Talk:Supermodel/Archive 1

message: I put the cleanup tags on the page; at present, it is cluttered and somewhat ambiguous. While there is no ironclad set of criteria for what makes one a "supermodel", the definition should be more clear than it is. Also, the format of the page should be adjusted. Juansmith 06:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tags 

message: * Christina Leardini
* Anna Nicole Smith
* Lisa Boyle
* Jenny McCarthy
Being named Playboy Playmate of the Year does not qualify one as a 'supermodel', either in the conventional sense or in the deinition proposed in the article.  
("a famous and extremely highly paid fashion model".) 
Moreover, Cameron Diaz is noted for her acting career, not her modeling career.  She did not become famous as a model, and therefore was never a supermodel.
: Agree, and I've removed A.N. Smith, McCarthy and Diaz from the list. Leardini and Boyle I don't know about, so I've left for now. Fuzheado 03:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a few more:
*Monica Bellucci - more famous as an actress than a model
*Caprice Bourret - more of a pinup girl than a fashion model (youd find her in FHM or playboy, not cosmo or glamour
*Lisa Boyle - nude model/b-movie actress
*Erika Eleniak - baywatch actress
*Christina Leardini - playboy
*Cindy Margolis - see caprice bourret
*Kiana Tom - fitness model, host of an exercise tv show on espn
I refuse to say why I know so much about these women ;)--Mishac 12:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The following people, listed on this page, do not appear to be supermodels:

message: Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante do not exist and are a hoax created on Nov 15 at the same time.
No one with these names exists in any of the major search engines.
A search of People Magazine returns no one named Sara Durante or MMM.
So I removed Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante
:Re Alaina Kennedy:
http://www.runhigh.com/2005%20Results%20B/R103105.html
Trekphiler 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Alaina Kennedy and Sara Durante 

message: Anybody think she belongs? Sometimes called "first supermodel" because she was the first known by one name (by people evidently having forgotten Twiggy...)  Trekphiler 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gia 

message: Since people started editing after my post, this is full of hundreds of grammer mistakes. Please help me to fix it. Lil Flip246 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the ones that are less known or less remembered than the models you have mentioned. mirageinred 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying models not better known as their first name should be removed, but some of them just seem less notable. mirageinred 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FALSE INFO 

message: I was thinking of splitting Trivia in two by making a "Firsts" section, so I can put all the firsts that occurred there and other records/interesting facts can remain in the Trivia section. Would that be okay? mirageinred 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I don't know if "Lil Flip246" is an employee of Wikipedia - but this site is supposed to be accurate information - user Lil Flip246 continues to bio of supermodels - lifted off another website - several times I have attempted to update this page with accurate information and Lil Flip246 continues to revert invalid information - like listing porn stars on this site as well as drag queens. There is such a model named Lisa Cooper and Cyndee Margolis and Caprice are not the same person! In protest this user should be removed from the site!!!!!!!!
:really? porn stars? Are you sure? mirageinred 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you might want to sign your comment=). And I'll look "Lisa Cooper" up on Google or something. Is she American?  mirageinred 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find her on google. At least not a supermodel. Do you know any sites of Lisa Cooper? mirageinred 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: my information/edits & comments were all made with my login - RE: Lisa Cooper - She was model who appeared on several international Vogue covers and worked with almost every american and french designer - she worked alongside such 70's models Lisa Taylor, Patty Hansen and Janice Dickinson. The information I provided in my update to the text for supermodel is accurate. The names I did not recognize and did searches on came up with either the model was small time and never any major magazines. Other notes that Lil Flip246 made that are not correct, include the following:
- Karolína Kurková started modeling in Europe in 1998, she did her first US Vogue editorial in 1999 - that's the 90's and I listed her in group of models that appeared after 1997.
- Natalia Vodianova also begin her modeling care in the late 90's - hitting Paris runways early 1999
- Lisa Cooper does exist and just because you can't find information on goodle or yahoo does not mean its not the truth. If  you were serious about making sure the facts on this site were correct - you would inclinded to research magazines from the time periods or even reading articles or books written on the subject. (hint - if you don't have Arthur Elgorts "Models Manual" and Micheal Gross's "Model" on your bookshelf, then you shouldn't be updating this site!) Just to show you Lisa Cooper exists, I just scanned this from A. Elgorts "Models Manual" - image to the right. 
- Evelyn Kuhn had a Revlon contract for almost 10 years - from the 60's leading into 70's - a favorite model of both Irving Penn and Francesco Scavullo
- Dayle Haddon began her modeling career in 1968 after becoming Miss Montreal - She's numerious cosmetics contracts spanning over 5 decades, most notably Revlon. Not to mention she was even on Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
- Lisa Taylor career began in 1972 and remained a high booked model internationally until 1981 when she decided to get into acting.
- Kim Alexis is listed twice although I corrected that in my version
- ditto for Robyn Mackintosh
- FYI the Waif models hit the runways in 1993 - after both Marc Jacobs for Perry Ellis and Anna Sui presented the grunge look on their runway for S/S 93 - So Carmen Kass, Malgosia Bela, Mini Anden, Gisele Bundchen, Heidi Klum, Isabeli Fontana and Ines Sastre are NOT waif models - most of these models did not begin their careers till 1997.
- Male Models, please note Will Chalker was never a high profile male model - the following male models should be added - Mark Vanderloo, Jason Lewis, Alex Lundqvist, Scott Benoit
Whoa, that was A LOT of info!!! I certainly want to hear what Lil Flip has to say about this. mirageinred 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid Information being removed by '''''''''Unregistered users''''''''' 

message: Are those two models listed above two different models or just a repeat of the same name listed twice? mirageinred 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gail O'Neil and Gail O'Neill 

message: Really, the list of quotations at the bottom should be moved to wikiquote and linked from the entry. Alexx 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this to the bottom where new subjects should always be placed on the talk page, but I agree. This is just one of many things that are needed for the cleanup tag to be removed. The page seems to get worse instead of better as it becomes more cluttered with information that doesn't belong in this article. For one thing many if not most of the names do not belong on this page. There is both a category and a list of supermodels that should sufice for listing those that are considered Supermodels. This page should be limited to defining and fleshing out the meaning of a Supermodel and the "firsts". The quotes belong on wikiquote, and much of the individual information on models belongs on their indvidual pages not here. Doc 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Aren't they male supers?? Lil Flip246 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlson Twins 

message: Is this another repeat? Sure sounds like it. mirageinred 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marisa and Marissa Miller 

message: Are there no asian models?
Anna Bayle is called the world's first asian supermodel in the Philippines because she was the first major asian model overseas. There are asian top models like Ai Tominaga but they're not really supermodels, cause their names aren't that big. Devon Aoki is an asian. Lil Flip246 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian Supermodels 

message: What happened to it????Lil Flip246 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_11#Category:Supermodels_to_Category:Models --PTSE 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat:Supermodel 

message: We should replace the pictures because they seem very amateur. The photographs don't do them just. We should show them in a more professional view. For example photos of them in advertisements. Lil Flip246 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should choose the best pictures available, but we can't throw away the Wikipedia policy of giving preference to free pictures. Photos from advertisement almost always have all rights reserved. For available free pictures, I suggest taking a look at the Supermodel category at commons. --Abu Badali 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not make magazine covers that are noted not eligible for inclusion. Particularly for historic ones. Doc 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the normal wikipedia rules for magazine covers apply here. If some magazine issue is worth enough to be subject of criticalç comentary (and it happens to be mentioned on the article), we may use it cover image. What is not acceptable is using magazine covers just to show how this or that model looks like, or just after adding a line of text sayng "Model X was N times on the cover of Y magzine". Hopefully, we have some good free images for using in this article. --Abu Badali 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we don't, and aren't likely to have the most notable supermodels historically that should be the ones representing the article. This entire article is getting to be such a mixed up mess of material with everyone shouting at each other and reverting each other without listening or communicating that the article has become almost worthless. Doc 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PICTURES 

message: We need sources!! Lil Flip246 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOURCES 

message: I removed a bunch of names, because they lacked celebrity status. Supermodels like Naomi Campbell and Lauren Hutton are famous both in and out of fashion. They are houshold names and icons of fashion. I doubt the likes of Michelle Alves are on US Magazine or People Magazine. I removed Petra because she only became famous because of the tsunami case. Since that time, she's consistently on tabloid magazines. But she doesn't have a big high fashion career. She isn't on demand in high fashion, but she is in commercial. I kept the likes of Gemma Ward because she is the biggest model today. She is every1's muse. Plus she is quite famous. She is on non fashion sites like AskMen.com. For more questions, feel free to ask. Lil Flip246 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Supermodels 

message: The Chart someone has written was really nice and clear, i dunno why someone decided to get rid of it.
We should make like a section of the top 10 highest paid supermodels for each year. Some info is already available on Trivia. Lil Flip246 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Paid Supermodels 

message: Is NOT a supermodel. She is more of an actor. Her modeling credits are average compared to real supermodels like Kate Moss. Lil Flip246 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Hurley 

message: I came across this page when cleaning up some related articles. I'd like to contribute to this page or help copyedit and wikify, but am finding it extremely difficult to do so because of the lack of clear criteria within the article itself. The introductory body of the article obstensively provides objective criteria (i.e.: which kinds of magazines supermodels do and do not appear in; salary; area of work; etc.). However, it appears that past edits have employed an equally arbitrary set of criteria as well and the article itself contains a lot of subjective criteria (i.e.: "Supermodels are household names"; are "globally famous"; etc.). The article itself is replete with weasel-words: "claim to"; "people consider"; "many suggest". There are also numerous statements of fact with no verification or sources: "The supermodel era ended around 1997" and "Supermodels are, almost by definition, sex symbols". The section on the "trinity" perplexes me as it is without indication of how these facts are so, and whether the importance of the era was a trio or quintet of models. Frankly, I have no idea by what standards to include or not include information. It does not help that the revision history is full of value-loaded statements and debate rather than a summary of what actual edit occurred. It appears that the principles of WP:OWN are not being followed. Agent 86 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every1 in the fashion industry knows who the Trinity is. Ask any1 in the fashion industry!! Lil Flip246 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad that someone else sees this Agent 86. In my opinion the article is a travesty at present and there are many things that need to change, but so far no one has been willing to that the time that would be needed to override the prevailing current and clean this article up. There has been little dialogue and seemingly no willingness for team spirit or cooperation here. I, for one am willing to give some focus if we can get several others to do so as well. All the trivia section needs to go, either incorporated in the article body or placed in the individual models articles as it has been decided as a guideline that all "trivia" is un-encyclopaedic. Doc 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Trivia is 'out' per the MOS for Wikipedia. They have been deemed un-encyclopaedic and all Trivia sections will, in time be removed from Wikipedia. The recommendation is to incorporate the material into the article if it is considered important. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are other views than yours and you need to realize that many editors will work with this and it would be good if your energy could be used productively by working with folks here on the talk page and reading more guidelines in MOS to follow standard practices. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am also a member at FashionSpot and it is no more a good source than any other wiki as it is also open source. There is a lot that you can learn there but it is not a credible reference for an article here. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, you have no idea who else is here and who may know more than you, Lil Flip, hard as that may be to believe. You give nothing about yourself or your background on your user page and you expect others to take your 'word' for it as to what is truth? and to 'trust' you? and that you have "more knowledge of the fashion industry than any1 here"? I think not. Doc 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:Reliable sources and WP:V.  For example, one of your "sources" is an answers.com article, which is simply a reproduction of a wikipedia article. I also recommend that you read WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. Please provide some objective standards within the article so that the inclusion or exclusion of information is clear, and use the "Show Preview" button.  Agent 86 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that anyone here is 'bothered' by it, sources are necessary for a reliable encyclopaedia. They should not however be inline within the artice. For the article to ever be considered serously for a fine article here they need to be again in a standard wiki section.Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: answers.com is another wiki, much of it taken for Wikipedia, so that is not a good source. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Other articles don't count as a source. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an opinion. A good place for you to start is reading more MOS and following standard formats. Doc 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: I've started some page clean-up. I've removed the clearly unacceptable sources, fashion spot and info.com. That is not to say I endorse all of the ones that remain, but I have created a standard References section for the main article and will continue to work on this in addition to finding some more acceptable sources. Doc 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I will slowly be dividing the 80s and 90s. So the 80s supermodels will have their section, same with the 90s. Lil Flip246 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: * Some supermodels now host reality TV shows, including Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, Tricia Helfer, Jerry Hall, Mini Anden, and Janice Dickinson.
* In 2003, VH1's "All Access:Access Hollywood Top 10 Supermodels", named the top 10 sexiest supermodels. In descending order, Heidi Klum, Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Karolina Kurkova, Molly Sims, Eva Herzigova, Carolyn Murphy, Daniela Pestova, and Adriana Lima. 
* In 2005, VH1's The Fabulous Life of Today's Hottest Supermodels, named their top 5 supermodels alive. Not listed in order, the supermodels were Adriana Lima, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Heidi Klum, and Gisele. 
* Niki Taylor, Karolina Kurkova, and Brooke Shields are the youngest models to appear on the cover of Vogue magazine. Niki and Karolina were 17, while Brooke was 14. 
*Claudia Schiffer holds the record with over 900 magazine covers. Cindy Crawford has graced over 600; Naomi Campbell has posed for over 400; Kate Moss over 300; Lisa Fonssagrives over 200; Niki Taylor over 200; Beverly Peele over 250 covers; Christy Turlington over 500; Stephanie Seymour over 300; Yasmin Le Bon over 200;  Tatjana Patitz over 130; Renee Simonsen  over 300; Laetitia Casta over 100; Suzanne Lanza  over 80.  
*Pin-up models like Caprice Bourret, Pamela Anderson, Carmen Electra are not considered supermodels. These women are featured in men's magazines, and are not fashion models.
*In 2005 British Television's Channel 5 aired a program called "The World's Greatest Supermodel". First place went to Kate Moss, followed by Gisele Bündchen, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, and Claudia Schiffer.  
*In 2006, FHM Magazine's "Sexiest Women" Poll, the following supermodels received spots: Adriana Lima (#27), Alessandra Ambrosio (#56), and Gisele Bündchen (#84). 
*In 2006, E!'s "101 Sexiest Celebrity Bodies" included supermodels Gisele Bündchen (#22), Laetitia Casta (#29), Milla Jovovich (#57), and Tyra Banks (#60). 
*When Cindy Crawford came out, she was dubbed "Baby Gia", because of her resemblance to supermodel Gia Carangi. When Niki Taylor came to the fashion industry, she was dubbed "Baby Cindy".
*Devon Aoki is the world's shortest supermodel at 5'6". 
* Isabeli Fontana became the youngest model ever featured in the Victoria's Secret Catalog at age sixteen. It created a controversy because the label had announced publicly before that they would never use any model below the age of twenty one. 
Please feel free to incorporate any of this information you consider encyclopaedic into the body of the article, but as a section called Trivia it is not by definition encyclopaedic. Doc 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should include all of these because they show how much of an impact supermodels have in pop culture. We should Really KEEP the magazine covers. I personally worked on that. I searched fashion model directory and counted how many magazine covers the supermodels had. I also went to their official websites to count. I update the number if it increases alot. I currently working on Tyra's magazine cover numbers. Lil Flip246 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trivia" has no place in the article, unless it is information that can be incorporated into other topics. The "Firsts" and "Highest paid" also seem to be trivia, but under another name. Agent 86 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree the "Firsts" and "Highest paid" need to be rethought too, but the "Trivia" by name was the best place to start and by putting it here, it makes it easy for someone to pick what might be worthy of article inclusion. As you can see I had posted this before and nothing happened so this was a way to start. For that matter there are way too many names listed as well and perhaps there should be a list for the 1980s 1990s etc which is linked from this page. The article is very confusing and needs a lot of work. Doc 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The highest paid and firsts needs to stay. They are important facts of the fashion industry. For example the first black model on the cover of U.S. Vogue was Beverly Johnson. The highest paid is important because it shows the highest paid supermodels every year. Lil Flip246 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if you believe it is important incorporate it into the appropriate sections of the article. Saying it "needs to stay" is not a reason and doesn't cut it. Perhaps who was highest paid each year is not important here. Giving an idea of how that amount has changed over time is one thing and perhaps who is the highest to date is important. The rest can be on the articles of the individuals. Doc 01:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I slightly agree that the trivia posted above is pointless. But I think if we are to remove it, we should keep the magazine covers. Because it shows which supermodels have the most magazine covers. But it is unnecessary to remove firsts and highest paid. Lil Flip246 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: The important facts can stay, as I said above incorporated into a paragraph, it's the lists that should go. This should be an encylopaedia aritcle where someone can quickly get an overview and understand what a supermodel is and is not. It should not be a disertation on supermodels. It's not a contest, first of all. While the number of covers is an indicator it shouldn't be given such heavy significance. For instance, I have no idea how may covers Lisa F did, but her Vogue covers alone were over 200 and there were many for other magazines too including Time magazine. The supermodel article should touch the highlights and give a good understanding of the subject, but not try to be a definitive book on the subject or you will lose most readers. Doc 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slowly gonna work to make the Firsts and History into paragraphs. But I will need help. Can you guys please help me form them into paragraphs?Lil Flip246 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure others will help. I'm working on a number of projects right now, but I'll keep an eye and try to help too. Just remember to pick the most important facts, don't try to include everything. Doc 01:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made the highest paid supermodels paragraph. It seems a little too sloppy. Please help me improve on the article. So feel free to edit it. What do you think of it so far?? Lil Flip246 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. I've reworkes this a bit, keeping what I think are the most important facts, but parring down a bit. Add an item or two if you really think they are important enough, this is just a start. Keep up the good work. Doc 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't agree. You asked for help improving your paragraph. Two editors worked with your wording and the important information. Then you just go and override all of that and put all the information back in with just a new form - a chart. That much information is not important to the article, in my opinion. If you feel strongly about something such as that when you have worked with two other editors, don't just change ships mid stream, but post the idea here on the talk page and wait a day or two to get consensus. Doc 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. But I thought it was best to put it into a chart. I feel that it best represents it. I was inspired by the charts on the America's Next Top Model page. I hope you understand. It's just better to represent it that way. Lil Flip246 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that I understand, but I don't believe that you do. It is very bad form to rv back to your chart without awaiting more discussion here. I will rv one more time and I would suggest that you wait for consensus here before adding the chart again. This is not your page, there needs to be agreement by several editors that are now participating. I hope that you understand that. Doc 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your inspiration. That does not make it right here. First and foremost, even if it were complete, which it is not, I don't believe all those figures are necessary for every year. Second if you are going to use dollar amounts you must indicate that they are US dollars if indeed they are in all cases. Lastly there had been agreement on a paragraph. You wrote it, you asked for help, two other editors worked on that paragraph, then you just dis the whole thing and go another direction without any discussion. That just won't fly. Doc 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for the sudden rush. I was not aware that you took so much time to edit it. I hope you forgive me. But I do believe this chart is the best choice. I am not going to include every year, because the list I believe started only in the 90s. So it won't be filled with every year. Please, I hope you see that this is the best way to represent the data. Please!! Lil Flip246 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the chart is the best choice. I am more that willing to accept consensus if several other editors agree that the chart is the best. At the very least you need to allow a day or two for the other editor of the paragraph, Agent 86, to express his view. It is not that I spent 'that' much time on the paragraph, but I did drop other things as you did seem to for the first time be seeking cooperation, and I did give some careful consideration to the fact to include. Again this article should define and give an overview of what a supermodel is. It still has way too much information for that and needs some serious paring down. It should be clear, consise and not give more information than is needed. Doc 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This chart is the best way to represent it. Don't you think so too?? Lil Flip246 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Did you not read what I just wrote? Doc 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just don't think that we need the highest 5 from many years. The chart above is confused and uses conflicting figures from different sources, Forbes vs. Brazilian figures. Doc 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think a chart will be useful. It best represents the data. Lil Flip246 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what has already been said above and your question was already answered: maybe some chart, but only in addition to the paragraph and not the chart as it is already done. Please don't put up anything more on the chart until we can reach consensus here on the the talk page Doc 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest paid

message: How should I fix the firsts??Lil Flip246 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let me think on this one a bit, but again, I don't think all of that is necessary. Only the highlights or most important facts are important to an article in an encyclopaedia. This is not a book on supermodels. Doc 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firsts

message: Edits made by Iperlchen were reverted with the edit summary, "Removed vandilism of unknown names". There is no evidence to indicate that the editors who added these names were acting in bad faith. This only highlights the current problems with this article. It is far too subjective and editors (including myself) have no idea who does and does not qualify as a "supermodel". Agent 86 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwarranted allegation of vandalism

message: Fantastic job Agent 86, big improvement. Doc 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New edits

message: I've reverted Lil Flips changes on pay as they seem to waffle. We need to get an accurate differential. If they can begin at anything, as he said in the edit summary, then that negates the whole point of a higher minimum. Doc 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Average models don't get paid $10 000 a day.. That's what seperates average models from supermodels. Linda Evangelista's famous quote is, "I don't get up for less than $10 000 a day." Lil Flip246 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the supermodel payment sentence, with a reliable source. Lil Flip246 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No professional model gets paid as little as $25 an hour today. Doc 03:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But professional models don't get paid 10 000 a day either. Lil Flip246 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the point, you were misquoting the reference that you gave and made it sound like a direct current comparison. Doc 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supermodels pay

message: Why was this section removed?? It shows how the supermodel lifestyle isn't always glamourous. Lil Flip246 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not remove it, but if you would read the edit summary you would see why it was removed. Doc 03:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Side 

message: Please, stop adding things back to the article when another editor has removed them without discussing it here first. We do not need examples of each decade, particularly of the post supermodel period. Please follow the suggestions that have been made before you edit more Doc 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000s post supermodels

message: An editor has proposed that Highest Paid Supermodels be merged into Supermodel; however, no reason has been provided on this talk page (I've invited the editor to do so). Normally it's pretty self-apparent why there should be a merge. In this case, there has been a lot of discussion of what belongs in the supermodel article and what does not. The list of highest paid was removed during these discussions and revisions. 
Thinking of it, it strikes me that a list of highest paid models is too subjective and adds nothing to this article. I even doubt it merits its own article:
#There is the fact that who is or is not a supermodel is highly subjective (a topic well canvassed on this talk page). That brings into issue whether or not a list of highest paid models wouldn't be too subjective (especially if List of supermodels is deleted as a result of the current AfD. If one cannot have an objective list, it follows that a list of highest paid is also subjective. 
#What constitutes income for the purposes of highest paid is also subjective. Do you count all income from entertainment sources? Which currency is being measured? How much income is paid directly to the model?
#The Highest Paid Supermodels is, but for one table, merely a collection of links. But for the table, the article could probably be speedy deleted.
#Even if the list is from a "reputable" source (i.e. I believe a past incarnation on the supermodel article cited Forbes. Forbes (and other mags) can fix whatever criteria they want, it still isn't definitive. What if Forbes creates a list using one set of criteria, and People uses another? Which prevails? There are also a whole lot of other issues of picking one mag and using their list as the basis of an article/list, such as copyright. Another is that I think there is a definitive trend of there not being articles or lists of "top" anything unless it is a definitive list made using a specific objective set of criteria (i.e. Billboard top 100 lists come to mind). Agent 86 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: I am finding the ongoing "corrections" of the spelling of "glamourous" to be amusing, given the bigger issues that have been dealt with on this page. If anyone is interested, "glamourous" and "glamorous" are both equally correct spellings of the word. Most dictionaries I've checked show this. Out of laziness, I'll just provide a link to the entry on dictionary.com. Let's not get into an edit war on that point! Agent 86 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, knew the original one was correct, thought that the other might also be correct and was too lazy to check. Doc 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Glamourous" and "glamorous" - dahlings, you look fabulous!

message: I found these useful articles...
From The Daily
Donatella's Bold New Era: Testino and supes reunite for Versace's fall/winter ads 
Images from Versace's fall/winter campaign
www.fashionweekdaily.com
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
(NEW YORK) A fabulous trio of supermodels from yesteryear meet their modern day counterparts as Christy Turlington, Carolyn Murphy, and Kate Moss converge with Daria Werbowy and Angela Lindvall for the fall/winter Versace advertising campaign. Here, The Daily gets a first look at the campaign in its entirety.
Foregoing the celebrity path of the past three seasons, which starred Halle Berry, Demi Moore, and Madonna, respectively, Donatella Versace has decided to recapture the spirit of the supermodels—a path not visited with significance since the fall 1994 campaign, when Richard Avedon lavishly captured Nadja Auermann, Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Stephanie Seymour, and the aforementioned Turlington, surrounded by five naked men that served as “props.”
“I started my career working with the Versaces and it had been years since I had seen Donatella,” Turlington said. “It was great to spend a day catching up with old friends and familiar faces. Shooting the campaign was definitely much more fun than work.” The ever-elusive Kate Moss added, “It was great to see faces I haven’t seen for a while. We have all grown up and had children, so there was a lovely family atmosphere on set, with all our kids coming and going.”
“It was time to do something different,” Versace said. “People are really looking at the ‘super’ models again today—how they dress—both casually and on the red carpet, where they socialize, how they live. They are glamorous and they lead glamorous lives. Many are married to rock stars or to actors. Created by Versace in the early 90s, the supermodel phenomenon has recaptured the media’s attention completely.”
Styled by Brana Wolf, the four images selected to run in books were taken in a studio in New York by frequent Versace lensman Mario Testino at the end of April, just days before the Costume Institute Gala, which Versace and several of the campaign models subsequently attended. "There was a great vibe in the studio and everyone was really relaxed," Wolf said. "This collection and campaign was a sort of tribute by Donatella to Gianni [Versace] so it felt appropriate to be shot this way."
The company plans to run the images in select fashion and lifestyle magazines beginning in September. While Versace declined to reveal her women’s ad budget, it is said to be on par with seasons past, if not a tad higher due to the increased size of talent. 
Stripped of the excess of the past, and with a noticeably diminished focus on the background atmosphere, Versace is paring it down and casting the light on the designs themselves. “It’s taking it back to the glamour moment without it being too ornate,” said a company spokeswoman. “Everything is still sexy, but simplified and more focused.”
Indeed, gone are the often garish gold Medusa heads and Baroque elements that sometimes overpowered campaigns from the late 80s and early 90s. Instead, Versace’s glamour girls of today are clad in simple, almost sedate, monochromatic outfits that barely register the superfluity of Versace’s past. About the only indication that this new Versace woman likes to take a walk on the wild wide every now and then is through her hair, which has been professionally teased to maximize its effect. 
In one shot, all five models are wearing tan dresses accessorized only with Versace watches and heels and boots. Turlington has on a one-shoulder cocktail dress, which retails for $1,624, while Werbowy poses in a $1,595 Twiggy-inspired pocket a-line dress. Two images feature the group of models clad in all black ensembles—one with accessories. In that photograph, Moss is holding a $2,080 mini Club clutch. Murphy is shown wearing a black patent leather trench coat that retails for $4,431.
Throughout the campaign, the models are accessorized with four styles of footwear: a black patent leather décolleté heel ($845); a black patent leather décolleté with slanting closure ($740); slip-in ankle boot in patent leather with cross sewing and mirrored heel ($1,077), and motorcycle knee-high patent leather boots ($1,840). All are wearing Versace leggings, which retail for $652.50. In the one shot with a focus on sunglasses, the two models wear $340 black sunglasses with signature Versace silver logo on the temple.
“It’s great to see celebrities in ads, but this return to a selection of top models demonstrates a different element of strength and diversity,” said Lindvall. “Donatella loves what she does and does it well.”
JIM SHI
Source: http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f96/truth-about-return-supermodel-6369-2.html
Designers return to supermodels after celebrity flops
By Rachel Dodes And Cheryl Lu-lien Tan | The Wall Street Journal
ASSOCIATED PRESS
07/26/2006
Italian fashion house Versace SpA is practically synonymous with celebrity ads: In 1995, Prince appeared with the word "Slave" scrawled across his face. Last year, Demi Moore lounged in a cleavage-baring halter dress; Madonna perched on a glass desk in a tight taupe shirtdress.
For fall, in a move likely to be widely watched in the fashion hothouse, Versace is planning another provocative advertising move: using professional models.
But not just any models.
Christy Turlington, Kate Moss and Carolyn Murphy will grace the new Versace ads in September issues of Vogue, Harper's Bazaar and Elle, wearing minidresses, A-line coats, black leggings and patent-leather boots. "This is a new angle for today," says Donatella Versace, creative director of the fashion house, who says she wants to draw attention to her creations, rather than to the celebrities who wear them.
Louis Vuitton, owned by LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, is also returning to supermodels, after relying on actresses Jennifer Lopez, Christina Ricci, Scarlett Johansson and Uma Thurman in recent years. Gisele Bundchen stars in its spring ad campaign; Ms. Moss, Naomi Campbell and relative newcomer Daria Werbowy appear in the fall campaign, which launches this month.
The change is also evident at Vogue, where the August cover features a pregnant Linda Evangelista, the first model to appear on the cover after 14 straight months of celebrities.
The pendulum's swing back to models reflects what some fashion marketers are calling "celebrity fatigue": A-list entertainers are so overexposed that "there is a major lack of trust," says Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a New York consulting firm.
It also underscores the tension between serious fashion magazines and celebrity books like People, USWeekly, Star and InStyle that increasingly feature pages of head-to-toe red carpet shots of celebrities sporting designer fashions.
"Ten years ago, having a celebrity in your ad would class it up," says Robert Thompson, founding director at Syracuse University's Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture. "Now, there's something cheesy about it. ... There are so many celebrities on so many magazines all the time."
The return of the supermodel also follows some celebrity-ad bellyflops. This summer's multimillion-dollar campaign for St. John Knits Inc. starring Angelina Jolie hasn't plumped up the brand's sales and may even have alienated core customers, marketing experts say. Officials at the company weren't available for comment. Gap Inc.'s three-season contract with Sarah Jessica Parker, which started in 2004, seemed like a smart move at first, but by the time the campaign's third season rolled around, the series "Sex and the City" had ended, and consumers grew tired of the ads. A Gap spokeswoman declined to comment.
Of course, Ms. Moss, Ms. Evangelista and other supermodels are celebrities in their own right -- a fact not lost on Nikon Corp., which chose Ms. Moss for its digital-camera ads precisely because of "all the buzz that comes along with being Kate," according to Danielle Korn, an executive vice president at Interpublic Group's McCann Erickson, New York, which produced the ads. Tabloid newspapers chronicled Ms. Moss's recent drug problems, which led to the cancellation of the 32-year-old model's contracts with Hennes & Mauritz AB's H&M stores and Chanel SA. (Burberry PLC cancelled its fall 2005 campaign with Ms. Moss by mutual agreement. But it is using her again for fall 2006.)
Still, style experts say that models may convey more fashion gravitas and sophistication than screen actresses. "They're specifically related to fashion," says Sally Singer, fashion news features director at Vogue, which mostly used models on its cover until 2000, when the magazine started featuring mostly actresses, partly because readers were identifying with celebrities more.
Others see an unmistakable climate change. "We're seeing a return to the focus on the product rather than just the image," says David Wolfe, a New York fashion consultant and creative director of the Doneger Group. "People have decided that when they buy the image they are not really getting anything."
The shift back to models also involves practical considerations. A new model may make as little as $5,000 to $10,000 a day, industry executive say. Supermodels can get $1 million for two campaigns -- spring and fall -- for the same client in a year. Actresses, as a rule, can command several million dollars for a single campaign. Celebrities often demand more creative control and are difficult to schedule, since they are often juggling movie shoots or tours.
The new Versace campaign, completed in two days and shot by the fashion photographer Mario Testino, cost around $500,000 to produce, the company says. (For Versace, that actually exceeded the cost of some of its recent campaigns featuring Madonna, Ms. Moore, Halle Berry and other "friends of the house," who posed for nominal fees, free clothes or charitable contributions.)
Models can also be easier to work with, says Ivan Bart, senior vice president of IMG Models, which represents actresses and models such as Carolyn Murphy, Kate Moss and Shalom Harlow. "They're professionally trained to be photographed incredibly well," he says. "They know which camera angles work."
And models are also more timeless. "People are getting afraid that actors are only as hot as their last movie or TV show," says Faith Kates, founder of Next Model Management, New York, who expects her firm to see a 15 percent to 20 percent increase in revenue this year as a result of supermodels' return. Besides, shes adds, "models don't show up with an entourage."
Luxury labels, of course, aren't swearing off celebrities cold turkey. Dressing stars for their red-carpet appearances remains a fundamental tactic. The free clothes that fashion houses often lavish on stars help perpetuate the practice. Versace itself frequently dresses actresses, including Jessica Alba, who wore Versace to the Golden Globes and the Oscars this year. The company says it doesn't pay Ms. Alba to wear Versace but does "lend" her clothes.
Interestingly, the fashion industry has shied away from models for so long that advertisers seeking a well-known face have to go back to supermodels like Ms. Turlington (age 37) or Ms. Campbell (age 36) or Ms. Moss (32), says Sean Patterson, president of Wilhelmina Models, New York. "The industry hasn't allowed a new set of supermodels to be created," he says.
One exception is the 22-year old Ms. Werbowy, who is set to appear in coming Versace ads. She was born in Krakow, Poland, and lived in Ukraine before moving to a Toronto suburb when she was 3. Still, while she may be famous within the industry, Mr. Patterson says, "if you went to a mall in the middle of America, nobody would know who she was."
Meanwhile, as those in media and advertising search for the next fresh face, one publication has gone an intriguing route. Elle magazine last month featured an interesting choice of model in a fashion spread: Isabel Dupre, its very own style director.
Same source.
Maybe these articles can be useful for this article at wikipedia. Lil Flip246 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Return of The Supermodel?? 

message: Please don't spam this page with all of this material. That is not the purpose of this page. It is for original sharing between editors. Occasionally give a link, but not this volume of clutter. Those that are interested will find their own searches. It is not pertinent to the discussion of a short general page on supermodels. This is not a blog! Doc 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought I would share some useful articles. :( Lil Flip246 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your intent may have been good, but it is not useful to this article. Secondly you continue to not follow form, use edit summaries and if you will read more of the guidelines you will see that this is not a proper use of the talk page. It has taken a huge amount of space for what is little more that spam for the topic at hand. Doc 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought the article would be useful, because it shows that the industry is interested in supermodels again. Lil Flip246 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One sentence with a link would have done that, but once again, only if it is for a proposed change to the article. Read the header at the top of this page. Again, this is not a blog. Doc 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought it would be useful information. :(Lil Flip246 22:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam

message: We should make a category for supermodels. Supermodels are top models who are famous, highly paid, and have modeled for all the top fashion shows like Prada, appeared in ads for top fashion labels like LV, and have graced the top fashion mags such as Vogue. We should make a category to seperate these top models from regular fashion models like Eva Pigford. Lil Flip246 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermodel Category 

message: There is something wrong with the working definition of "Supermodel", when it does not include the following women:
Elle MacPherson, Kathy Ireland, Rachel Hunter, Christie Brinkley, Cindy Crawford, Frederique, Cheryl Tiegs, Claudia Schiffer, Laetitia Casta, and Petra Nemcova. I could probably name a few more.
These all earn the top dollar, and are famous and recognizable.
Their photos have appeared on thousands and thousands of magazine & newspaper covers and pages.
Perhaps that is the key items that is missing: magazine & newspaper publications of the model.
Perhaps it could even be quantified: for an example, 250 appearances on the cover of a major magazine or newspaper, or in major articles within them, ALSO qualifies one as a "Supermodel". I do not propose deleting the existing definition, but rather, simply to add an additional path to it.
All or most of the abovie models would qualify under this. I have read that Frederique appeared on the cover of Cosmopolitan (alone) 35-45 times. 65.4.23.179 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the header this new topic of discussion has been moved to the end of the page. First off, there is nothing wrong with the working definition if it fails to mention certain persons that my well fit the title. As has been discussed many times the goal is not to be inclusive of all supermodels, but to give representative names. The article has been cut several times because of getting too long and cumbersome. It is not the place of an encyclopaedia article on supermodels to list every possible candidate for the title, which by its very nature is subjective. Doc ♬ talk 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this whole article unencyclopedic?  The best you could do is say 'Some people call other people supermodels, and for some reason other people start calling them supermodels too.' MGlosenger 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing important Supermodels

message: Does that second to last section with poor English seem like an advertisement to anyone else (How to become a supermodel?)? It links to one French site 64.253.97.182 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem appropriate to me and I have reverted it a couple of times now. This is not a "how to" book. I have asked that it be discussed her before being added again. If it is added without discussion again, I'd suggest rv it. Doc ♬ talk 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This article describes what / who is a supermodel, not how to become a fashion model.  Some of the points of "How to become a supermodel" are already mentioned in the fashion model article. Roaming27 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second to last section 

message: The beginnings of Supermodels 
Many stories speak about models being discovered in discos ( Schiffer)on fruit market (Vodianova) or on some beach (Casta). Mostly they are inventions to add some wonderful part to a gold tale of modeling ... In real life models contact a scout or a new face responsible from a local agency or nowadays , via internet to be scouted by organization specialized in scouting and managing models worldwide (model management). Then the aspiring models are shot without make up (it s still called polaroids) to judge their photogenics, measure ( no use trying to model if you are not at least 1,75 for commercials and 1,78 for fashion shows, for women, and at least 1,82 for men)and send later on to do one or two test shoots. 
Then they start to do some work locally to learn their job or sent to Asia to gain experience and start to collect money, before starting in Europe (Paris, Milano, London)as "new faces" during the fashion shows season.
Generally it takes at least one year to get some exposure, and make covers or opening of shows, sometimes more. Even for topmodels !
Evangelista ( five years in the middle of the armies of unknown models), Vodianova (four), Turlington (Three)...
To get information about how to start as a model, good blog and useful advices on become a model blogfor beginners.Also an interesting annual guide book published by the model union in France with all applicable laws( guide des metiers du spectacle).
:That's all fine and good, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a "how to" book. The article on supermodels is to define "what" a supermodel is. Not how to become one. Unless some consensus is gained here to add this section, please do not add it again to the article. So far everyone that has posted in the above section is opposed to it. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to become a Supermodel ?