discussed anywhere? Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

TheEditrix2 (Talk) is back I see. There was a full-blown edit war over her wholesale reclassification of fashion articles back in 2006 - see Talk:History_of_Western_fashion for the details. I am bowing out of this discussion, as it is bad for my blood pressure. I'll support whatever the project team decides to do by proper consensus.- PKM (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Concensus is the key. Have others noticed the changes? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone provide some examples? I do remember there was this big todo about "history of fashion" vs. "history of clothing". Has that returned? Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just look at her contributions for March 4th; it's similar but not the same as last time, on the areas i'm interested in. She is also doing something on US v European, I think (also as last time), but that's not my period. Her talk page says (only) "My policy: Leave me alone. I'll delete any additions to my talk pages, unread." so I haven't bothered leaving a message! Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Fashion: Articles of unclear notability

Hello, there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.) I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability. If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spring Pardessus"

Two good illustrations from an 1861 Harper's of a style of clothing referred to by them as a "Spring Pardessus". We don't seem to have an article on this (or even an appropriate redirect); "Pardessus" seems to appear in Wikipedia only as a person's name. Thought someone on this project might be interested. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Textile Arts

This portal is currently undergoing its second Portal Peer Review, and your comments/feedback would be appreciated at the portal peer review subpage. Cirt (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A vexing conundrum

The article on G-string says:

A G-string (alternatively gee-string or gee string) is a type of thong, a narrow piece of cloth, leather, or plastic that covers or holds the genitals, passes between the buttocks, and is attached to a band around the hips, worn as swimwear or underwear by both men and women. The two terms G-string and thong are often used interchangeably; however, they can refer to distinct pieces of clothing: The primary difference between the two garments is that a g-string has less material between the legs and buttocks, hence a string-like appearance.

The article on Thong (clothing) says:

Thongs are similar to g-strings, the main difference being that thongs have more material between the legs and back whereas a g-string has less, usually an actual "string" of material. Retailer FreshPair defines thong as "An underwear style for both men and women with a thin fabric back that rests between the buttocks" whereas a g-string is "A panty with a very thin (string-like) band of fabric in the back."

The body of both articles categorically fails to make distinction, while the lead section I quote here lack reference badly. I was wondering - are these two really two different propositions, or is a G-string is a type of thong? A tanga is a thong in all meaning, a fundoshi is a very different concept. But, is a G-string (or a V-string or a T-string) really not-thongs? Looking at the meaning of a thong that seems hardly possible. Can someone explain? Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC) i think the most popular belief is that g strings tend to have actual "strings" holding them together, while thongs have more material on the straps. So really, g strings and thongs are diffrent garments, thongs being thin, and g strings very thin.Speedo113 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More on the issue

I have looked a bit into the matter myself. And, here are some of the things I found:

  • Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion by Valerie Steele (Thomson Gale; 2005) says: "The G-string, or thong, [is] a panty front with a half- to one-inch strip of fabric at the back that sits between the buttocks".
  • Knickers: A Brief History by Sarah Tomczak, Rachel Pask (Allen & Unwin; 2004) says: "Minor tweaks to the cut earned these skimpy panties different titles — from the thong, which has a one-inch strip of fabric down AVPL is the underwear the back, to a G-string, which, as the name equivalent of spinach suggests, is more like a string of fabric akin between the teeth."
  • Striptease: The Untold History of the Girlie Show by Rachel Shteir (Oxford University Press; 2004) says: "The thong [is] an undergarment derived from the strippers G-string".
  • Americanisms: The Illustrated Book of Words Made in the USA by Gary Luke, Susan R. Quinn (Sasquatch Books; 2003) says: "G-string, noun: a thong panty consisting of a small triangular piece of fabric supported by two elastic straps. Attributed to strippers circa 1936".
  • Heinemann English Dictionary by Heinemann Staff, Martin Manser, Jessica Feinstein (Harcourt Heinemann; 2001) says: "Thong, noun: a pair of underpants or swimming costume in a very skimpy style like a G-string".
  • The Guardian UK says: "But the thong wasn't always so popular: in the old days it used to be called the G-string".[2]

Apparently the biggest difference between a thong and a G-string lies in the minute difference in width of the fabric in the back, and probably their usage (G-string seems to be more of a stripper's thing). It also seems that all G-strings are thongs, but not all thongs are G-strings, which, if accepted as a fact, makes G-strings rather an extreme form of thongs than a really separate proposition (much like push-ups, which still are nothing but bras). Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi! I've noticed that there are no userboxes for this project. I would be happy to make some!--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See {{User Fashion}} (it's on my userpage, and some others), although we could certainly use a choice (it wouldn't be fashion if we didn't). Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed collaboration: Aloha shirt

Aloha. Is this project very active? If it is, would anyone be interested in collaborating with WikiProject Hawaii on Aloha shirt? I've spent the last week collecting some great sources, and I believe I have everything necessary to help bring this article to FA status, although images are always welcome. Please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not really at the stage where we have enough regularly-involved editors to start a formal CotW yet, I think. However, you can certainly start the article and ask people here if they'd look at it ... I'd be happy to if you keep me advised. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I've started a sandbox over here if anyone is interested in getting their hands on some of the sources that I'm using. I could use some guidance on the image policy. There are some very rare photos of early aloha shirts that can't be reproduced as a free image; would it be acceptable to scan in a few for the article? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If they're rare and historically irrepeatable, they can be used under a fair use rationale. See WP:FUC. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is undergoing some expansion, so please keep an eye on it. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Status of article as of October 2008 can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hippie

The hippie article is seeking well-sourced expansion of fashion-related elements, as well as any photographs that can help illustrate hippie fashion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clothing template

I have expanded {{Clothing}} to include sections on Historical garments, National costume, and History/Surveys. These sections are incomplete, and I'd appreciate folks adding appropriate articles. I don't have time right now to be thorough and systematic about this process. Thanks, all - PKM (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Great work. It honestly occurs to me, though, that we might be better off with some of those sections as separate navboxes (where we could then put in pictures). It's an awfully large navbox for some of the stubby articles it's been put in. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Call for contributions - YSL

Hi all, the Yves Saint Laurent (designer) is looking really sad and is likely getting loads of traffic because of his recent death. Please help expand the article with info from the linked obituaries! Mangostar (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

DC_Shoes

Hi
Can someone please have a quick look at Talk:DC_Shoes: User:Dcshoes, who I had a lengthy discussion with about conflict of interest, has agreed to post his proposals on the discussion page. I don't feel qualified myself to include those, and it's probably a good idea if someone else tells him what's noteable information and what isn't since I kept reverting (almost) all of his edits so far. It's only 4 sentences and 3 links.
Thanks, Amalthea (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? :) --Amalthea (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI/N might be a better place to get some review of this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware that there's a category for that. I placed the appropriate template on Talk:DC_Shoes. Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Áo dài

The Áo dài is a Vietnamese dress. I have nominated this as a "Good Article." Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 752 of the articles assigned to this project, or 36.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Trouser"

Someone has moved Trousers to Trouser. I'd like the weight of project members to back a request for reversion. - PKM (talk)

The move has been reverted. - PKM (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Surface

I know next to nothing about the rag trade and I'm not in the US, so I really don't know: Is Surface a magazine of any significance? The existing article is grotesque, but I don't know whether it deserves improvement (how?) or deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of it, and it's pretty high in Amazon sales rankings, so I'd say yes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification needed

What are they wearing?

I was wondering if the clothes featured in the image here can be identified as Tankini, a mixture of Tank tops and Bikini bottoms. Please, help me out. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. I don't think there's a name for this outfit. Normally a tankini has a longer, tank-top-shaped top, and the top and the bottom typically match. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
See also this google image search. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Those could be called babydoll t-shirts, though babydolls aren't always quite that short. Google image search. - PKM (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Or cropped t-shirts (images)... PKM (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fashion

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Should we not suggest inclusion of the History series of articles? Frankly I had never heard of half the biographical articles on the auto-list? Only a week to deadline. According to the autobot, Hilary Duff is our 4th most significant article. All the History series, and Embroidery, should go to High importance, just like nail polish, which I will do. There is a good case for Top importance. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have re-rated 14th century to 1820s & between the Wars. 1945-60 doesn't even have the project tag. Unless anyone objects I will propose adding these, & some removals - do we need Hilary Duff, Victoria Beckham (don't worry, I've heard of her), Acne vulgaris, Baldness, Elizabeth Hurley (likewise), Chloë Sevigny, Tyra Banks and so on? Equally the founders of Armani, Versace, R Lauren, C Klein & Karl Lagerfeld narrowly missed the cut. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, today's the deadline, so 13 removals and 20 additions requested. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankie Morello

Could anyone please create a page on Frankie Morello? I can't believe they don't have a page!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Take 2 - Model vs. Supermodel

Please comment: User:Catgut has gone over a number of articles [3] [4] etc. and downgraded some established Supermodels to Models. Since the changes made by User:Catgut have been in such a scope that it seems to involve every single established supermodel article on WP, it seems reasonable to discuss the matter centrally somewhere to see what a general consensus would be on this question? Do we need any supermodels on WP or not? So please comment. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. The discussion above is noted. The questions still remain, who exactly would be a "top model"? supermodel is a clearly defined term, that can be individually traced to number of sources. Considering this a POV? Really? not every fashion model gets titled so. The term is related to things like celebrity and pop culture, and if someones says "these are the things of 90's" that doesn't sound like a valid argument I'm afraid. Anyway, lets see what comes of it. --Termer (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it at "models Well, Catgut began "downgrading" supermodels, but it's probably been me that's done it the most after being swayed in my opinion, so I'll comment here with a rational I used in Tarheelz123's talk page and which he has subsequently ignored without comment: The problem is that the term "supermodel" is simply too subjective. Who's to say who is one and who isn't? Every model on earth has some news item calling them a "supermodel" nowadays no matter how farfetched the claim is (and some of them are so farfetched I'm amazed they have an article at all), so it's impossible to mark a divide and expect editors to comply by it and remain unbiased/neutral in using the term. Better to leave it at "model" so editors focus on constructive edits rather than bicker over claims of supermodel status, and so editors like me don't have to follow users like Tarheelz123 around as they rename their favorites to supermodels while ignoring all others. Mbinebri (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Mbinebri. See the discussion above (top of this page) where consensus was that "supermodel" is unnecessary POV. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear there is no WP:consensus on the subject if you "have to follow editors around" and instead of going back and forward changing people from supermodel to model and then back again, some simple WP rules should be followed. Every model on earth has some news item calling them a "supermodel" nowadays is not a fact and not even an issue from WP perspective for sure. The Princeton University English dictionary is very clear about who exactly is a "supermodel" a fashion model who has attained the status of a celebrity.
Now, since "news items" are primary sources but articles on WP have to be based on secondary sources, it seems to be pretty clear how to go about it by just following the WP:RS and WP:OR. The bottom line, I don't think it's very productive to follow users around , such edit warring is never going to end unless the question is tied to something more solid than editorial opinions.--Termer (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think "supermodel" should be reserved for any models with proven powers far beyond those of mortal women: the ability to fit into garments sized in negative numbers, the ability to get through an entire week of trying shoots and shows without eating anything more than a cube of cheese, throwing up or shooting heroin ... Seriously, I think the Princeton definition quoted above is too flawed for us to use, for how do we say objectively when a model has become a celebrity? It is a term definitely worthy of an article, but it should not be used in intros. If it were, then any model meriting a Wikipedia article is already automatically a supermodel. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and also note that the role of the intro (especially the first sentence) is to objectively describe what the article is dealing with in basic terms. The first sentence of the Cindy Crawford article should say that she is a fashion model/former fashion model, and then perhaps later it should note that she is generally considered one of a handful of the biggest supermodels of the 1990s supermodel era. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, avoiding the term in intros and by relying on secondary published sources taking it up later in articles. In case it's been established by any reliable sources that the model has either supernatural powers like suggested by Daniel Case, or makes considerably more money than an average wikipedian by posing for such magazines like Vogue etc. or anything else that may be relevant and has made the subject a celebrity according to WP:RS can be taken care of in the content.--Termer (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I can live with the term "supermodel" being avoided in intros but allowed use in the body of the article provided use of the term relates to a quoted/cited notable source, such as Anna Wintour calling Karolina Kurkova "the next supermodel." That way, the editor isn't being subjective so much as providing notable praise. As a side note to Termer: I don't know if your emphasis of me saying "following people around" was meant to be rude or not, but it seemed somewhat disrespectful to imply I'm edit warring. As a (hopefully) responsible editor, I felt obligated to revert edits I felt violate NPOV a single time, and since Tarheelz has subsequently reverted my reversions, I have taken no actions beyond discussing the issue here among responsible editors. Mbinebri (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
RE:Mbinebri Sorry if I sounded rude or disrespectful since it wasn't my intention. I was just quoting you follow users like Tarheelz123 around. I hope you understand that I knew nothing about your edits or Tarheelz123's and who was at the "right side" with this and who exactly follows someone around and who reverts what and how. It was just clear that something was going on since reverts were happening from both sides. That's why I initiated the discussion to find out what is going on with this and what would be the WP:Consensus on the issue since I can't say that I'm an expert on supermodels exactly. I hope there are no hard feelings! all the best!--Termer (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no hard feelings! Mbinebri (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As I stated on Tarheelz123's talk page, as long as there is a valid source calling that model a supermodel, then I do not see the problem. Also, I do not believe that there are many valid sources out there calling every famous model a supermodel. Who is a supermodel is easy in my eyes. It's simply what the lead (intro) of the Supermodel article says. Yes, there will always be a few valid sources to call a model who is not a supermodel a supermodel, but so what? With the List of fictional supercouples article, we have to deal with valid sites calling fictional couples who are not supercouples, well, supercouples as well. But you know what? Most regular or popular fictional couples are not called supercouples by valid sources or fans. The Internet certainly shows that that does not often happen. We also have articles on real-life supercouples...such as TomKat and Posh and Becks. What, is this not being fair to other celebrity couples? I disagree with that. If other celebrity couples want to cry over not being a considered supercouples or not having a Wikipedia article about them, then let them cry. We go by sources and notability. The same goes for supermodels. Why should we disregard calling a model who is well-known (widely considered) as a supermodel a supermodel? If we go this route, then we might as well not even have the Supermodel article. The logic being thrown out there that we should not call any of these supermodels supermodels in their own articles because it is unfair/non-neutral to other models could go the same for the Supermodel article. Any model who feels that they are a supermodel, but does not see their name in the Supermodel article, could become upset as well. But so what? If they want to be considered a supermodel, then they are either going to have to work for that title or be called one by a valid source. In the case that a model is called a supermodel by a valid source, but we know that most people would not call that model a supermodel, then we can simply state, "described as a supermodel by [fill in valid site or newspaper here]"...
To take away the title of supermodel from models who have rightly earned that title just to appease less well-known models is what is not fair and is non-neutral.
As I stated on Tarheelz123's talk page, even if we do not note these supermodels as supermodels in the lead (intro) of their articles, we could note, in the lower part of the body, that they are considered supermodels by whatever valid site we have stating them as such.
That's mainly most of what I have to say on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up this question. I'm involved with the business and remember the days when we had a handful of models, including Claudia, Christy, Helena, Yasmeen etc, who were sort of supermodels. Those days are over. Now we have at least 200 girls who travel and work internationally, and earn a lot of bucks. Today supermodel has become mainly a PR term much too frequently used by fashion magazines. They've created a supermodel hype in order to prove that they're working with the elite. Unfortunately, the term supermodel has lost all of its former value. And even more important: There is no credible institution whose authoritative judgment we could use as a basis for calling someone a supermodel. Using the term supermodel would always mean violating WP:NPOV.
Supermodel is sort of a title. It's not a profession. It's an assessment. You could compare it to movie star. Without doubt, Brad and Bob and Scarlett and Angelina are movie stars. Nevertheless, in their respective articles they're called actor or actress, not movie star. That's what they are. They're professional actors and actresses. And the same goes for supermodels. They are models by profession. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is mere PR and/or vanity. --Catgut (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the comparison to the "movie star" title. I mean, every actor/actress who has starred in a Hollywood film is called a movie star. Not every model is called a supermodel, nor should they be. I do not see why we have to be neutral in this case. If a model is a supermodel, that model is a supermodel. Just as it is fact that Angelina Jolie is widely considered one of the world's most beautiful people, as it states in the lead (intro) of her article. I mean, what, is that non-neutral to people who are not widely considered beautiful or beautiful at all? So what? Not everyone is going to be considered widely beautiful or beautiful even a little. It is almost silly and childish that we cannot call a model a supermodel because it is unfair to other models. I mean, life is not always fair. Not every model is going to be called a supermodel. The ones who are not called supermodels will just have to deal, and they do. I highly doubt that they are stressing because Wikipedia is not calling them supermodels. And if they are, then they will just have to get over it, just as they do in everyday life. But the true supermodels? Yes, I feel that if they were to stumble across their Wikipedia articles and see that they are only labeled as models, not as supermodels (titles that they have worked hard for), they will feel that it is off and will feel disrespected. I know for a fact that Janice Dickinson would, and I do not even personally know her. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there some organization somewhere that hands out certificates saying a model has achieved supermodel status? Unless there is, it's an entirely subjective term, and not something you could be argued to have "worked hard for". I venture to guess that Mrs. Dickenson considers her checks to be something she worked hard for, not a word she claims to have been the first true person for in the modern sense. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Your asking is their some organization somewhere that hands out certificates saying a model has achieved supermodel is the same as asking if a celebrity has reached A-list status. No certificate is needed. People simply know when a star has reached A-list status, just as they know who the supermodels are. But, yes, there are magazines such as Forbes often listing A-list stars, and the Ulmer Scale being seen as an authortive source for who is A-list. Supermodels are not born anymore, as valid sources within the Supermodel article state. The certificate that came with naming supermodels happened back then. The true supermodels are the ones almost everyone knows of and knows that they are supermodels. To say that the term Supermodel is entirely subjective term, and not something you could be argued to have "worked hard for" is taking away from the fact that that term was specifically created for the big name models back in the 80s and 90s; they earned that title because they were not like your typical models, and other models who got that title back then worked work for that title; it was not handed to every model, and is still not today. If it were truly a subjective term, then this discussion would not have been started. The only reason this discussion was started is because some people disagree with some of these newer models being called supermodels. But who really disagrees with the big name models in the Supermodel article being called supermodels? That is my point. If it were truly subjective, there would be major dispute about Cindy Crawford being considered a supermodel. I have never seen any dispute about her being called one, because it does not exist. You say, "Mrs. Dickenson considers her checks to be something she worked hard for, not a word she claims to have been the first true person for in the modern sense." Then I say, obviously, you have not heard Ms. Dickinson talk. The term Supermodel is extremely important to her, so much so that, like you said, she claims to have created the term. Just about everywhere she goes in the public eye, she is saying how she is a supermodel. Yes, indeed she feels that she has worked hard to be called that title, not just by herself but by others.
All in all, my thinking is this on this subject: For models we know there is no dispute over being called a supermodel (yes, we know them; the Supermodel article notes them), we title them supermodels in the lead (intro) without naming what source/sources considers them a supermodel. For less famous models that a dispute is likely to boil over about having the title Supermodel, we state in the lead (intro) a source that considers them supermodels. It's that simple. I really do not see the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As I already stated, if a model is called a supermodel when we know that most people would disagree with them having that title, then we can simply state in the lead that they are considered a supermodel by whatever valid source we have to back up the claim. That way, people will get the clue that that model has most likely only been called a supermodel by that source and perhaps a few other sources, but, just as they figured, that model is not widely thought of as a supermodel. Besides that, as mentioned above, stating in the lower part of the article that a model is considered a supermodel is certainly more than allowed and neutral, considering that we would be using the word "considered" and sometimes stating by whom they are considered supermodels.
I certainly do not feel that supermodels like Cindy Crawford need a reference attributed to their title in the lead (intro) or that we should state by which source she is considered a supermodel, considering that many valid sources state her as a supermodel. But for less famous models who have been given the title and a good debate can be made for why they are not supermodels, then we should attribute a reference in the lead to their supermodel title and state which source considers them supermodels (only name one even if they have a few more who consider them supermodels). I really do not see the problem with this route.
I doubt that we can keep articles on actual supermodels from stating them as supermodels in the lead (intro), anyway, unless an actual policy is made about this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But would a source for stating an obvious non-supermodel to be a supermodel make the use valid or would it just promote the continued overuse of the term? Take any new model to the SISE (Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition/Issue): in all likelihood, a dedicated editor can find some hometown newspaper of the model's to cite saying that so-and-so is now a supermodel when it's just flattery and not an honest assessment. So do we really want Wiki stubs saying the model is a supermodel because the Springfield County Cryer said so? IMO it undermines the validity of the article as opposed to validates it. And to me, it seems a bit unnecessary to use the term "supermodel" at all when the size of the article and what it contains will make its own greatest claim w/o need for the term. Mbinebri (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A model is not notable simply because some valid source calls that model a supermodel. It does not mean that that model deserves a Wikipedia article, as we know. But I get what you mean; you are saying that if there is a valid article about a model or a valid article about that model, let's say about a female model, calling her a supermodel, like Sports Illustrated, then she can have a Wikipedia article. But I still ask what is the problem? If Sports Illustrated called her a supermodel, then we state that. It's that simple. It gets across the point that that specific magazine called her one; it does not mean that it is Gospel. By stating a source that has called these less famous models a supermodel, we are not acting as though it is an undisputed fact that they are supermodels. Take the fictional supercouple article Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady, for example. They are not considered a supercouple by most soap opera fans (at least judging by the Internet community). But TV Guide editor Nelson Branco comes along and declares them one, and suddenly they are? Well, as I stated, not according to most of the soap opera community. Most of the soap opera communty instead maintains that just one editor of a magazine has called that couple a supercouple; it does not mean that that they are indeed a supercouple. Thus, their Wikipedia article points out how they are considered a supercouple. When soap opera fans see that in their article, it's like, "Oh, so that explains it. Does't mean that I have to take that magazine/editor as Gospel." If their article flat-out stated that they are a supercouple, without clarifying why they are considered one (meaning the source), then I bet we would have to deal with soap opera viewers sometimes editing that article to remove Lucas and Sami's supercouple status. The same goes with Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer; this article is put together well, and I address the supercouple discontent some fans have about this couple. You see, supercouples are created by a combination of the fans and the media. Supermodels are created by a combination of the fashion industry, media and how much work, in what ways, that model/his or her agent gets for that model. If people (and in the case of supercouples, fictional characters as well) are not generally accepted as supermodels or supercouples, then they are not supermodels or supercouples, and it is best to state a source that has defined them as supermodels or supercouples...despite not having that general acceptance. For Luke and Noah, though, once the media deemed them a supercouple, enough of their fans (which happens to be a lot of fans) started consistently calling them a supercouple, so much so that they are a supercouple now, as even more media started referring to them as one as well. And at least they have the impact to back up being called a supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This says all that needs to be said

There once was a Category:Supermodels, but it was deleted over two years ago (largely because every model we had articles on that time wound up being categorized that way. Read the CFD here ... the arguments are the same then as they are now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I already knew about the deletion of that category. It came up when Category:Supercouples was deleted, though Category:Soap opera supercouples was allowed to be created (because, well, fictional matters are typically considered less controversial than real-life matters; not that naming a supermodel a supermodel is actually controversial). I don't see how that means that we should not state models as supermodels in their own articles. The deletion of the Category:Supermodels was sort of needed because models who are not supermodels were being added to it, as in models who had no sources in their aticles calling them supermodels. If a valid source is in a model's article calling that model a supermodel, then, as I have stated a few times now, I do not see the problem. And I already gave a solution for these newer or less famous models who are declared supermodels. If we were to truly go by the logic of having deleted Category:Supermodels, as well as stating that we should not name supermodels supermodels in their own articles, then what is the point of the Supermodel article? Why not just delete it as well? What, we are allowed to call them supermodels there because that article is about supermodels? Well, I point out that for the true supermodels, being a supermodel is a significant part of their modeling history. That Supermodel article will get seen a lot less with hardly any articles linking to it if we go this route (which is probably what some people want). What, do you want no mention at all in the articles of these supermodels that they are indeed supermodels? We shouldn't mention it in the lower body of their aricles either? I mean, the word "supermodel" was thrown around a lot regarding the true supermodels, and was a significant part of their careers.
Yes, I find it silly trying to eliminate this term from articles, even if it just eliminating it from the lead (intro) of articles, and even more silly to think that most people editing Wikipedia will abide by this elimination. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Take 3: A historical approach would be beneficial

I am completely uninvolved (and largely uninterested) in modeling, media, fashion, or the pop culture of the supermarket mags and television, so perhaps I can provide a bit of perspective on this 'supermodel' thing. In any case, I enjoy wading into others' arguments, so here goes. The discussion here provides the evidence for the problems with use of the term. In 10 or 50 years, description of almost any person of this era as a 'supermodel' will seem a quaint, dated conceit. So there is little reason to maintain an argument about this - it is equivalent to arguing whether someone should be described in Wikipedia as 'l33t'. It informs nothing, and demonstrates only the editor's cultural bias at the time of writing.

The term 'supermodel' is not useful as a descriptive in Wikipedia. It does not inform the reader of anything substantive. A model is a model; a celebrity is a different 'category' (used loosely) which is attained by people via many different routes. 'Supermodel' is at best a citation of others' opinion and usually just a market droid's opinion of his/her client. It is not, despite protestations above, a mark of someone's achievement in any real sense although it may be a subject of someone's ambition - any more than 'l33t'.

The above discussion of the term 'movie star' is germane. As I understand it, this term was originally reserved for a very few top stars at each of the major studios (when they had control of that sort of thing) but gradually came to mean someone has actually been in a movie. The term 'Superstar' was coined in an attempt to achieve the same distinction among actors after inflation of 'movie star' made it no longer useful. Now, almost anyone who has ever had a leading role is a 'Superstar'. Such terms are, at their core, marketing terms, equivalent to "Unsurpassed in taste tests", "pop star" and "supergroup".

Even non-marketing culturally defined terms tend to get inflated to the point of irrelevance over time. This year's popular term for 'big' is 'massive', which is used for many things that are decidedly not massive in its primary sense - I have read recently of the threat of "massive inflation" in the economy, which is somewhere between an oxymoron and an absurdity.

Nevertheless, 'Supermodel' is a commonly used descriptive with some value despite the problems, if a balanced non-POV apporach can be defined. My proposal: use of the term 'supermodel' should be limited to some form of referential status - for example, "X was cited as a supermodel by publications Y, W and Z in the years 2001-2004" or "X remained in the lists of celebrity models or 'supermodels' produced by publications Y, W, and Z in the years 2001-2004." This removes the burden on Wikipedians to make an arbitrary POV decision. Let other third parties make the decision, and cite that decision as a historical fact. Incidentally, having such a criterion would make it possible to re-introduce the 'Supermodel' listing page, with that criterion. If absolutely necessary, a criterion, for example having been on the cover of at least four non-fashion and non-tabloid magazines not as a model but as a celebrity, could be defined. Note that I have included a time frame. Certainly if they are no longer modeling they may be celebrities but no longer models, so 'supermodel' is no longer applicable. So, to extend the above example, "X remained a celebrity for many years after the end of her modeling career in 2007." There is still an argument about what constitutes celebrity in that phrase, but that's a different topic.

In the meantime, I will return to my burrow, and ponder why this is of any importance whatsoever. I always wondered why People magazine exists, until I learned that monkeys will pay 'money' to see pictures of the dominant members of their tribe. --Gar37bic (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

new infobox

One user just made Template:Infobox Fashions and is putting it on many fashion articles. What do other editors think of this? To me, it doesn't seem particularly helpful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose or need for this infobox is. And, considering this is the fashion project, our infoboxes should be fabulous, not the same boring black-on-gray basic template. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, plus the dates & "eras" are very dubious. A load of this guy's fashion related categories are headed for deletion on today's CfD list. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I nominated most of the categories, and it seems a little early to say they're headed for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
As a visitor to your fine project, I hesitate to suggest what should be done with the infobox, but there seem to be three questions you should resolve:
  1. Should there be infoboxes on articles about items of fashion?
  2. Is this information what should be there?
  3. Is the information there correct?
I originally only had two, but my feeling is that the D00d who created the infobox, although he clearly has no concept of what is appropriate for Wikipedia, may also have no concept of accuracy. Hence, even if the infobox were to be kept, all instances should be deleted as being probably incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Now nominated for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Fashions

Template:Infobox Fashions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Charvet customers

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Charvet customers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charvet customers. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of fashion topics

I do not believe List of fashion topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is encyclopaedic. It is a mish mush of terms alphabetically ordered. I can see the redlinks might be useful as a to-do list. Perhaps it could become a sub-page of this project - any views? --Matilda talk 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually standard for all such topical indexes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
the mish mush is at very different levels though, whereas some of the other topical indexes are apparently more thought out for depth of coverage. Is there a guideline about topical indexes - inclusions and non-inclusions? --Matilda talk 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Not that I can find so far. A lot of projects use their topical indexes mainly for developmental purposes. But ... can you show me an index you think we could emulate? Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The best is perhaps List of management topics which is part of a series including List of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics, List of auditing topics and List of accounting topics - all related topics but keeping them separate means that the topics can be more clearly seen. I realise the lists are shorter but that is because they have been more judicious in selection and broken the lists down - it is not just an alphabetical grab bag of everything to do with business. The level of topics is similar too. I think if we broke down the list to fabric / material; headgear; decoration; ... other topics, it would be easier to follow - another example is List of human-computer interaction topics though layout could be improved.--Matilda talk 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean ... breaking it down by subtopic, with the topics themselves arranged in hierarchical trees. If you want to make this your project, go ahead. It does make sense — take it from me (and, I suppose, Jen). In the process of diffusing Category:Fashion I found it necessary to create at least 20 categories, doubling the number of cats I had created in my whole time on Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I will have a go in userspace and see how it works out. I will take the cat organisation as a structure in the first instance since that has been thought through.--Matilda talk 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Coogi

I'd appreciate help and feedback at Coogi to ensure it doesn't getd AfD'd again. :) Relaxing (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion/Archive_2&oldid=1238752700"