Talk:Model (person)/Archives/2014

Section headings
The section headings currently in use on the page are highly redundant and (therefore) confusing.

This is the current structure:
 * History
 * Early years
 * The 1960s and the evolution of the industry
 * The 1970s and 1980s
 * The 1990s to present
 * Glamour models
 * Types of models
 * Fashion modelling
 * Runway modelling
 * Supermodels
 * Plus-size models
 * Glamour models
 * Gravure idols
 * Alternative models
 * Parts models
 * Fitness models
 * Commercial print and on camera models
 * Promotional models
 * Spokesmodels
 * Trade show models
 * Convention models
 * Art models
 * Salaries
 * Fashion models
 * Fashion print
 * Commercials
 * Runway modelling
 * Male models
 * Plus size models
 * Parts models
 * Fit modelling
 * Showroom modelling
 * Commercial print models
 * Glamour modelling
 * Promotional modelling
 * Art modelling
 * See also
 * References
 * External links

Note how "Glamour models", for example, appears in both the "History" and "Types of models" sections, and then "Glamour modelling" appears under "Salaries". Similar things could be said of most of the other types of models. Also notice how the naming of subsections under "Types of models" and "Salaries" is inconsistent — a mixture of "X models" and "X modelling" subsections are found in both sections. This is very confusing. At the very least, we should use "X models" only under one section and "X modelling" under another. Or, better yet, just merge the salary info into the appropriate subsections under "Types of models" (and use only "X models" for subsection names). I may "soon" start implementing the latter solution myself, unless someone has a better idea. - dcljr (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's odd to have the "Glamour models" subsection under "History," but beyond that, I'm okay with the way the "Types of models" subsections are organized and that the topic of salaries is independent, as it's a legitimate topic in its own right - although all those headings in the salary section is overkill when you consider some of them are only one sentence and sourced to a dubious site.   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 18:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree; came here to make a similar statement. In addition, I find the sub-headings which are nothing but refs to other articles less than enlightening, except to point out that the whole TOPIC (meaning at least half a dozen pages) probably needs serious attention.  Many of those sub-heading redirects could just as easily be "See also" or ideally incorporated into the text flow of the related paragraph.  For example, I specifically fail to see the distinction between Glamour modelling, Gravure idols (except that they seem to be Japanese glamour models,) and Pin-up girls (which is one of those contentless, redirect-only subheads I'm objecting to.)  I feel as if anyone who came up with a different term decided to fork off a new sub-head instead of including the term with other, related terms in the appropriate paragraph.  If I wasn't so busy I'd just be bold and take an axe to this article for some major surgery.--Eliyahu S Talk 05:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Move of page from Model (professional) to Model (people)
This was done for a number of reasons. wikimedia uses the address wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Models_(people) Many high profile models have other professions such as Sports person or Singer. Many models do modeling as one off jobs, For example Kate Middleton was a model even though this was not her profession. Many models such as art models are pulled into the work even if it has little connection to their truer vocations. The Wikipedia page for model has sections such as: In all cases the most general terms are used Gregkaye (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Model (abstract), a model made of the composition of concepts, that thus exists only in the mind
 * Model (economics), a theoretical construct representing economic processes
 * Model (physical), a smaller or larger physical copy of an object


 * Shouldn't the title be "Model (person)"?   Mbinebri   talk &larr; 04:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Request separate page related to models involved in fashion and advertising
Could this be done? Model (fashion and advertising)? or other title/s? I had wanted to make a link from a page relating to a character that adopted the role of fashion model a part time basis but was only able to link to this more general page which includes info on: Fetish Models, Plus size models, pinup girls, promotional models, glamour modelling each of which also have individual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why there would be separate pages for this. Fashion modeling is generally for advertising purposes in the first place.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 04:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)