Jump to content

Talk:Marisa Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth date

[edit]

Can someone comfirm that Marisa Miller's Birth year is 1980, and not 1978.

The birth year is 1978, not 1980. This is given in Perfect 10 magazine, as well as on IFDB.com --Alsayid 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However on Sports illustrated website it states that Marisa's age is 25; this would mean she was born in 1980 and not 1978. Also on the askmen website it states that Marisa was born in 1980. --Kurt000 13:07, 15 February 2006 (GMT)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2006_swimsuit/models/marisa_miller.html http://www.askmen.com/women/models_200/242_marisa_miller.html

I've seen that too, and that's probably what causes the confusion. But the thing is, one doesn't even give a birthday, and the other only gives a year. Both Perfect 10 and IMDB give an exact birthday same as the one used here, and should be considered more accurate. Also look at it this way: If Marissa had been born in 1980, she would have been 16 or 17 when she posed for Perfect 10 in their premiere issue published in the summer of 1997. Then consider that her pictures have since been republished in the magazine several times without incident. --Alsayid 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and now agree that you probably are right. However when typing in Marisa Miller birthdate onto google it states that it is 27 April 1980, according to wikipedia! Also on the Marisa Miller club website it also states her birthdate as 27 April 1980. --Kurt000 14:49, 16 February 2006 (GMT)

My verson of explanation is because of there are at least two more Marisa Miller popularly known (although with different middle names), her birthday was probably confused with other others. 24/08/06

Yeah, I tracked that down a while back, too. The thing with the search enginge seems to be that it might keep a record of an old edit forever, and then other sites just copy and paste whatever they first found on Wikipedia or Google (at the time they searched) into their fanclub. Recently there was a big stink because someone discovered that an anonymous editor had added his name to the JFK article as a suspect in the shooting, and it sat there for like six months! Anyway, glad to have you aboard on this article, Kurt. :-) --Alsayid 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian?

[edit]

it seems her real name was Marisa Bertetta..............—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.60.202 (talk • contribs)

I'm not interested enough to hunt for links, but she married a guy named Jim Miller in 2000. He was a local surf promoter. They divorced a few years later but she kept the name. So anybody who wants to go source hunting and add something about this to the main page, hopefully this info helps. Bogan444 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate?

[edit]

1980 doesn't work for any of the below articles. I'll agree that none of the below are the New York Times, and they are all from a single reporter ( Peggy Townsend ).
However, when it comes to accuracy of a model's age, I don't think I'd trust SI.

Date Article Link Reported Age Possible dates
May 05, 2000 http://www.santa-cruz.com/archive/2000/May/05/bay/stories/1bay.htm 21 May 06, 1978 - May 5, 1979
Mar 02, 2002 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/March/02/local/stories/01local.htm 23 Mar 03, 1978 - Mar 2, 1979
Feb 20, 2004 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/February/20/local/stories/02local.htm 25 Feb 21, 1978 - Feb 20, 1979

Shooting hoops

[edit]

Ms. Miller is an accomplished basketball aficianado. She can regularly be spotted posting up in the back yard. If you are really lucky she can be seen tossing in layups from the paint without her top on. Google Marisa Miller basketball for a taste. proserpine March 12 2007.

Supermodel?

[edit]

Good Lord. Has the term been so degraded that now even Marissa Miller qualifies? And if so, what do we now call real Supermodels like Gisele and Kate? Super Duper Supermodels? Bogan444 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa is a supermodel without question. Sports Illustrated is a stick on which models are measured. After Marissa graced the cover she secured her title as a "supermodel". Also she is now a Victoria's Secret Angel which is like an actor winning an Oscar. Gisele and Kate were also supermodels yes, but so is Marissa Miller. Miller is as much as a supermodel as her fellow models Karolina Kurkova and Adriana Lima and, according to Wikipedia Kurkova and Lima are "supermodels" too. So, In conclusion to my extensive research Miller is a Supermodel. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Lima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol%C3%ADna_Kurkov%C3%A1 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2008_swimsuit/ http://www.marisamiller.com/

An editor removed Marisa's supermodel status for purposes of neutrality, it seems, but I returned it because as an SI cover model and VS Angel (with earlier appearances in almost all the major fashion magazines), she has the credentials; not to mention, she's been heavily promoted in news items and press releases for her work as a "supermodel", so I don't believe it violates the principle of NPOV to use the term. Mbinebri (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, of course you're all entitled to to your private opinion, but WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline. All editors are obliged to follow this policy under all circumstances. All articles have to adhere to this policy. And not just sections, but the whole article, including the introduction. A biographical article usually mentions a person's occupation, e. g. actor, musician, politician, writer etc. Miller's occupation is: model. That's the neutral description of her profession. However, "Supermodel" is neither neutral nor is it a profession. It is an assessment (as it would be an assessment to call somebody a "great actor", or a "musical genius").
Regarding above mentioned arguments supporting the supermodel-theory: as interesting as they may be, I may point at another of our policies: WP:NOR. Cheers --Catgut (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the comparison is applicable, as there is no equivalent in a profession like acting to denote a higher level of success as there is in the modeling world with the term "supermodel", which IMO very much is a profession and so widely-used it can be used in neutrality (if other responsible editors felt this wrong, I wonder why this article and others for models have existed for so long, through so many edits, w/o correction), but I won't belabor the point. Mbinebri (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of the term supermodel has become inflationary. In the 1980s meant to describe a rather exclusive group of about six to ten models, it's now being applied to about 100 models worldwide (and the number of those so-called supermodels is rising annually). The exclusivity and distinction is long gone. The supermodel article itself is'nt sure whether there are supermodels anymore. Maybe there was once some sense in using the term. Anyway, there is not authoritative institution, person or source whose judgement of who might or should be considered a supermodel could be the basis for us to accept that assessment. Today the supermodel term is part of the fashion industry's and model agencies's PR strategies to impress the public. I think, if somebody feels the urge to mention that some girl has been called a supermodel, it could be inserted into a respective section of the article (as a sort of praise). But the introduction ought to be kept free of pov assessments. --Catgut (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.dictionary.com a supermodel is an extremely prominent and successful model who can command very high fees. According to Wikipidia a supermodel is a highly-paid élite fashion model who usually has a worldwide reputation and often a background in haute couture and commercial modeling.[1] The term took hold in the popular culture of the 1980s and 1990s. There are many types of modeling such as foot modeling, hand modeling, hair modeling etc. If you look Pamela Anderson up on Wikipidia it says she is a "glamour model". A supermodel is just a type of model who is extremely succesfull. Marissa is a supermodel (that would be more accurate then model) that is able to command high fees (according to Wikipidia the VS Angels are a group of the highest-paid models in the world). There is a group of about 20 models in the world right now, Jessica Stam, Chanel, Iman etc. who are considered top models not supermodels. Not that being a VS Angel automatically makes you a supermodel, it doesn't but Marissa has been in almost every major fashion magazine and graced SI swim issue just about the highest honor a model can get. Marissa is a supermodel, I have never seen so much press in my life on a model gracing the SI cover and so is Gisele and Adriana Lima. I also don't know why Kate Moss isn't listed as a supermodel either. There will always be such things as supermodels they just won't (likely) be as popular as they were in the 90's. sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supermodel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermodel (CathyBaterskonsin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CathyBaterskonsin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel makes sense as long at it is applied conservatively to the top 6 - 10 female models in the world - and Marisa absolutely into that level. There is no question about it.74.249.79.136 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the USA, there has been gross over-application of terms like Supermodel and Superstar. In fact, I have even heard of the term "Super-superstar" being said in public. We'll, let's just ascribe that to morons who are practically illiterate - and not use it to degrade someone who has actually earned the rating. Another word that is overused by morons is "genius". LOL! If genius wasn't rare, it wouldn't be worth anything.
[edit]

This and other Wikipedias in other languages have been relentlessly spammed by anonymous IPs based in Israel (where the domain is registered) for many months. It's gotten sufficiently bad as to warrant addition to the spam blacklist and I have removed a number of these links in anticipation of blacklisting:

Most, but not all, had been added by the site-owner.

If an established, high-volume editor sees value to the specific link I deleted from this article, please let me know and it can be evaluated for addition to the spam "whitelist"
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real or fake?

[edit]

Is her chest real or did she get a boob job? Inquiring minds want to know. Reportedly she is a D cup - pretty big for a model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.104.104 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Swimsuit08.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material, dead links, et al.

[edit]

I made a number of edits to the article due to unsourced information, colloquialisms, material placed out of order, and material not relevant to Miller herself. User:Mbinebri reverted my edit, saying in his/her Edit Summary "Why would you remove an entire section per WP:V when only two refs in it were broken? I found another source for those claims". The number of broken refs one finds is irrelevant. If material not not supported by a valid source (whether that source is broken, or makes no mention of the claimed material), then it's unsourced, and must be removed, per WP:V. I went over the article again to not only revert most of his/her edits, but also to take a closer look at the article, and found that the amount of unsourced material and dead links was greater than I originally thought. I fixed this material, and I'm going to list some of them here in detail. The disputed material is in bold. My comments follow.

"<ref name=Ask/>" Why was the first use of this citation, complete with the url, down in the Early life section, while another one without the url was up in the Lead? This makes no sense.

"She is also known for contracts with companies like Harley-Davidson and for taking the #1 spot on Maxim magazine's 2008 "Hot 100" list. Aside from modeling, she is an ambassador for the American Cancer Society." A CBS page is cited as a source for this, but that url merely redirects to CBS' main page, which obviously makes no mention of this, and an attempt by me to do a search on these things didn't turn up anything.

Early life and career start Why give this title to a section when the subsequent section already details her career? There's no need for a section to be devoted to her career "start", much less for it to be merged with her early life.

"She attended Monte Vista Christian School." Why was this place after the passage regarding her being discovered on the beach, which was in 2001, when she was 21? Did she begin high school at 21?

"Atypically, Miller was able to move from a start as an amateur magazine model to high profile mainstream work"

"despite such a "shy and conservative" personality growing up that she had to put on all her clothes just to go to the trash can while at the beach."

"...after an acquaintance showed a picture of her to famed fashion photographer Mario Testino in 2001." No source is provided that establishes that this is "atypical", or that she had a conservative personality, etc. The citation for this is a dead link.

Personal life This section details her relationships and marriage, and then mentions....her high school volleyball activities? Even though the Early life section already mentioned her high school? I moved this to her Early life section.

...and has long been a big sports fan in general. She has said that if she weren't a model she would be a sportscaster." The cited source indicates that she said in 2002 that she would like to be a sportscaster, and that she's good at sports. Nothing is mentioned about her seeing sportscasting as something she would do "if she weren't a model."

"Miller says the most valuable thing her mom has ever told her was: "You can always go back to school, but you can't always model. Miller took her mom's advice..." First, this is not a quote that needs to be in the article. Articles must summarize information, and this material can summarized simply "After discussion with her mother, Miller went to Italy to begin a modeling career." Second, the word "mom" is a colloquialism, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

"...and soon gained attention when she appeared in a 1997 issue of Perfect 10" If she was discovered when she was 16, then a 1997 magazine would be 2-3 years after that. Hardly "soon". At best, this is subjective, and therefore, POV.

"Raphael Mazzucco's handbra photograph of Miller wearing nothing but an iPod in the 2007 edition became one of the most famous photos ever published in that magazine."

"Miller has also appeared in a diverse range of magazines, many of them international editions, such as GQ, Maxim, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Elle, and Vanity Fair, as well as working on campaigns/advertisements for Nordstrom, J.Crew, Guess?, Tommy Hilfiger, Pepsi, Panasonic..."

"Miller married Jim Miller, a Los Angeles surfing contest promoter and lifeguard from California" Two links are provided for the first paragraph. The first (which also cited for the second one, which was in Personal life), is another dead link. The second mentions only Maxim as one of her appearances. Without issue numbers or dates, the rest is unsourced.

"I get a kick out of it, but it would be stupid to let it go to my head...."

"Not since Cindy Crawford ruled the catwalk has a pinup born and bred on U.S. soil so thoroughly captured the imagination of the American male..."

"Marisa is one in a billion. She’s the quintessential California beach girl, she’s incredibly gorgeous and she exudes a remarkably positive energy." Superficial quotes about modeling? And not just one but three of them? (Four in total when added to the one about her mom?) C'mon. Gushing praise that just basically says, "She's beautiful" is really not noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article.

"Television spots of Miller's include..." So in the middle of all this information on her modeling, you have her TV spots. Modeling, then TV spots, then modeling again? Shouldn't her TV appearances, that is, those not pertaining to her simply plugging her modeling work, be in their own section?

"Miller in the number one spot on Maxim magazine's "Hot 100" rankings for 2008..." So you have a mention of her appearance in Maxim in the modeling passages, then in the "In the media" section, which should be devoted to TV and movie appearances, you have yet another mention of her MAXIM appearance? If her appearances in Maxim can be mentioned once in each section (which they shouldn't be to begin with), then what's the difference between the scope of the two sections? Why would you have her TV spots mentioned in Modeling, and then a modeling appearance mention in Media? This makes no sense. I moved this to the Modeling Career section, and reserved the "Media" section for TV and movie stuff.

"2008 hit an early high note for Miller..." This is NPOV wording. It needs to be neutral.

"...in 2000, and separated from him in 2002. They divorced soon after. She married Hollywood producer Griffin Guess on April 15, 2006." This is a continuation of a passage, the first part of which was mentioned above with the paragraph about all her ad campaigns and cover appearances, because the citd source was a dead link. This continuation of that second passage is not supported by the page cited as a source.

"Miller enjoys football, muscle cars, cooking, and boxing. From an early age she loved surfing; in 2004, she placed second in the celebrity division of the Kelly Slater Surf Invitational behind Perry Farrell of Jane's Addiction fame." Her love of surfing and her victory in the Kelly Slater Invitational is supported by the cited source. The rest is not. No mention is made of football, muscle cars, cooking, boxing, the notion that she started surfing at an early age, or Perry Farrell.

"...as well as environmental organization The Surfrider Foundation, which aims to preserve the world's oceans and beaches." No source is provided for this assertion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 03:06, February 28, 2009

You have a number of valid points, but you've clearly gone overboard in addressing some of them - for example, simply in removing so much information due to broken citations. As Wiki's policy on dealing with this issue states[1]: If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the [citation needed] tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. This is the courteous thing to do. Wiki policy only recommends immediate removal for when the claim could be harmful, and none of the info you removed is. Furthermore, the policy goes on to say the appropriate course of action would be to simply deactivate the link if it's broken, because Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions.
But in the spirit of having a good article here, I'll address many of the issues you have brought up, starting with the references, quotes, and POV stuff. Working with my previous version of the article, I replaced the dead links or used [citation needed] on a couple of them, the quotes are gone, and the POV bits are too now. I also deleted a bit here and there that I'm not sure I can find a ref for (namely the iPod photo claim). As for how the info is sectioned and organized, that is more of a matter of opinion, although I'll play around with it over subsequent edits.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A point needs to made about two type of unsourced information: That which is claimed to be supported by a link that turns out to be broken, and that which is claimed to be supported by a link that is not broken, but which simply makes no mention of the material at all: As to the first point, your application of fact tags is noted, but Jimmy Wales has explicitly said this:

He made this statement in a piece titled "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", never specifying whether it was "harmful" or not. However, if you're interested in finding sources for this, I'll abstain from simply reverting this material, and wait. Not to put pressure on you or anything, but how long would you consider a "reasonable amount of time"?

As to the second type of unsourced info, much of it in the article is ostensibly supported by cited webpages that are active, but which make no mention of the material, and I made this point explicitly above. You didn't merely revert the first type of unsourced info, but the second type as well. If you don't have a source as to the second (that entire bit about the sports and other activities she loves, for example), then it must be removed until you find a source for it. There is no justification for leaving in info that is not mentioned in the webpage cited.

I also notice you reverted the organization I made in a few areas.

  • The "Early life" and "Career" sections back to the "Early life and career start" and "Career" sections.
  • You again put mention of her high school life in her Personal life section instead of her Early life section.
  • You again put mention of her non-modeling TV appearances, such as her appearance on Entourage and the Puddle of Mud's video in the middle of a section that deals primarily with her modeling career, while putting information on her media appearances in the Media section, even though most of it is simply an extension of her modeling career.

I explained why this was not a good organization. May I ask what are your feelings on the rationale I provided above for keeping them in the former format? From all of this, I almost get the sense that you reverted the entire article with the "Undo" button, rather than going through it as I did, and restoring only the material that was supported in pages with now-dead urls/links. Is this what you did? I'd like to know your POV on this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read that quote from Wales, but it is not official Wiki policy, and I fail to see how a broken link suddenly turns content into "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information." If a link is broken for info that is not harmful to the article's subject, Wiki policy (and simple editor courtesy) demand only some time and a [dead link‍] - that is Wiki policy. After all, that's why such an inline notice was created. As for how much time... who can say? When I come across fact citation requests, I would only remove the content if it appeared rather dubious and the fact request was several months old, but I can't imagine I would need such a length of time to find citations. But in general, anything less than a few weeks would look to me like a bizarre, near-hostile, and non-Wiki determination to remove harmless content.
As for the article citations that supposedly don't back up the content, you've got me stumped. I can't claim credit for every source added to the article or that I've recently gone through every source, but I haven't seen a single one that doesn't verify the corresponding content, except perhaps the citations used for the 40th anniversary photos, which probably count as OR, but which I never would have assumed would be something to blow a blood vessel over. If you could give a few examples of which sources don't back up which statements, I would like to see them.
As for the organizational points...
  • If you want it to be "Early life", I have no problem with that, and it's a minor point anyway.
  • As you said, the high school reference was oddly placed before when it was in the first section with the (properly sourced) info on her discovery, so I moved it to the "Personal life" section where the other statements regarding Miller's involvement in sports are located. Consider it grouped by theme.
  • I fail to see why the TV credits shouldn't be there: they're related to her modeling, as a VS commercial is mentioned along with her appearances on The Shot and Manhunt as a guest model, and the How I Met Your Mother appearance was promotion for a VS Fashion Show. A separate section for it seems a little unnecessary to me. Not to mention, the section is titled "Career," and these appearances are part of her career. She was cast, showed up, did the work, and got paid. The "In the media" section, on the other hand, is comprised of what the media has bestowed upon her, not actual modeling credits. The only problem I can see with it is that it might be given a more fitting title like "Media recognition" or "Achievements" or something.
 Mbinebri  talk ← 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Media recognition" definitely makes the point of that section clearer. Thanks. As for the unsupported material, I listed that material above. However, I see that you've removed it, so that's cool. Thanks for that, and for finding all those sources. Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see we're getting this resolved to both our satisfaction. And thanks for consolidating the LA Confidential refs - for some reason, the code kept giving me error messages when I tried it. There are still some other points that need citations, but I'll keep working at it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a reference is added to an article and can be reused to answer a lesser question else where in an article I would added a relative link, and see no need to move the citation to the first place it is used in the markup. Also some publishers like maxim can be terrible for breaking up articles across many pages, and other dodgy formatting so dont be so sure the source didn't contain the information at first glance. Deadlinks can usually be recovered from the Internet Archive using the Wayback machine, and increasingly editors are using Webcite to archive articles on demand.

Mbinebri made many good points, the word of Jimmy Wales is not wikipedia policy especially so. It takes a lot more effort to add material than it does to remove it and a full revert by him seemed more appropriate than to expect editors who want to reinstate what are probably only temporarily broken links (other sources can probably be found too) to have to go through the revisions and find all that older information.

Thankfully by forcing discussion it's here and it gives editors with time a chance to reinstate it, something outright deletion makes much more difficult. There were some oddities in the article chronology alright, and this is probably a result of the article growing gradually and just needing a bit of cleanup and reorganisation into more appropriate sections. Even now her ongoing interest in volleyball and having played it in school could just as easily have been mentioned in early life as in Personal Life. There are certainly sections that aren't well worded but a [clarification needed] tag can encourage editors to rephrase without removing. The section about her "atypical start" wasn't very well worded, it's a shame to lose the section about her atypical move from modelling nude to getting work as a mainstream fashion model (and I'd be very surprised if that awkward wording wasn't a far improved compromise from an even less elegant earlier version dwelling on her nude work).
The quotes about "not letting it go to her head" was not a pointless quote about modelling but there to counter balance the praise in the article (and in real life and the most beautiful lists) using her own words rather than leaving any editor to think the article needing to make it more neutral. That it echoed her work as a cancer spokeswoman was a bonus after the fact. Some of the other quotes or directly borrowed wording give the article a bit more flavour than the very dry "on advice from her mother" which is so factual and lacking personality as to leave the reader wondering why anyone chose to mention it at all as opposed to sincere motherly advice. I understand the need to remove harmful libelous material from biographical article but think of the work others put in (even if it is sometimes misguided) and please assume good faith on citations that have gone dead. I ask that you be as cautious about deleting or more cautious than you expect others to be about adding, do request additional and give editors a chance to improve before deleting. -- Horkana (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Askmen rated her 9 on their top 100 list for 2008 and the blurb is more or less an expression of Marisa's atypical career path. -- Horkana (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've got me somewhat confused. What are you trying to point out/explain?  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early television appearance?

[edit]

I believe Marisa was a contestant on a talent show on the PAX network earlier in the decade or perhaps at the tail end of the '90s. I'm not sure if this was the same show Ed McMahon hosted - the host she interacted with definitely wasn't Ed. She was competing for the position of "spokesmodel" (or something along those lines) along with a shorthaired brunette that expressed a desire to join the CIA or FBI in the capacity of an undercover agent. Marisa and the brunette were up against the current spokesmodel who was of Cuban or S. American heritage. The reigning spokesmodel won the competition after dancing with the host and eating a hotdog. I'm thinking that the same episode featured a woman from the former Soviet bloc wearing a red leotard doing a hula hoop act. I hope there is enough information here to jar the memories of those who wish to delve into this further --- Google has turned up nothing but dead ends for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.68 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say this rings any bells to me. I've never even heard of the PAX network!  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of citations

[edit]

Quite a few of the citations are to "Profiles" which are biographies put together from a variety of unnamed sources and without authors. It would probably be better to link to actual articles. One such example is the link to (blocked link nymag.com fashion/models/mmiller/marisamiller/) Marisa profile in New York Magazine where the interesting quote on profile is a link to the a proper article about (blocked link modelsobserver.com fashion/Marisa-Miller.html) Marisa from Model Observer. I did a little cleanup (marking links with the citation formatting) but I think there is more that could be done to improve the quality of citations in the article if anyone else is interested. -- Horkana (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As always, if I find better sources, I'll add them, but this isn't a GA article, and if all its sources aren't perfect, I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about. That said, I added that Miller has appeared in a "Visit California" commercial. I don't have a source, as the commercial is recent and no sources have mentioned it so far, but if anyone wishes to challenge the validity of the info, I can dig up the Youtube link.  Mbinebri  talk ← 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viral video

[edit]

I added a link to a supposed "viral video", a Remington advertising campaign featuring Marissa. I can sort of understand how in theory it like everything else is aggressively restricted and copyright by default. On the other hand there has to be a way to cite a viral video, a piece of advertising and publicity that the creators implicitly want people to share and distribute. Do I have to go through some elaborate process to show fair use? In the meantime I might try to find an alternative reference article that includes the video with the article but this really shouldn't be so difficult. -- Horkana (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was about to recommend looking for a reference that contains the video. That seems like a better idea than somehow trying to claim fair-use for a Youtube link, which I've never heard of being done and am not should could be done.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of Marisa and the generally awful quality of the advertisement means most of the links are pretty poor quality, and dwell on ball jokes. They nearly all seem to link indirectly to the video (pinkcouture) I linked to earlier (there's a second copy of the video on Youtube as well) and quite a few of the articles backreference the jsonline article we are using as a reference at the moment.
Of the crappy sites I looked at Total Sports Pro was the best so far, pointing out the ad. was poor without overdoing it and not going on and on about Marisa. Another link I considered was from Larry Brown Sports but I think the first one was better. You think this is good enough? -- Horkana (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would say that if there are no good links for the video, then don't link it, as there's no pressing need to provide a direct path to viewing the video, or view any of the works mentioned in the article. If people want to see it, they can do a Youtube search. That said, any site hosting the Youtube link is still "contributory infringement," but the TSP site looks close enough to meeting WP:RS that no one will likely mind. I am surprised though that I can't find any official Remington Youtube page hosting the video. They purposely released it onto Youtube only to remove it from wherever they first put it up? They must have finally realized how embarrassingly campy it is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First 'surfer girl' in new (Feb./'10) California Tourist ad?

[edit]

Is Marisa Miller the initial person to appear in the California "tongue-in-cheek" TV commercial that also has Rob Lowe and Arnold the Governor in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.242.95 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's her, but the commercial is from last year I believe.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot list rankings table?

[edit]
Major "hot list" rankings
Year Askmen.com FHM (UK; US) Maxim
2006 14 N/A N/A
2007 12 N/A; 10 N/A
2008 9 N/A; 53 1
2009 3 42; 11 18
2010 2 3; tba 10

Cool? Waste of time? Suggestions?  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory I don't much like tables when the same information can be better expressed as prose with a small bit of analysis and insight. In practice tables can sometimes work well, especially for information that is sortable.
Are lots of other article pages starting to do this? It is better than the table included in the Abigail Clancy article. I like that you've done it, and it is nice to look at but I don't think it works really. I'd split the FHM US and UK polls into separate columns. Might be better to put the sources/publishers in a horizontal column, the list could get quite wide and awkward otherwise.
In the long run I don't think it is particularly informative or is a trend that particular fits with the idea of being a good encyclopedia but it is a bit of fun and thanks for trying it out. -- Horkana (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen such lists in a few articles, but not enough to say it's anywhere near widely accepted. But for me - although even I'm not sold on using it - this is one of the few times I think a table works better than prose, exactly because in most cases there is no worthwhile analysis/insight to give (plus, I think the section is getting sort of clumsy). It's just numbers, and a table, IMO, makes rankings easier to compare while not filling a section with sentences on the latest rankings. Through prose, you have to read the entire section to get the idea, but with a table you just need to glance at it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted the prose isn't very insightful - then again this whole article is about a model, so deep insight is in short supply - but I'm very skeptical of tables, it just seems like data in search of a good graph (and with more data it would be easier to graph too). If it was maybe a horizontal line graph and some sort of trending over the years would be much clearer. On such a graph you might see some sort of equivalence of peaks over a few years, even if maybe she was consistently far lower on FHM UK, there might be an interesting correlation. I guess my final point would be to add the table but do not remove the text/prose, just as many article have a list of the Filmography but also have a prose description of the same information that at least tries to show some insight. (For what it is worth I think that quote about not letting being voted number #1 in a magazine poll go to her head is in a way the most insightful thing in the article, in that she doesn't take the whole modelling/sex symbol thing all that seriously.) -- Horkana (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expressed as prose with a small bit of analysis and insight
That sounds to me as Original research, which is not allowed. 82.141.125.149 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFL spokesperson

[edit]

Will try to add this in myself later but other editors are welcome to take a shot at it. Marisa has been chosen to work with NFL promoting special events. She is a "lifelong 49ers fan" and will be working in a role described as "Superfan". Epoch Times. Forbes notes a theme in a her work, her appeal to women. Forbes. Also mentioned by CBS Sports although the journalist there is a bit more honest about how he is just rehashing existing news and mentions his sources which makes it less interesting to read.

Her promotional work as "first mate" to Captain Morgan doesn't seem quite as notable but might still be worth a mention. -- Horkana (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info regarding Miller and the NFL (the Capt. Morgan info is already there), mainly regarding the controversy over her being hired, as it seems a lot of the media is taking issue with it after the league's recent debacles regarding women. I guess more could be added - especially the "SuperFan" title - but I really hate writing out those citation templates.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good start. Will be interesting to see how it pans out but the controversy is about the NFL and their issues, not so much about her. I was more interested in the idea there was a running theme to her work and the types of jobs she takes so that we might be able elevate the article beyond a list and to give greater insight into her public perception as as someone 'men want to be with and women want to be like' or something to that effect. I'll have to come back to it later, in a few months her involvement with the NFL might not seem significant at all. -- Horkana (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Forbes ref, the article does talk about Marisa working with typically male-dominated companies/products to attract women and build an identity for herself. The "Beyond modeling" section starts out with something to that affect. But I disagree that the issue regarding Marisa and the NFL doesn't belong here. If the NFL had hired a demure female celebrity, this all wouldn't be an issue; they instead hired Marisa (with her image as a sexy model) and therein lies the problem for the people writing these articles.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angel or not?

[edit]

I know, there has been rumors about Marisa's status as an angel and I got to say that I gradually think that she's not one anymore. VS said they will continue working with her in January of this year but since then nothing new of Marisa for VS was released which is quite weird. Now she also became the spokesperson for NFL which would had have contractual problems with her angel-contract, if she was still one. And like Izabel Goulart and Selita Ebanks, Miller is supposedly not known enough to make a headline about her leaving VS just like in case of Gisele and Heidi. Anybody agree or disagree respectively?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.234 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't rumors, but verification. Not having done anything for VS in awhile suggests she's no longer an Angel but doesn't prove anything. After all, Heidi was considered an Angel the entire time she was only doing the Fashion Show, and for all we know, Marisa's case might be the same. If she's not in the show or isn't a significant part of promotion if she is in it, that might settle the matter for me, but until then the issue is cloudy, especially since VS seems so fixated on the whole Bombshell/Supermodel thing rather than Angel status that even if she is still an Angel she might not have been used anyway.
I doubt the NFL contract would interfere with a VS contract. The NFL isn't a competing clothing brand, after all. Not to mention, VS encourages their Angels to branch out. As for the whole Goulart and Ebanks point... you sort of disprove it yourself. She's not known enough to warrant press coverage for leaving VS when the mere rumor of her parting with VS got headlines and caused the company to put out a statement? That not only makes no sense, but sounds exactly like it originated as part of your typical Adriana-fan/Marisa-hater rumor mongering.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@mbineri: That's why I wrote "Miller is supposedly not known enough". So mbineri, you made a snob out of yourself again and besides that, I've never started something like a Adriana-fan/Marisa-hater rumor mongering. You seem to be not only a snob, but a confused snob also. You really have my sympathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.234 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "originated" to indicate the claim was not coming from you—i.e., you were only repeating something you heard elsewhere. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia. You can start with WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only "proves" I have that Marisa is not an angel anymore is that no new VS material of her has been published since the beginning of 2010 and that her name is not published in the CBS press release of who's gonna be in this year's show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.234 (talk)

There were rumors and then there was a statement from Victoria's Secret saying they are pleased to continue to work with Marisa. The Wikipedia policy on original research can be annoying but the lack of new material definitely counts as original research (the absence of evidence is not proof). With the statement you'd need a very strong new source to disprove it, to back up any suggestions she is no longer a working with Victoria's Secret. We should really consider her an Angel until we have something from Miller or Victoria Secret saying otherwise. -- Horkana (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's kinda disturbing me that it seems so obvious that she's not an angel anymore but yet there are no "official" articles confirming that. It's like weeks ago it was already sure that Adriana Lima will wear this year's fantasy bra but since there were no "official" articles about it, my post were removed regarding that matter. But I guess we will have the proof when the show takes place when it comes to Marisa.--58.62.42.234 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying but it will not prove anything - for the purposes of this article - if she does not appear in the show. It is sort of like a rock band that gets asked about their "comeback" but replies that they never really left. A cases of "WikiTruth" where we have an official public statement on the matter and we have to go with that even if it starts to seem a bit silly. -- Horkana (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/marisa-miller-named-nfl-spokesperson-2918 Refers to her as "former VS model", proof enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.146.13 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still wouldn't think that is enough to contradict the press release, but that's just me. -- Horkana (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open secret that Miller is not an angel anymore. VS is currently in the middle of castings and from every other angel/supermodel/bombshell there are already news, fitting videos, fitting pics concerning this year's VS show except for (guess what) Marisa--58.62.42.234 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!

[edit]

I hit the damn "enter" key when I meant to hit the "shift" key! To expand on my edit summary: Marisa's marriages are non-defining and non-notable in terms of lead content. The media basically ignores her personal life, and so it makes little sense to emphasis her marriages when the media doesn't. Marriage/dating info for some models does belong in the lead—Bar Refaeli, Miranda Kerr, etc., who are largely known because of their relationships—but that's not the case here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update infobox

[edit]

Should add info on her child. --72.70.89.216 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marisa Miller. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Marisa Miller. 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: 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) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marisa Miller. 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: 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) 02:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marisa Miller. 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: 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) 20:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marisa Miller. 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: 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) 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marisa Miller. 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: 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) 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was surprised to see this article was recently tagged as being written like an Advertisement. This article has been fairly stable for a long time and it describes the career of a model. The high points of her career are very commercial, promoting brands such as Victoria Secret, Sports Illustrated, or Harley Davidson.

I'm calling out User:Trillfendi who tagged the article to be more specific about what changes he believes are necessary to improve the article. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess User:Trillfendi has a point, but I'm asking for specifics. I wouldn't say the article sounds like an advertisement so much as it sounds a bit out of date, but there is certainly room for improvement.
There are other things that do look odd looking back on them. The end of her time as a Victoria Secret model was strange, at the time it was becoming apparent she wasn't going to be involved with the company that year and there was enough discussion for VS to deny there had been any kind of a falling out and for her to subsequently state she had moved on to other projects.
It seemed significant at the time and although it broadly fits with her product promotion work, but with hindsight a viral youtube advertising campaign is just another ad campaign. So while I can see a need to rephrase I wouldn't want to entirely delete the fact that she did a campaign for Remington.
So if you could highlight the problems you think most need attention then I'll try to see how I can rephrase and reorganize them in a better way. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious difference between doing commercial jobs and having promotional prose to the article (and generally POV issues). Anyone who pays attention to modeling would know that.Trillfendi (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples include (but certainly aren’t limited to):

  • ” Miller moved from a start as an amateur magazine model to high-profile mainstream work after an acquaintance showed a picture of her to famed fashion photographer Mario Testino in 2001.” (Aside: I have witnessed articles get rejected for phrases just like this)
  • “Within six months, Miller was working for [...] the coveted Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.”
  • “In particular, she famously posed wearing only an iPod in the 2007 issue.”
  • “In a July 2010 interview with Forbes, Miller stated that because the fashion industry had changed, with celebrities supplanting models on magazine covers and in campaigns, supermodels have to become brands to be successful. For that reason, she shifted focus to consumer products reflective of her personality.” (Perfect for a Forbes article, but clearly not neutral for a Wikipedia article) Trillfendi (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has room to improve, I don't disagree with that. I do question the choice to tag it as "advertisement" but thank you for pointing out specific examples where improvement may be needed.
  1. The wording about Testino goes back years, but digging into the article history from 2008 I can see that he has gone from fashion photographer to "famed fashion photographer" and that the text was rephrased to add the unnecessary detail about "an acquaintance" setting up the meeting. I can try to trim that back.
  2. I don't know why someone felt the need to emphasize "six months", she had modeled before then so now that you point it out it does seem undue to make big deal about the timeline. The point that Testino changed her career direction has already been made.
  3. The section previously read "Raphael Mazzucco's photograph of Marisa wearing a iPod bikini in the 2007 edition became one of the most famous photos ever published in that magazine" and as standards in Wikipedia increased and more and more things needed to be directly sourced some effort went to into proving that sentence. The article ended up with quoting an article that directly said it was a famous photo.
    Her Sports Illustrated appearances and particularly that photo received a lot of publicity at the time, nearly as much as her wearing the million dollar bra for Victoria Secret. (Like so many memes, viral videos, and trending topics, it is difficult to express how it was a big deal over a decade later, and to accept how lame it will all look a decade from now.) I see your point but I don't want to make dramatic deletions to an article that was gradually built up through many edits, arguments and eventually consensus.
  4. The phrasing from Forbes bothers me too. I can see it was an attempt to explain the change from fashion model to a career based on promotions and brand ambassador roles but the phrasing is poor. (Incidentally she seems to have literally trademarked her name as a logo, you can her name as a TM in the PETA posters.)
Thanks again for taking the time to make a detailed response. I'll try to make some improvements. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we all know Testino is one of the most famous, notable fashion photographers but “high-profile” mainstream work has a promotional tone. We know that most models say their “dream” is SI Swimsuit Issue because of how it launches careers but using “coveted” without a source is POV. She “famously posed with an iPod” sounds more like we’re advertising iPods, it’s not like she “famously posed with a palm leaf” or something more generic, not a brand named item. Trillfendi (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I might have heard of Mario Testino but over time I guess some editors wanted to make it clear he wan't just any photographer. In the Forbes article Miller says "I was really fortunate to work with Mario Testino, who is one of the biggest photographers in the world." There are various ways you could phrase it Testino and was pivotal in her modelling career but I agree with your point and have tried to make the wording more neutral, and to avoid any hyperbole.
I know the emphasis on the iPod seems a little silly looking back on it but it the emphasis is not undue. I tried to search for more context to help show what a big deal it was at the time, and turned up a Sports Illustrated article from when Miller turned 35 which six years after the fact, was again asking her about the "famous iPod photo". That link includes the picture, but it is repeated from a longer article from when Miller was promoting RIPD(link to picture 404 in that article) and the interviewer (identified only by the anonymous byline "Swim Daily") says "The photo I get asked about most is the iPod one." So they themselves are somewhat surprised that that image in particular received so much emphasis. If you look at how the image was presented in the magazine they continued the joke and the accompanying text listed it as a "bikini" manufactured by Apple. Ten years later in 2017 Maxim took the opportunity to mention the so called iPod bikini yet again. (My thought is that the photo was trying to evoke the idea of a nude covered only by a fig leaf but with the contemporary piece of fashionable technology acting instead of the leaf.) Many things claim to be famous, I think having more sources would help show that this claim to fame is not undue. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has lots of bits and pieces which doesn't quite add up to as coherent a story as I had thought. If there is more you think needs work or specific things you want to highlight please do mention them, your fresh perspective is helpful. I will try to improve the article again soon. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I had expected the tag to be removed from the article, or some changes to be made to the article, or at least further comments to be added here. I pinged User:Trillfendi asking he still objects to the phrasing of the article and to comment here. -- 109.76.241.1 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I figured someone else would do it in the meantime. I guess the issues have been sufficiently addressed as it stands. Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kthxbye. :) -- 109.76.241.1 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marisa_Miller&oldid=1206488806"