Talk:IMG Models

Alphabetical order

Please add new names in alphabetical order and follow the column format. If you don't know how to do that add the names here and someone will put them in order. They were in perfect order in April, now they're a mess again. I'll put them back in order later if it hasn't been done, but please maintain it. Doc 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please once again this list was a shambles. If you are alphabetically challenged, put the name on a list here on the talk page and someone else will add the name, don't put it out of order on the namespace page. Thanks. Doc 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Info

Shouldnt the page be about the agency itself rather than a list of models, I came here to find out if IMG repersents male and female models, it would seem not but the page doesnt say this, and this is one of the most important things to say --89.101.188.42 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right! Thanks for the suggestion! --Catgut (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on IMG Models. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117033050/http://img.com/news/news/2012/september/img-models-launches-men%E2%80%99s-division.aspx to http://img.com/news/news/2012/september/img-models-launches-men%E2%80%99s-division.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler

Maddie Ziegler belongs on the list of IMG models. She signed with IMG in 2017 See this. She continues to be represented by the agency Maddie Ziegler's profile at IMG. She was a speaker at the IMG Academy Fashion Camp in 2018. video. Somambulant1 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

She’s represented in the Talent department, not the Women or even Women Development. Trillfendi (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Somnambulant. Ziegler joined IMG two years ago, as mentioned in numerous articles, including this one, which mention her as a model, not in any other capacity. This is clearly Ziegler's IMG modelling portfolio. What you say, Trillfendi, appears to be WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Show me where you see her on this board. Where the models are. I’ll wait. And it’s not the one with Millie Bobby Brown, the Sprouse twins, Gal Gadot, Ciara, Sienna Milelr, Wiz Khalifa, and Paris Jackson which can be found here. (Oh look) All public too. Just takes the muscular ability to type imgmodels.com then click Talent. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And since 2014, she’s only done 6 modeling related jobs. You call that a modeling career? She’s not even on the development board ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with User:Somambulant1 and User:Ssilvers. Miss Ziegler's IMG modelling portfolio that Ssilvers mentioned shows that she is an IMG fashion model, and the Hollywood Reporter article so treats her. Of even greater importance, however, is that you do not revert, as you are currently involved in this content dispute. That is called edit warring, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia. Unless you are successful on this Talk page in building a new consensus for your preferred content, then I am afraid that you must leave the status quo alone. Otherwise, you will be in jeopardy of losing your editing privileges. For more information about this, please read WP:EDIT WAR. UWS Guy (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What part of "her portfolio is not in the modeling department" do you not get? What’s so difficult about that. Zachary Quinto has a "portfolio". Is he a model now? Is he even in the men’s division? No. The distinction between the talent board and modeling board is as clear as night and day. People who know fashion know what a board is. When editors left this article for dust in the AfD who was it who decided to bring it back to life? WITH NO HELP at that. So miss me with the "losing your editing privileges" drivel because I’m the one single handedly keeping modeling content alive daily, let alone that I wrote multiple articles listed here including the article itself. Trillfendi (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So far, you have not persuaded anyone. Please review WP:OWN. Perhaps, given your combativeness and the lack of references for all the models in the list, it would be better to delete the content of the article and merge it back to the main IMG article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And how logical would it be to relegate the "biggest modeling agency in the world" to 3 worthless sentences that do nothing to encyclopedically describe the company? Should the same be done to Ford, Women, Next, Elite, Select, Why Not, VIVA, MP? 21,000 people have visited this page in the past month. The problem is, there are editors think grouping them all in an unreliable source is enough for an entire list, so leaving it bare is sometimes best. If people are so interested, their articles are hyperlinked. So all this "criticism" yet you haven’t contributed to the page. But it’s the people who know zilch about fashion or modeling who want to have the most opinions on how articles should be. Weird. Trillfendi (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Poor grammar and referencing

This article is filled with poor grammar. Also, no reliable source is given for the list of models. Some of the information is presented as gossip, with words like "notoriously". I would be willing to copy edit the article if Trillfendi fixes the referencing problems. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s almost as if you read the source it explains why it was “notorious” in that the agency’s owner publicly lashed out at her for leaving. Reading is fundamental. So fix the grammar issues, Wordsworth. I don’t own the article, do I? Trillfendi (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to quote gossip, use quotation marks. Learning how to contribute to Wikipedia is fundamental. OK, I'll do a quick grammar edit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, done. By the way, the article did *not* use the word "notorious", and after reading it, I think the article would be appropriate in Gisele's WP entry, but is tangential and distracting here. As the article itself noted, Gisele has experienced less drama than many other models; and it is obvious that models join a new modeling agency because they prefer it to their old agency, so the statements made about the move were not WP:NOTEWORTHY. Stick to the IMG Models story. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it was blasted all over the tabloids that Gisele was a “monster of selfishness” in an attempt to defame her glowing professional reputation was an act of notoriety. Maybe use context clues. I don’t copy and paste from sources because that’s against the rules. It was advantageous to IMG Models as a company to sign her, giving them the clout they have to this day. But this is what typically happens: I write an article about a notable subject, as I’ve done over 125 times yet; then a man comes along and decides my contributions and time spent bringing the article into fruition are expendable, of course while offering absolutely nothing substantive to an article they otherwise had no remote interest in before they decided gang up on little ol’ me, the one who did the work. While maintaining their unyielding ignorance of the most elementary aspects of the subject of fashion and/or modeling. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birgit Kos, a model I’m sure you have no idea exists, is a recent example of that. All that’s offered is pointless critiques and trying to me what the hell to do. No one else, except users VSHAUTE and maybe user Maxen Embry (but he’s new to the site) have consistently put forth the effort or have even had the initiative required to keep fashion- or modeling-related articles in shape and up to date. I’m not taking orders from someone whose only “contributions” to the article has been arguing over a dancer and being officious about a typo. If refs are so important to you then you can spend your free time adding them. Trillfendi (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)