Template talk:Infobox model

Fashion Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was considered for deletion on 6 June 2011. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add to the "data4" line:

[[Category:Models with hair color {{lc:{{{haircolour|}}}{{{hair_colour|}}}{{{haircolor|}}}{{{hair_color|}}}}}]]

It can be removed a couple of hours later, after I moved the information to d:Property:P1884. I will confirm when this is done. Jura1 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jura1, do I add it to the end of the line? Stickee (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. Jura1 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Okay, let me know when you're done and I'll remove it. Stickee (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Finally, it didn't yield much: when I checked, only about 20+ had hair color defined. Later, the edit was already reverted. Not sure if the 20 where all there was or if it was reverted too quickly. Jura1 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The doc now advises use of {{

I think the other body measurements should be removed too. I can't imagine why readers would want to know about a person's shoe size. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore it, for the time being. This has been discussed before (see above) and no consensus was met for its removal; and in such cases the status quo is maintained.

I'm personally on the fence, leaning toward retention. I understand your position, but given that models' profession is based on their body, it strikes me that inclusion of this data is encyclopedic in this context. (That being said, ordinary requirements of citation to reliable sources continue to apply.)

Let's consider this a start of a proposal to remove; I have no objection to deletion if a consensus to do so emerges out of it. TJRC (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC:, this is an encyclopaedia, not a model agency. This kind of thing happens because young, heterosexual men are over-represented in our community, so these things are added thoughtlessly. Just about everyone says they want Wikipedia to become more diverse, but it's not going to happen so long as we have to argue such basic issues as not noting women's breast sizes in their biographies.

I found the breast size recently on Lily Cole. It had been added when the article was created in June 2005 (when Cole was 17). [1] Grenavitar removed it with the edit summary: "uhhh.... encyclopedias don't give people's measurements...." [2]

It was restored by an anon in January 2006. [3] It was removed and restored a few more times. At some point someone added Infobox musical artist, with the breast size in it. In November 2006 Nyago converted it to Infobox model, [4] and there it stayed even when Cole was no longer working as a model.

Tony1 tried to remove it from Infobox model in March 2014. [5]

Cole's representative asked that it be removed from the article in August 2015, noting that Cole was no longer a model and that the measurements were "wildly and quite unhealthily inaccurate." [6] She was ignored. There are almost certainly other women's bios where the subject no longer works as a model, but breast size remains. But regardless of that, we shouldn't include such sexist material in bios of models either. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJCR, do you propose to add men's penis lengths to infoboxes? Tony (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a poor comparison: in most cases, a women's breast size (not merely her bust measurement—the component reported in measurements) is readily apparent from a quick front view; a man's penis size is usually only apparent when he's undressed. Also, even for a pornographic performer, I imagine it would be difficult to find a reliable source for such a thing.  Rebbing  talk  02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably needs to be removed as unnecessary, invasive, unduly prone to inaccuracy, and problematic. But I must say it never crossed my mind that anyone would consider the inclusion of such measurements on biographies of professional models to be sexual, sexist, or inappropriate—and I'm a woman (with breasts). While we're at it, I propose we also remove shoe size, dress size, suit size, collar size, and weight. Listing shoe size in an infobox strikes me as being trivial and fairly creepy; dress size, suit size, collar size, and weight have the same problems with fluctuations and body image issues as bust–waist–hips measurements. All are needlessly personal.  Rebbing  talk  03:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per

secondary source indicates otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for this,

[majestic titan] 16:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, it's all a bit creepy, as Redding says. I think our rationale is that for both genders we should stay away from "measurements" of sexualised parts of the body, and even other measurements that might be more at home in a model's resume for practical reasons, but are of little or no encyclopedic relevance. Height might be ok. I'm also concerned about privacy issues. Tony (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be needlessly argumentative, but, while I strongly support removing these measurements for the reasons I gave earlier—they're trivial, have reliability problems, and, most importantly, are needlessly creepy—I disagree that this is a sexism or sexual objectification problem, and I disagree with that reasoning for removing these data points. By that rationale, we might consider removing "sexy" photographs from models' infoboxes: I assume many would find the infobox picture for, e.g., Candice Swanepoel to be both sexy and stereotypically sexualized, and I think everyone can agree the photograph is far more sexually provocative than the numbers 33–23–34.5. Furthermore, a quick search showed that we do sometimes list measurements for men models: Robert Scott Wilson (40–32–34 (US)), Lucas Gil (103–83–98 (EU)), Marios Lekkas (98–78–97 (EU)).

Also, we're keeping height, correct?  Rebbing  talk  17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the measurements information due to the consensus above. Height should be kept. The infobox at Candice Swanepoel tells us she is engaged and wears (UK) 7; (US) 8; (EU) 38 size shoes—the latter appears unsourced and is excessive detail which should be at the "official website" link, but I don't think it is worth worrying about at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I clicked on the wikilink for Candice Swanepoel I was expecting to see a photo like this one of Michele Merkin. I was getting ready to say, "if there is a less sexualized photo of Swanepoel then personally I like to see that one used", imagine my surprise when it turned out to be a unsexualized photo of a woman in a unrevealing long-sleeved top and skirt. "I think everyone can agree the photograph is far more sexually provocative than the numbers 33–23–34.5.", well, err... no actually! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a matter of taste. It's obviously not revealing; the sexiness in the lighting, pose, and expression (notice her gaze and half-open mouth). It's definitely the sort of image I would have appreciated in middle school, whereas I have yet to hear of anyone with a sexual or aesthetic interest in women's measurements. But I might be way off base here. Thanks for humoring me, and I apologize if I offended in any way.  Rebbing  02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed dress size, suit size, collar measurement, weight, and shoe size for the reasons discussed here.  Rebbing  talk  03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's now a consensus for the removal, I have no objection. TJRC (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is no reason for model measurements. Just out of interest, has their ever been a discussion about sexual orientation in infoboxes? It seems an odd omission in the biography of Peter Tatchell, Ellen DeGeneres or Joe Orton. If religion is there then I don't see why sexual orientation isn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Sexual orientation is often more amorphous (and more controversial) than religion, so my concern would be that encouraging editors to condense it to a single infobox-sized sound bite might bring trouble. The only discussion I could find is this brief conversation from 2012, so perhaps it's time to bring it up again?  Rebbing  02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to everyone for the comments, and thanks to Johnuniq for removing the measurements. I also support Rebbing's removal of the shoe and collar size, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks to you for bringing this up and to TJRC for being cautious and making us put this on record.  Rebbing  02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]