This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Sorry, I've reverted this crap. Of course body size is highly relevant to a model. Bra and cup is irrelevant unless you are talking about a glamour model. I suggest that people stop getting offended, it's as relevant as the weight of a boxer or the height of a basketball player. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to discussion. I really disagree with this removal, however I am willing to listen to an outside opinion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see that people are happy to revert, without bothering to touch the talk page. Take a wild fucking guess what the "D" in BRD stands for. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. There's clear consensus in this discussion for removing the measurements parameter—do you have any reasoning for why it should be restored despite the arguments above for its removal? —Granger (talk·contribs) 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read BRD? Per BRD § Discuss, the "discuss" component is on you. This has already been discussed extensively last month; there was no need for someone to rehash it for you before reverting your condescendingly-summarized edits. If you take the time to read the points made here, you'll see that there were many reasons motivating this change; this isn't simply about people being offended. I'd like to point out that people's heights don't change much throughout their lives, and boxers' weights are officially measured and used to determine what competitions they may enter. Rebbing 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the condescending manner, in which you suggested that I was condescending. It made me smile. I agree, heights don't change much over life and are even less likely to change mid-sporting career. Weights do, as you stated they affect the ability to compete (ie. work) in certain competitions. Weight/body shape are perhaps the most defining factor in a model's ability to work. With the debate on skinny/chubby models that the media is currently obsessed with, there are 1000s of notable media sources discussing the size of certain models, why is that not notable or relevant? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above involved eight editors and covered several issues. Any chance of engaging with those issues? For example, the comment at "If an encyclopedic purpose is served..." covers your concern. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I will try to put something a little more constructive that can be addressed more easily. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being condescending. You came here and called our consensus "crap," told us to "stop getting offended," and made some other rather uncivil and profane comments. These actions are all clearly forbidden by our civility policy. But I don't want to argue about your behavior.
On the merits, I agree that a model's shape is significant in his or her work, but, unlike a wrestler's weight, a model's shape is evaluated subjectively: a wrestler's class is determined solely by the weight shown on a scale, whereas a model's work opportunities are determined by a subjective assessment of her shape and appearance. Rebbing 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And from an entirely practical perspective, while we have a reliable source for wrestler's weights – if they are fighting at < 61 kg, it's fairly safe to say that they weigh between 57 and 61 kg – it's much harder to find reliable sources which tell us a model's waist (or shoe!) size. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this talk page is concerned with templates first, and specific articles second but... what are the general opinions, standards about putting notable measurements within the article? If a model was known for a tiny waist, huge boobs, or whatever...if there was a reliable source with the measurements, are these stats given within the actual body of the article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think if it needs to be done, it should be sourced a secondary source interpreting the numbers (hopefully more New York Times than FHM) because the meaning of measurements themselves won't be obvious to many readers, and, per WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, we can't interpret them ourselves. (The implications of Subject is a 34-25.5-36" is going to be lost on most, but Subject was known for her narrow waistline with a cite to a primary source that gave her measurements would be original research.) That said, Cindy Crawford just gives her raw measurements in a paragraph about her image:
Crawford is 5 feet 9 inches (175 cm) tall with brown hair and eyes. Her measurements are 34–25.5–36". Crawford's trademark is a mole (or "beauty mark") above her upper lip. She is so closely associated with this physical feature that . . . . — Cindy Crawford § Career (refs omitted)
However, my gut feeling is that it's probably best left out unless there's been widespread mainstream commentary about it: we don't need to find an encyclopedic way to tell the reader that someone's sexy. Often, mentioning such things is simply going to be graceless: for instance, pornographic actor Peter North is widely known for his off-the-charts seminal volume and thickness, but his article doesn't mention that anywhere because it wouldn't be appropriate. To whatever extent it's actually relevant, a well-chosen picture will get across the idea more convincingly and with less controversy. Cf.Brooke Burns; but seeTori Black (where the article states in the lead that Black "was named by Loaded magazine as the most facially attractive female performer in the industry"). Rebbing 13:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
