Talk:Linda Evangelista

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fashion Mid‑importance

	Fashion portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Chameleon[edit]

http://www.divasthesite.com/Runway_Divas/Linda_Evangelista.htm http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showthreaded/Number/1403177/site_id/1#import http://www.zimbio.com/Dyeing+Hair/articles/2/Chameleon+Many+Looks+Linda+Evangelista I'm too incompetent to add them as citations, but yes, she's fairly widely known as the chameleon.91.104.145.135 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology[edit]

Born in 1965, and enters a teen modeling pageant in 1988? At age 13 or 23?? Unfortunately, this obvious discrepancy is propagated on the the web bios [1] I found. My guess is that the pageant was in 1978, but can anyone clear this up? --Paul Richter 06:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the section on Linda Evangelistas life there is no mention of her early marriage to Lloyd Bloom.

Fred Derkoski

Linda was never married to Lloyd Bloom.

Who the heck is Lloyd Bloom??

This profile is so pathetic. So much good information has gotten erased over the past couple of years. Linda is the greatest fashion model EVER. She's a legend and she gets a profile that profiles her hairstyles up to the mid-90s? Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.247.41 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hairstyles[edit]

A timeline of her haircuts? Really?

It IS a notable point about her. 91.104.145.135 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables at the bottom[edit]

Am I the only person who noticed most of the page (two thirds) consists of giant tables of list of Vogue cover models over the years? What's the point of this here?--74.56.234.186 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be collapsible. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate?[edit]

Was she really born in the 60s? She looks far too young for that, even with plastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.11.44 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was born May 10th 1965. I say she does look 45 in her unphotoshopped pictures. She uses Botox and Thermage too.--202.154.154.173 (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice[edit]

{{adminhelp}}

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{American English editnotice|form=editnotice}} Thank you--Lupine453 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Canadian English; she is a Canadian. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 06:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupine453: Was a broad consensus reached when it was added? She is a Canadian citizen; why would we ever use American English? Also pinging @Reaper Eternal:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the variety of English used in the article. I was simply making a non-controversial—especially non-controversial judging by the length of time it took someone else to comment—requested edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Well, although it seemed that way at the time, I'm bringing up this issue now that I've stumbled across it. Why has no one addressed the guideline I mentioned below? The use of American English on this page is unwarranted both from the subject of the article standpoint, as well as the English variety first used back in 2006 standpoint. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN states "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." [2] used "colour". It does not make sense for a Canadian to have its article written in American English, let alone have a template of the language as an edit notice. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that states that because a BLP subject is Canadian, the article has to be written in Canadian English. Lupine453 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.......Ok? I just showed a MoS based guideline that says we should use what was first used, which was Canadian English. And rightly so since she is Canadian. There is no guideline for that sentiment, but it makes the most sense. Tell me why we would use American English in this case? Anyway, that's besides the point, the RETAIN guide speaks for itself. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Hi. I see Reaper Eternal may be inactive with his admin rights suspended, so looked into contacting someone else as well. Would you be able to confirm this? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who has submitted more 70% of the text in this article, and prior to my edits, this entire article was only 4 paragraphs long. 70+% of the article text was written in American English. The editnotice was applied 4 years ago, and suddenly you want to change it just because the subject is from Canada? Lupine453 (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had contributed significantly to this article, which the project thanks you for, but yes, that was only four years ago and the article was already non-stub before you had picked it up. The use of Canadian English spans much farther back from when the article was first brought out of stub-from - around 2006-07. Yes, we should use Canadian English partly because she is Canadian and the way that you changed the English variety in 2015 from American English to Canadian English was not discussed, but also largely due to MOS:RETAIN which states we should use the first English variety from when it was non-stub, and therefore should be changed back to Canadian English. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Canadian English in a topic about a Canadian person makes sense and is also in line with MOS:ENGVAR. Since that was the original variety, how is this even an issue? --bonadea contributions talk 19:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and admins have no particular say about content questions - if an admin weighs in here it will be as an editor, not as an administrator. If there is edit warring or obvious disruption, an uninvolved admin can step in and protect the article or block people as necessary, but let's hope it won't come to that. This needs to be solved with discussion and applying relevant guidelines. --bonadea contributions talk 19:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Bonadea. This was the point I was trying to make, as well as others. Also with Daily Mail sources, they are not to be used, especially when there is more than one source available per WP:DAILYMAIL1. Lupine is verging on WP:OWN. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Linda Evangelista. 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:

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) 16:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linda Evangelista. 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:

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) 08:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda Evangelista. 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/20131607084500/http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/excerpt-of-vogue-the-editors-eye-book/ to http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/excerpt-of-vogue-the-editors-eye-book/

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) 14:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Linda Evangelista. 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:

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) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Model or supermodel[edit]

Lupine453 can you explain why you keep reverting edits that attempt to change the word? Is there a specific reason why Linda Evangelista shouldn't be listed as a supermodel? Auror Andrachome (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Model is an actual occupation. Linda is a person who models for a living. She doesn't "supermodel" for a living. Lupine453 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very arbitrary. Wikipedia's very own definition of a supermodel "is a highly paid fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling." Linda Evangelist would most definitely qualify under wikipedia's own set definition. I'd also like to note that the supermodel article lists Linda Evangelista as an example of one. Auror Andrachome (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't at all understand what I said. There is no occupation called "supermodel"; it is entirely a subjective term. There's even a video of Linda herself saying the line "Well I don't know what a supermodel is".

Okay well I'm going to ahead and change it to supermodel for two reasons: (1) it's a recognized term (2) wikipedia describes her as a supermodel. Auror Andrachome (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an occupation, It's fan/celebrity journalism cruft. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This game of semantics is getting tired. Wikipedia describes a supermodel as "a highly paid fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling." How curious that wikipedia itself believes it to be an occupation, albeit a more highly paid model. Auror Andrachome (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the five supermodels?[edit]

In the first sentence of the third paragraph, the phrase, "as a key figure among the five supermodels" is confusing. Apologies if these supermodels are so well-known that they need no clarification. Trilotat (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting out of bed - variation on a theme[edit]

Christopher Hitchens uses a variation on the theme of "not getting out of bed for less" here at 3m30s in 1987, well before 1990 when Linda Evangelista gave her version. See Wikiquote There must be much earlier versions than 1987. Stikko (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]