Talk:Model (person)

Definition of model needs reference
The current definition of model (person) lacks a reference, so I am replacing it with a referenced definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. If anyone has a better reference, please go ahead and implement it, but please do not simply revert the change to the old unreferenced version. 109.145.9.249 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead summarizes the rest of the article, and citations WP:LEADCITE are optional there. Your rewrite of the lead is also substituting an incorrect definition. A model as in a fashion model and a model as in a role model are two different things - as is acknowledged by the other definitions given by the OED. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Our edits crossed - I had not seen your response before reverting. This article is titled "model (human)", which logically encompasses artist's models, role models and fashion models as per OED model sense II. If you wish to restrict the article to a narrower sense, then the article should be renamed to "fashion model" or similar. Either that, or (my solution) we have short sections on artist's model and role model and fashion model which then redirect to the main articles on artist's model and role model etc. Two options - which do you prefer? 109.145.9.249 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on fashion models, this is the parent article of that one (and others). Your 'option two' is what this article is already doing per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As an encyclopedia article, it is of broader scope than any of the individual definitions that would be given in a dictionary, so the lead must remain similarly inclusive - not artificially restricted by what you might find in the OED, which has different goals from an encylopedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging. Agreed, so we implement option 2 consistently. I am making a start and hope others will join us. 109.145.9.249 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't support some of your latest editing. Kindly stop putting my name in your edit summaries or otherwise suggesting it is done with my agreement. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits, November 2023
Starting 11 November 2023 four IPs (perhaps the same person) made several edits to the article with explanatory edit summaries, and when questioned, engaged with that editor in edit summaries, on the article talk page, and on that editor's talk page. I myself also made a couple of edits. In all 1053 characters were removed for, in my view, an improvement to the article.

These 1053 characters were returned with the revert summary "Nah it was fine before". I undid that edit, stating my view that the edits made a significant improvement and pointing out that edit summaries had been provided and engagement sought. The same editor reverted again, baldly stating that no significant improvements had been made, and to "take it to the tp".

It is unfortunate the reverting editor did not engage with this pre-existing discussion and summaries in the page history to explain why they feel the prior version of the page is preferable, rather than entreating me to revisit the already stated rationales and summaries. But here we are.

The diff in question is.

Firstly the short description, which should be limited to about 40 characters. "Person displaying products or serving as a visual aid" is a tad long at 53 characters but is probably about as short as it can be for the subject. Is there any good reason for bumping this back up to the previous "Person employed to display, advertise and promote products or to serve as a visual aid" at 86 characters, more than twice the recommended maximum?

The first paragraph states the model's role is "to display commercial products". Nothing is gained and accuracy is lost by making this read "to promote, display or advertise commercial products". Those extra words are someone else's activity in the course of which they use a model, they are not the model's function any more than they are the camera's. Re the second definition, is it useful to replace "artist" with "people who are creating works of art"? Per edit summary, the claim "models are predominantly female" is not supported in the body, and "Models may work professionally or casually" is already covered, better, in the final sentence of the lead.

Paragraph 2 says everything necessary without the unsupported waffle. Likewise paragraph 3 is not improved by the addition of an unsupported shopping list of random films and TV shows.

It makes sense to bring the various types of fashion models together in the same section, and as the History section deals exclusively with fashion modelling it is sensible to bring that in too. To describe Kate Moss as part of the heroin chic trend is factual; to call her the "leader" of the heroin chic "movement" is ridiculous. Dumping an unsourced claim that Claudia Schiffer earned 12 million "despite" said "movement" is bizarre. The caption "The identical Carlson Twins" is informative, "two models, at a photoshoot" is redundant. The unsourced start of the Instagram models section is fleshed out with a source. "Artist's model" is better than "art model", and "fit model" is ambiguous and not common, better replaced with "fitness model" which is clearly distinct from "fitting model"

The chunks of re-ordered paragraphs can be difficult to parse; I suggest opening the two revisions in separate pages and comparing the "Contents" box. One is, the other is

To be clear the article is still a mess in many ways, and I don't suggest the edits in question were perfect. However the reversion, while assuming good faith, seemed off-handed in manner and mistaken in substance. I hope, should any of these edits be again reverted, they be done individually and with considered explanation. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)