Talk:Model (person)/Archives/2016

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move 30 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus supports this move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Model (people) → Model (person) – The article title in its current state seems to contradict rules laid out in WP:SINGULAR and WP:PARENDIS. In addition, the article actually was located at model (person) previously, but it got moved without much discussion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Support this move 2601:541:4305:C70:217D:EDD1:7C4:B1FE (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Those not familiar with Wikipedia conventions might read the proposed form as "model person." Shouldn't it be model (fashion)? Gulangyu (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Support, If it was "Models (people)", that would be fine, but Model singular should be "person." And the article is not just about fashion models, though it does lean heavily in that direction. Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Model (person), Support Model (fashion), "Person" doesn't exactly make much sense either whereas "fashion" makes abit more sense so I support the fashion one. –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: So how do you deal with the second part of the definition "or to serve as a visual aide for people who are creating works of art or to pose for photography." which has nothing to do with fashion?

Move to Fashion model per WP:NATURAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Support per nom; oppose Fashion model as the scope of the topic this article covers is wider than only models in fashion. In fact, Fashion model redirects to a section of this article. SST flyer 09:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Support returning heading back to Model (person) since a Model is a person, not a people.Glenn Francis (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Model (Fashion Model) since a Fashion model is a specific sub-catagory of Model of which a model may or may not be a part of. Glenn Francis (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Support per nom and for internal consistency. Also, fashion model is a subtopic, so Fashion model or Model (fashion) would be inappropriate. Rebb ing 03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.