Talk:Size zero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within textile arts. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Page should be kept. Size zeros are a relatively (last 20 years or so) new concept in women's fashion, and some people (especially men) may want to read up on it. Additionally, I invite the initial wikipedian who added the afd tag to voice his or her objections to this page, so issues can be discussed openly. It's disingenuous to nominate a page for afd and leave no comments.--PCStuff 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean "leave no comments"? The AfD template clearly states:
- "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
- Yet you decided not to even look at that page. And then you accuse somebody of nominating an article for deletion and giving no reason, when you haven't even looked for it? -- Smjg 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alright, sorry, my mistake. I will add my comments to the relevant page. --PCStuff 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Contradiction
As I begin to mention in the ill-fated AfD nomination, the figures here are incongruous with the figures on US standard clothing size. To consolidate the information from these pages:
| Dimension/Size | 0 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bust | 31.5 | 30.5 | 31.5 | 32.5 |
| Waist | 23.5 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| Hip | 34 | 32.5 | 33.5 | 34.5 |
| Back-waist length | n/g | 15.5 | 15.75 | 16 |
Just compare the figures. They just can't be right. -- Smjg 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apparent contradiction explained and kindly meant advice
Hi, Stewart, it's nice that a guy pays such close attention to women's fashions! You clearly have a keen attention for numerical details, but you may have missed the proviso in the header of US standard clothing size saying that those sizes are no longer used by retail clothing companies. That's why there's no contradiction here: clothing of a given "size" can be quite variable in the US. The center cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. ;) Willow 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention a Brit that pays such close attention to American fashions! :-) Thank you for the clarification. I've edited the article to make it clearer. -- Smjg 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In the future, it might be nice to write to the main authors of an article, asking for clarification, before putting their article up for deletion. Although there's lots to be done on our respective articles, it does seem rather severe to target them for deletion, don't you agree? Willow 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- You mean clarification on why they think an article on this is necessary? I agree, it would be nice if people warned each other that an article is about to be nominated for deletion; however, the sad truth is that it too often doesn't happen. There have been far worse AfDs than this on articles to which I have contributed significantly, and I have seldom received a warning, let alone before the nomination. -- Smjg 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page's Existence
I'm glad this page wasn't deleted, because I just got here and found it helpful. There's more talk about size zero in the news, with Prada and Versace drawing up a "plan of action". Don't know how to write it up without just ripping off the newspaper article though: (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2062494.ece). Also, celebrities like Kate Winslet and Billie Piper are speaking out about it, so I'd say it deserves a page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6166951.stm http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds40613.html?rss
81.131.50.80 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Size Zero in UK Sizes?
Can someone please clarify how big size zero is in UK sizes? This page and the sources it cites claim size zero is equivalent to size 4. However, the 'clothing sizes' page seems to suggest that the UK equivalent would be size 2, as does ITS sources http://www.usatourist.com/english/tips/womens-sizes.html
can someone please clarify this, and correct whichever page is wrong?
I think they are both wrong.
First of all, size 2 does not exist in the UK (Gap does not count as they use US sizing). The smallest UK size is a 4 and that is only available from George@Asda, TopShop and Miss Selfridge. The measurements are approximately 30-23-32 for a UK size 4 (according to Miss Selfridge). However a US size 0 these days is most definitely bigger than this and appears to be closest in measurements to a UK size 6.
Hollister size 0: 31.5-24-34 Abercrombie size 0: 31.5-24.5-34.5
Miss Selfridge Size 6: 31-24-33 TopShop Size 6: 31-24.5-33
Conversion websites are usually way off. It's best to actually go and check out different size charts to compare measurements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee226 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lily Cole
According to the main Wiki page on her, while still underweight, she is a size 4 which would make all the information in this article regarding her irrelevant. But not only is she the wrong size to be featured in this article but it contradicts itself when it says that the World Health Organization classifies anybody with a BMI of 18 or lower as unhealthy and then goes on the say that a woman with a BMI of 16.1 (H: 5'10", W: 112 lbs.) can be presented as an example of good health. I think the reference to her in this article should be removed entirely.
Also a healthy BMI according to the World Heath Organization is 18.5 not 18. Though it seems insignificant, it proves to be an important distinction. For example, for Lily Cole to have a BMI of 18 she would need to gain 13.5 lbs. which would put her at 125.5 lbs., for a BMI of 18.5 she would need to gain 17 lbs. and be at 129 lbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeoo (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lily Cole, Size 4
Thank you, C777 (talk · contribs) for providing a reliable source for Lily Cole being size 4. Given this source and the lack of sources that point to her being used as an example of a size 0 model, I believe mentions of her should be removed from this article entirely. Neitherday (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
