Talk:Fit model

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

This article is relatively new and as something of a neologism, the phrase "fit model" page needs sources. Have reverted the recent edit of references (albeit not permalinks, my apologies) as WP:ED guidelines are not definitive; editing without prior discussion may be viewed as subjective. AntiVanity (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "fitting model" does seem to be the more established term. I've changed the article name accordingly. -- The Anome (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having been a "fit model" myself in the past I'd beg to differ. Indeed the changed title is without references to support the change whereas the usual term is easily referenced (and used to be). --AlisonW (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there any citations for the term fitting model? I think we should change page name back. - phi (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

...and my search for refs turned up so many I changed it back now. I guess the 'logism' is no longer so 'neo' and hope consensus approves. - phi (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

About that model mentioned at the end - where did they find a guy half as tall as the Eiffel Tower? Also I doubt someone that tall only weighs 180 Tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.37.232 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the article name from Fit model to Fitting model.

Reason: "Fit" model is confusing as it implies fitness, and fitness models indeed do exist. Fitting model is better because it is unambiguous and grammatically correct.

Details: I am aware of the earlier diiscussion above, which has intelligently discussed citation requirements and common usage. However, the problem remains that "fit model" is not only confusing, but a grammatical error by using the infinitive "fit" rather than the gerund "fitting". Gerunds exist in English and for example in the Latin languages, but not for example in German or Chinese, so that is probably how the error arose, via non-native speakers. In other words, the model is not for the purpose of "fit", but for the purpose of fitting.

As concerns the Wikipeda policies of using the most common term, or providing citations: I propose that avoiding grammatical errors and confusion must be the priority here. We have a precedent for the article on "maize": even though "corn" is the most commonly used term in the USA and elsewhere, "corn" refers to different plants (wheat, barley, generally grain) in different parts of the English-speaking world and at different times in history, and therefore the unambiguous botanical name "maize" is used for the Wikipedia article. 86.164.81.126 (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. SI09 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply