Template talk:Infobox model/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bug

The template doesn't display the image. I've tried with Muzammil Ibrahim (model). Can someone fix it? --Victor D ^PARLE 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The template's code has been completely overhauled. It's working perfectly now. In fact, I see that the article you indicated is now showing the image twice, so I'm off to fix that. Regards, Redux 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Its working well. --Victor D ^PARLE 07:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Placeholder image

Please can you remove the placeholder image per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with that discussion, prior to adding the placeholder image to the template. However, after reading the entire discussion, I see that there isn't any clear consensus to remove the placeholder, nor do I see any reason to view that discussion as wikipedia policy ( given the small number of respondents). I say lets keep the placeholder image here unless there is some clear evidence of consensus not to use it - Misty Willows (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

birthdate required?

Why is the birthdate required information? It seems the template would be useful without it. Requiring the birthdate leads to ugliness where the birthdate is not known or, as in Marcellas Reynolds, has been removed per an OTRS request. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

relations

I added it, because data didn't appear. --Gamsbart (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A field for occupations was missing

I restored it. ↜Just M E here , now 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hair color/colour

This, I think, should specify natural colour rather than a dyed version, which may change from time to time. Any problems if this is changed? Rodhullandemu 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

New parameter

Would it be possible to implement a new parameter that provides the years active ? This is used in the Person and Journalist info boxes, and I don't see why not use it here. Tinton5 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

website-param

Hello, I guess I found out the website parameter isn't set correctly. The word "website" is not located at the left side as all other parametres are. It ist placed in the middle of the line and the website-data ist placed under it. Can anyone correct this? --Roter Frosch (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Blood type

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting this change so we can be at parity with similar templates from other countries. (See: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%E5%A5%B3%E6%80%A7%E3%83%A2%E3%83%87%E3%83%AB)

Schmendrick1 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I object per discussion at Template talk:Infobox adult biography. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things-- I do not think you can take a discussion from one infobox and apply it to another. For the Template talk:Infobox adult biography, the discussion was to remove all measurements from the template. For a model however, these statistics are often publicized by the model's agency and are important, sometimes defining attributes for the person. All infoboxes are different, and any particular attribute may not apply on one infobox, but could very well apply on another. Secondly, if this does get rejected, I am curious why data which is relevant information on one language of Wikipedia is considered irrelevant on another. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I cannot imagine that there is any information which is pertinent in one language but not pertinent in another. Blood type is advertised by modeling agencies in particular as in Asia, and is a relevant field for models. Ideally, you shouldn't have to speak a certain language in order to find this bit of data. Schmendrick1 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You can certainly use a discussion to explain your position. --Nouniquenames 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My problem was not with the discussion being used to explain a position. My problem was the discussion was being used as definitive evidence that this attribute is not appropriate on the infobox. As a matter of fact, He made the argument and less than a minute later, reverted my change without any discussion or warning, breaking the handful of pages which were using the attribute. Schmendrick1 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

breaking? if by breaking you mean the trivial cruft did not appear in the article, then that was the desired result. see WP:BRD. you made a bold edit, I reverted it, and now we are discussing it. And, yes, I found it easier to point you to a similar discussion than to go through the long list of what it's trivial. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with Frietjes. This is the trivial of the trivial. The argument isn't that encyclopedic content changes by language, but that the usefulness and appropriateness of trivia can be dependent on culture. Even if jp.wp thinks that blood type may be interesting for an infobox within that cultural context, it is still distinctly non-encyclopedic trivia, but lacks even the cultural context to make it even worth noting in en.wp, no matter how well sourced. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia separated by culture or is it separated by language? I always thought it was the latter, and that culture was largely irrelevent. That is however, an interesting idea for an infobox within that cultural context. What if I were to create a Gravure Idol infobox? The problem is, the attributes of said infobox will be largely the same as the model infobox, and will most certainly be considered for deletion. Given the cultural context, it may survive? Is there a way that I can create another template which inherits the attributes of this template and can be extended with additional attributes? Schmendrick1 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as there wouldn't be a need for blood type in such a box either. Please see my point below. --Nouniquenames 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm against it in principle. Blood type haas not (to the best of my knowledge) been linked to appearance, so it isn't like there's a logical need to group based on blood type (considering the work of models is essentially appearance-related). It further does not seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. This is not an indiscriminate collector of information. --Nouniquenames 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the culture, but I have never, ever seen a Japanese modeling agency not list blood type as an attribute to most of their models. Some individual models may choose to not display blood type, but virtually every model has that attribute listed. Here are some examples: "Avilla Profile"., "Macbee Profile"., "Marbles Profile"., "Force-Agency Profile"., "A-Team Profile"., "HoriPro Profile"., etc. Note that all of the agencies I've listed have models with associated wikipedia articles under WikiProject Japan (Ai Shinozaki, Nonami Takizawa, Hitomi Kitamura, Rio Natsume, etc.). I don't think there is any doubt this is an accepted criteria among Asian models. The only real question, is whether it belongs on the Model infobox, or if we should create another infobox within that cultural context. I am already in the process of translating multiple pages from ja wikipedia to en wikipedia, and would like for the articles to have data parity. Schmendrick1 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Object. As it might be familiar in jp:WP, I think that it is not needed nor wanted in en:WP. Many reasons have been mentioned above, I agree with most of the opponents. Respecting the cultural context in Asia, I think we should not encourage unneeded revealing of personal information of non-asian models. Jesus Presley (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What about a more narrow template which had these attributes in the correct cultural context? Schmendrick1 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to delete "agency" parameter

Why is the "agency" parameter in this ibox? It is a magnet for spam from PR reps and is of zero encyclopedic value. I propose that it be removed.--ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

remove trivial info?

Hi, could we remove some of the more trivial info, like body measurements and weight? It may be important within the industry, but so is cock length in porn actors (male) and willingness to do anal in female porn stars, both of which are beneath this encyclopaedia and not included on their pages. As a further example, the sexuality of actors is also not included in their infoboxes, nor is whether they are out, yet both issues determine how much work they get. Malick78 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

death_cause parameter

Is there a reason that there is no 'death_cause' parameter for this infobox or can we add it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

added. Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

measurements

I readded measurements after it was removed without discussion. The last Wikipedia:TFD was keep, and a lot of votes was per "If the basis for nomination is purely the notion that the template should be deleted for including parameters for things like measurements or weight, then keep, as this info is not private or strictly personal for fashion models - it's career relevant and arguably defining for them". Christian75 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're correct. The parameter was deleted with the edit summary "Women's bust measurements are inappropriate; and are being used for actors, tv presenters, et al.".

If that's the problem, the solution is to not use this parameter (or even better, to not use this template) for "actors, tv presenters, et al.". The parameter is perfectly appropriate for those female models who list the measurements themselves and for whom the data is material to their modeling work. TJRC (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Argh, I note that the editor has been updating at least some article to delete use of the parameter he dropped, e.g., [1]. I reinstated the parameters there, but he has a few hundred edits whose edit summary is merely "Script-assisted fixes: per MOS:NUM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:LINK)", just like this one. Hard to tell what other articles have been affected. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That's very inappropriate behaviour. If by "the editor" you mean User:Tony1, then, i) you should have notified him of this discussion and ii) he should nonetheless desist at once, until the matter has been discussed, and consensus reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Subsection

[Section heading was: I don't mind if the women's bust field is retained, as long as penis sizes are introduced]

Someone called Christian75 has reverted my removal of the bust measurements field. This apparently sexist and sexualised field needs discussion. Tony (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian is my first name, not my religion. But look one section up. Christian75 (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's rather interesting that the fields do not exist in Template:Infobox_adult_biography, where one might reasonably expect these (bust size and penis size) to be. Shome mishtake shurely -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Really diffucult to find sources, even John Holmes' penis has no documented measurement. But add it to the infobox if you are able to find references. Christian75 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's add penis size to the fields

Whoever removed my previous, rhetorical section title, do not do it again—it's an essential part of my argument that not only is the sexualised field inappropriate per se, it represents a gender assymetry. Sorry if I'm offending some male editors, but that's too bad.

For the record, I removed the field from two infoboxes—the first one I discovered, before coming here, I think—and one other when taking a look at the "what links here" list. I can hunt the other one down from the timing of the edit on this page, if anyone wants. Tony (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It was not removed; it was kept as a note and shorter title used, so as not to overwhelm the TOC; and because subheadings are meant to aid navigation, not include statements of personal opinion. And AFAICT, breasts are not reproductive organs, so no, it does not represent "gender symmetry". WP:DICK would, however, seem to apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Don't you dare call me a dick. Breasts are sexual organs, just like penises. Tony (talk)

Don't you dare misrepresent what I say. As for breasts not being reproductive organs, please explain how it is possible to impregnate a woman via her breasts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

parent parameter

Is there a reason that the parent parameter doesn't appear in this infobox or can we add it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

are you asking about "parents" as in father and mother? or "parent"? Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

British English version

This template cleverly accommodates both AmE and BrE spellings for color/colour, but "Modeling information" is always AmE. In BrE it should be "Modelling information". Can the template be amended somehow to allow the alternative spelling? Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bazonka, added a limited check which changes it if you use one of the colour parameters (see Template:Infobox_model/doc#Synonyms for an example). of course, this isn't perfect, since it won't work if neither of the colour parameters is used, however, it is a start. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hair color on Wikidata (hair_color)

At d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#hair_color, there is a proposal to create a property that could add include it on Wikidata. --Jura1 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Agency" parameter displays as "Manager"

I don't know how long it's been that way, but I think it needs to be changed. Agencies and managers aren't necessarily the same. In the case of fashion models, the agency he/she belongs to is often notable information, while the individual manager is not, and generally in fashion model articles it's the agency that's listed with this parameter. It seems logical to me that the "Agency" parameter should actually display as "Agency."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Temporary category for Wikidata

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)

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

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

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

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)

Date of birth

The doc now advises use of {{birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be included in articles about living people unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and inserting full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this and a suggestion to use {{birth year and age}} in the doc. DES ^(talk) 19:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Women's measurements

I've removed the measurements parameter (bust, waist, hip) because it's deeply sexist. It's sexist even when writing about a full-time model, but the box has been added to women's bios just because they once worked as a model. Body size is something a model agency might want to know, but it makes no sense in an encyclopaedia article. It's also odd to assume that someone's size at age 16 is the same as at age 30, during pregnancy, etc.

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)

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)

@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). [2] Grenavitar removed it with the edit summary: "uhhh.... encyclopedias don't give people's measurements...." [3]

It was restored by an anon in January 2006. [4] 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, [5] 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. [6]

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." [7] 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)

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

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)

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)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY articles are not factoid lists, and a generic "measurements" entry is not suitable for an encyclopedic article in 2016. If an encyclopedic purpose is served by mentioning the bust/waist/hip measurements of a particular person, that can be done in the body of the article provided a reliable source is available. A discussion in the article should indicate roughly when the measurements applied, and why the information is considered significant. There are many websites which claim to show celebritites' details such as favorite colors and pets, and readers can find those sites if interested. The information is not useful here unless a secondary source indicates otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Slimvirgin, Tony1, Rebbing, and Johnuniq, etc. Definitely needs to be removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)