Talk:Zoolander

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Vivienne Westwood Punkature

Vivienne Westwood released a collection called Punkature inspired by Hobos nearly 20 years before Galiano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.200.89 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLASTED USER: The same thing happened to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.212.153 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoolander Soundtrack

There is no mention of the soundtrack here but a search on "Zoolander" brings up many references to the Zoolander Soundtrack in music related articles. The soundtrack probably ultimately should have it's own article but to begin somebody with the CD could include the basic information in this article. Thanks ... Bill 4.129.86.181 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come the article stated that this is Ben Stiller's directorial debut? Isn't "Reality Bites" the first directed movie by Ben Stiller? just a question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.247 (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derelicte

""Derelicte" is the name given to the fashion line designed by Will Ferrell's character Mugatu. It is described by Mugatu in the film as "a fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique." The fashion line consists of clothing made from everyday objects that could be found on the streets of New York. Derelicte is a parody of a real fashion line created by John Galliano in 2000."

This info shouldn't be in the cast section but I'm not sure where to move it, any ideas?Thelemur78 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't really fit anywhere, so I just gave it its own section. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

male model

Male model is kind of offensive -- it implies models are female. It implies that if someone is in an occupation that is dominated by a particular gender, we need to call out their gender to point out how unusual this is. Like male nurse or female soldier. —valereee (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee removed the term "male model" from the lede in favor of just the word model.[1] I think it is appropriate to keep that specific term in this case. First off, read the text out loud, the rhythm and alliteration of male model sounds better to me. IIRC the film itself uses the term. On the simplest level it sounds and reads better, and it just seems more appropriate to use the term "male model" so I restored the WP:STATUSQUO.

This is a comedy film specifically poking fun at the stereotypically dim male models and I think the point of how unusual this is and the character being "male model" is a an inherent part of the comedy. Yes, in general the modelling profession is dominated by women, but this is an encyclopaedia article about a comedy film, there does not seem to be any good reason to try and address any issues of gender balance in the WP:LEDE lede section, but if you've got reliable sources that is something that might be addressed in the article body. You mention other gendered terms such as female soldier or male nurse but if we were talking about a film like GI Jane we might well highlight that it was a female soldier (that article does not), and in another Ben Stiller film Meet the Parents we might also highlight that the character was a male nurse (the article specifically mentions it in the plot section). -- 109.78.198.204 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This needs more than one comment each for it to really be a discussion. I'll give it more time before I restart the cycle and restore the statusquo again. -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using terms like 'male model' and 'male nurse', just like using terms like 'woman doctor' and 'woman engineer', are out of date. They imply it's unusual. Why don't we use 'male engineer' and 'female model'? Because in the past our expectations were that all engineers were men, so it was worth calling out when one was a woman, etc. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you reply, it would help if you'd ping me to make sure I'll see it. To ping me, just start your post with {{u|Valereee}} and end it with four tildes. Note: you have to do both in the same edit, it can't be fixed! It makes it easier to ping people if you create an account, which is fast, free, and easy. I've put a link at your IP talk, which is at User talk:109.78.198.237 —valereee (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You restated your point but it isn't any clearer. I thinking you are making a mistake in applying a general principal too widely, and by applying it to this dumb comedy. Context matters. In general you might have a point, but in this case the emphasis does seem appropriate. I think you are making a mistake framing this old comedy from years ago from your own contemporary point of view rather than presentating it on its own terms or even in objective neutral terms. I think it is entirely appropriate to refer to Zoolander as a male model and similarly appropriate to refer to Gaylord Fokker as a male nurse. (As for notifications, you were quick enough to repeat your edit, and you cannot have thought the discussion was over after only one comment. I'm sure you can add pages to your own watchlist yourself or simply check the discussion same as me.) As I was merely restoring the statusquo I believe the burden is on you to more clearly explain yourself. If we don't agree to some sort of consensus then the discussion isn't over, but we may need to get a neutral WP:3RD opinion to decide it. -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 109! Okay, going through this one by one.

We can totally deal with context. I'd recommend we deal with the historical significance of 'male model' in the body, if you think it's important. FWIW, I'm of an age that used to use the term 'male model' so it's not that I'm too young or framing it from a contemporary point of view.
I repeated my edit because it's basically the only way to communicate with an IP. I repeat the edit, place the link in the edit summary, and hope to communicate. We can't ping IPs, and many are dynamic.
I can add pages to my watch, but I've got 6K on it, so I miss some. I ask people to ping me so I won't miss important stuff.
Onus is on someone wanting to include stuff, per WP:ONUS.

—valereee (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what the source say, to be objective I'll pick some of the top Zoolander reviews from Metacritic and see how quickly they if they mention "male model" if at all.

Satirizing Model Behavior [2] LATimes. Mentions: Model, supermodel, and "male model" is only the 3rd mention and thats in reference to a specific award.
Silly 'Zoolander' fashions good fun [3] USAToday. Mentions "fashion models" only once. Does not mention male models
Zoolander review [4] THR. Mentions: "The target of this spoof is ostensibly the New York fashion industry and, specifically, the world of male supermodels."
A Lost Boy [5] NYTimes mentions supermodel, then male model but again because of the award
Zoolander [6] Variety. Mentions "Ben Stiller recycles into the theatrical arena the dim-witted male model character he created for the 1996 VH1/Vogue Fashion Awards."

I aimed to be objective in my sample, I started at the top and went down the list, although many of the links were broken so that's 5 out of about 20 (and going all the way through 31 reviews seemed like overkill). I can see the sources don't use the term "male model" hardly at all, I expected a much greater emphasis and I can see it is not there. I withdraw my objection to changing the status quo and I accept removing the distinction "male model" from the intro as there is no particular need to highlight it. It might be worth writing fashion model or supermodel instead. (I'm not certain narcissistic is the best description of Zoolander anyway, he's self absorbed, dimwitted, and generally oblivious but I don't think he's a full on narcissist.) -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, could you please ping me? —valereee (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1: 20 years old

Source #2: 20 years old

Source #3: 20 years old

Source #4: 20 years old

Source #5: 20 years old

Let's find a modern source that is using the term "male model", and we can discuss. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that you read my comment. I've accepted your premise that there is no need to mention "male model" in the intro. The age of the sources is irrelevant but especially so when I've accepted your point. (About notifications, I'm not expecting a speedy response, but I did expect you to pay attention to a discussion that you started.) If there is still something else you wish to discuss you will need to state it more clearly. -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that's a no on pinging me? (Did I mention I have 6K on my watch?)

Yes, I missed that you accepted my premise. Probably an edit conflict, as we were only a few minutes apart and I was assessing your sources. Also, maybe write shorter.

So no need to mention "male model" in intro? Fine. —valereee (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think expecting you to take the time to read the comment is the bare minimum. I read your comments repeatedly to try and gleam more meaning and understanding from them. I asked for clarification and you gave me repetition. That the notifications system is not good enough is one of the many flaws of Wikipedia making things difficult for you, that's not my fault. I'm not going make extra effort to compensate for those flaws, you can check the page later just the same as I have to do. I was not putting any time pressure on you to respond either, and if the change did not matter enough to you to check back over the course of a few days then that would have been your choice. Since you didn't make any comment on my suggestion to change the wording from model to supermodel I'm going to go ahead and make that change. -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol...oookay, mate. We'll do it that way. —valereee (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block of cast photos

I removed the block of cast photos from the article today, but another editor disagreed with the rationale I provided in my edit summary ("Random photos of the cast aren't desireable. Use photos specifically related to the film. Actor photos are easily available on their respective pages, for those interested", and reverted the edit.

All of the photos were added by one IP user recently, and are from well after the film was released (released 2001, photos - in their order in the block - from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2019, 2006, and 2012). It's not a reasonable representation of the actor near the time the film was made, though that's a weak rationale; it's jarring to me to see a photo of Mila Jovovich from twenty years after release, but it may not be to others. The vast majority of articles on films do not have these blocks of photos. I find them visually distracting; they bear little resemblance to the actor at the time they were in the film, and if I were specifically interested in the actor's appearance, I'd just follow the wikilink to their respective article. The IP editor added these blocks of photos en masse over the last six weeks; Quite a few other interested editors have removed them from those articles before I ran across them.

There's no 'rule' or even specific guideline regarding these blocks of cast photos. In a few cases, the editor added only one or two photos, and I left those, as they didn't muddy the page formatting and didn't 'overdo it'. I don't think I'm alone in preferring either no photos, or the most highly relevant. Images in articles are great, but too many becomes a distraction, in my opinion. But the editor who reverted my removals correctly noted that I didn't discuss the matter with other editors, so here we are. I'd be interested in other editors' thoughts. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]