Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show

2010 model

Victoria's Secret Show 2010 at Models.com--Anen87 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

List

The following sources are discrepant for the 2006 and 2007 shows

2006: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926417/ vs. http://vsholic.com/gallery/2006/

2007: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179303/ vs. http://vsholic.com/gallery/2007/

IMDB includes Felita Franks in 2007 and it includes Heidi Klum and Thalita de Oliveira in 2006. There is an IP that keeps removing them from this page and from the Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been reverted again and reverted that reversion. Here are my reasons:

1. The names are in IMDB.com
2. VSholic does not claim to be a complete listing of models
3. Other pictorial sources used in this article are incomplete. See the 2008 source which had pictures of all non-angels except Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.
4. It is my belief that if source A say X, Y and Z were there and source B says W, X, and Y were there, it is likely that W, X, Y, and Z were there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For all shows 1999 to present I am going to revert to the sourced listings. Not sure what to do about pre-1999 shows.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

please don't make me laugh! Why do you think IMDB.com has to be 100% correct? Check out for a so-called "Felita Franks" in the internet and you will soon realize this was a joke made by IMDB, because this person doesn't even exist. What about U watching the show, instead of relying on a website? PS: Fansites like VSholic, who are dedicated to topic "Victoria's Secret", are more reliable than IMDB.com. That's what a fansite is good for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.194 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy vio

• I am not aware of what wikipedia policy I am violating by including references such as http://vsholic.com/gallery/2000/ in the article. Please educate me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that the references are to pictures with captioned names that provide sourcing for the content of this article. We are not referencing prose of a fansite. For this use a fansite is admissible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the story about the Asians go, you make one argument that we can have content without references because they are not likely to be challenged and then say you are removing this fact because it has no reliable source after removing both sources. Yes http://www.fashionologie.com/2509477 is a very low level source and would not pass muster on a WP:RS evaluation. However, she knows more about fashion than most WP readers and in lieu of anything else, I do not see why her reference must be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I find it somewhat disturbing that you can readily admit these refs don't pass WP:RS yet you insist on their inclusion. To start off... both vsholic and fashionologie are clearly self-published, with the fansite vsholic claiming no affiliation w/ VS and the blog fashionologie describing itself as "the musings of a twenty-something American girl." For this reason alone, neither should be used. Both also violate Wikipedia's stance on contributory infringement by hosting media/content in violation of others' copyrights; vsholic in particular seems to exist, beyond a forum, solely on hosting copyvios (VS's fashion shows, commercials, photos, etc.), and the galleries the article links to are obviously professional photos likely hosted as copyvios, just like the site's other content. Furthermore on the issue of vsholic, all of its uses as a ref are in support of content that is already sourced, making the vsholic refs unnecessary. In other words: a fansite hosting copyvios used as superfluous references. It couldn't be more obvious that not only should they not be used, but they don't even need to be. I'm half-tempted to think because of this that their inclusion is really just about promoting the site.

As for the part about having no Asians in the show, to quote WP:SPS: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. If no reliable source has commented on the lack of Asians, then it seems it's not worth reporting, and it's unwise for us as editors to insert the touchy issue of racism when no RS source has. As for what requires sources, WP:BURDEN states: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. I personally don't find the simple statement of who was in the show to require extensive sourcing, because it's not what I would challenge, whereas POV statements like the shows have become meetings of the supermodels of the day is clearly challengeable and thus requires a reliable source as a ref.

To close out this long explanation of mine, I'm reverting back to my previous edit based on the policies I've done my best to explain. If you want to change it back, please provide actual arguments based on Wiki policies, not this "it's interesting" or "an unreliable source is better than no source" stuff on my talk. Will I revert it back again? No. I'm not interested in an edit war. I'll just tag the article as a COI due to this insistence on violating WP:RS and what I'm starting to think are ownership issues as well. But if you do start looking for Wiki policies, I'll help you out by assuring you that there is no policy stating "a bad source is okay until a good one is found."  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one other thing. When you do mass reversions, please check next time to make sure you're not undoing copyedits.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are unfamiliar with the content of the article if you fee that all content that vsholic is sourced for is supported by other references. Many of the models are only listed by this fairly comprehensive website. Your contributory infringement argument is an interesing one although I don't see why there is reason to believe that the site did not have a right to take pictures at the shows. Although I am not an expert on the matter, taking pictures of the show and posting them on a website does not seem to be copyright infringement. Screenshots of the show would be a copyright infringement, but personal live photos of a show are not, IMO. WP:RS is relevant for secondary sources. Pictures of the show are primary sources for an effort to enumerate participants.

As far as WP:BURDEN goes, who in their right mind is going to question whether there were any Asians in the show, when we have a complete list participants? It makes no sense that you feel this is a challengeable fact. No one stated racism in the article, just a lack of global represntation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the self-published tag. In terms of fashionlogie, it is a debatable point in which I might side with you in the sense that I would prefer a more reliable source. I do think the vsholic imagebanks are somewhat reliable in this unusual situation. I contest the tag's pertinence to these pages as refs. Yes the article needs better sourcing however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag is applicable to the vsholic refs, as they don't fall under the limited appropriate uses of self-published sources laid out in WP:SPS.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the list is a text that covers examples of appropriate uses and not exhaustive possibilities. I believe that this is a very important and for its purposes credible source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

From the policies that I have come to understand, and review of the arguments stated thus far, I would have to say that I agree with Mbinebri in this particular situation. As s/he stated before, the website, "fashionlogie" is, "the musings of a twenty-something American girl who wishes she could have a Freaky Friday incident and switch bodies with Carine Roitfeld." That just does not constitute what we consider to be a reliable source. As for VSHolic, it's a fan site, and has a history of uploading copyright violated material. I would not support its inclusion here as fair use. Blurpeace (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can show me vsholic's history of uploading copyrighted material, I would concede the argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just take a look at the video, music, and commercial sections; they, at the very least, are blatant copyvios unless you want to somehow make the argument that this fansite managed to lease every VSFS, song, and commercial from VS/CBS. The history is clear.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not sure the image galleies that I am citing are copyvios, I guess ther rest of the stuff you are pointing to is. It is hard to separate things. I had thought they had a photographer at the shows, but maybe all the images are copyvios too. However, I don't understand where they would be sourcing them from. It is just hard to argue about the pictures as a separate case. I sort of have to back down because I have the burden of proving the pictures are not as flagrant a violation as the rest and I can not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to play it safe, and not copy them (they're likely to be copyright violations). --Blurpeace (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Bra?

I think putting which model wore the Fantasy Bra in each show is something pertinent for the table listing all the models for each year's show. Maybe that could have an individual column?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a work in progress.

• 1996 - Claudia Schiffer (Million Dollar Miracle Bra)
• 1997 - Tyra Banks
• 1998 - Daniela Pestova
• 1999 - Heidi Klum
• 2000 - Gisele Bundchen
• 2001 - Heidi Klum (Heavenly Star Bra)
• 2002 - Karolina Kurkova (Star of Victoria Fantasy Bra)
• 2003 - Heidi Klum
• 2004 - Tyra Banks (Heavenly '70' Fantasy Bra)
• 2005 - Gisele Bundchen (Sexy Splendor Fantasy Bra)
• 2006 - Karolina Kurkova (Hearts On Fire Diamond Fantasy Bra)
• 2007 - Selita Ebanks (Very Sexy Fantasy Bra)
• 2008 - Adriana Lima (Black Diamond Fantasy Miracle Bra)
• 2009 - Marisa Miller (Harlequin Fantasy Bra)

 Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just go ahead and put an asterisk and add the footnotes in the proper locations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried the asterisk-within-the-models-list method and it didn't really work, because the Fantasy Bra wasn't always worn in the show. Plus, there is other info that's pertinent, so I decided a table would work best, although this is my first attempt at one.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you put a footnote in each line of the table so that it will be properly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's next on my list of things to do. I'll also try to expand the refs to proper format.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: All but three of the Fantasy Bra years have references now. Unfortunately, those three years are all early and articles I could use have been pay-to-read archived, although the info for the table is displayed in search listing summaries for these articles, so I at least know the info is correct. I'll keep my out for more refs though.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens to the Fantasy Bra after the show? Does the model keep it or do they auction it off for charity or something? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Brendanmccabe (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As the article says, the bras are available for sale, but only one has actually been bought. I remember hearing that the bra (after not selling) is eventually dissembled so all the jewels can be reused, which makes sense.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

References

2009 all models

http://vsholic.com/gallery/2009/ JukoFF (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Music

What about listing all the songs that have been used for the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show? Because, whenever I watch the show on youtube, people tend to ask more often which song is played in this or that segment than wanting to know which is this or that model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.79.8 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree that this is the information that the reader would be looking for about the show. Unless you can show me secondary sources that emphasize this information, I don't think it is necessary to include it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out...

For the individual years, the format switches between bullet points and commas, and it should probably be one or the other. The corresponding template has all bullet points; I would copy and paste those model lists here, but I'm not trying to screw up any code.

Yes please make consistent although I think one or two copyedits have been made to one but not the other for 2009. Possibly, Kershaw.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also in regard to the template, should the same note I added for Darley here be added to the template? It might look kind of clunky since it's a full sentence. Not to mention, I can't actually find where to put it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes add footnote. For footnoting formatting see Template:2000-2009SISwimsuit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be conducting this review. Please address each item line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go...

Lead

• I think there should be some mention of prominent models in this show. (Klum, Bündchen, Banks, Kurkova, etc.)
  • How is it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured clothing

• The first paragraph needs a source.
  • I have merged this content with another section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• "In the past, most of the clothing exhibited was not for sale, but in 2005, the show featured the clothing for purchase in the catalog." Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see this info in the source you use here...
  • Unsourced content removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History

• "The 2004 show was cancelled after the Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy." I think this needs a bit of context. Obviously, you and I know what the halftime show controversy is, but if this is read by someone 50 years from now they might not. Also, the way its worded right now makes it seem like the halftime show is directly connected to the Victoria's Secret show, so some context of why this unrelated event led to this show's cancellation would be prudent. Finally, the link for this source is no good. Could you see if it can be fixed, replaced or dropped?
  • Is this O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I added just a bit. — Hunter Kahn 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• This link is fine but the citation appears messed up. I think its lacking a title? Could you fix it?
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• "In 2006, Victoria's Secret sub-brand Pink made its debut on the runway." This needs a source.
  • The ref that I found is not so great. If you would like the sentence removed let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• This link is dead. Can you replace it?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• This link is used to source the whole last paragraph. Although it does cite the bit about the competition and Kylie Bisutti, it doesn't have anything that I can see about Chalotte Stockdale and Todd Thomas, so that will need another source.
  • That content is not so encyclopedic. I removed it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From the two tables, the following links came back as dead to me: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

• I'm not so sure about using IMDB sites like this, this, this, this, this and this as reliable sources. Can you replace them?
  • The only other source that I know about for this content is www.vsholic.com which is less of a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• I feel a "Criticism" section is needed. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46910 This source that you use] outlines criticism the show has gotten, including its FCC complaints, cancellation following the Janet Jackson controversy, and the fact taht some critics consider the show "pornographic". I'm sure other sources wouldn't be hard to find.
  • I have added some sources and created a separate section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll place this on hold for now. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to request a 7 day extension (until the 9th I believe).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. — Hunter Kahn 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work! That's a pass! — Hunter Kahn 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First competition year

The first VS competition didn't take palce in 2009 but in 2007, with Katie Wile walking for Pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo's

Could we have the posters for the shows throughout the years on here?--Cooly123 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The posters are all copyrighted and I doubt any fair-use rationale would be acceptable when their inclusion in the article would seem like decoration.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022031650/http://www.cbs.com:80/specials/victorias_secret/cast/ to http://www.cbs.com/specials/victorias_secret/cast/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. 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/20131224082707/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/18/wednesday-ratings-floundering-life-and-private-practice-no-match-for-criminal-minds/9796/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/12/18/wednesday-ratings-floundering-life-and-private-practice-no-match-for-criminal-minds/9796/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016155257/http://vsallaccess.victoriassecret.com/ to http://vsallaccess.victoriassecret.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.victoriassecret.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a Good Article anymore- needs clean up of garbage links in tables

It is a surprise that this article is rated as a good article. The tables need clean up/better sources. Plenty of trash in there source-wise. It seems better sources do exist now with the recent reporting on Victoria's Secret. However, after wrangling with the tables in the main article, my patience for it has come to an end. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shayla-Liggins (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shayla-Liggins (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)