Jump to content

Talk:Victoria's Secret/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Forbes

According to this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/12/top-earning-models-business-entertainment-models.html Doutzen Kroes is their last Angel. So none of Prinsloo, Swaenepoel and Huntington are Angels. At this point it is also debatable whether Miller is still an Angel or has been downgraded.

As far as dates go:

  • Helena Christensen: 1997 original commercial-1998 English Lace
  • Stephanie Seymour: 1997 original commercial-2000 Cannes show
  • Karen Mulder: 1997 original commercial-2000 Cannes show
  • Daniela Pestova: 1997 original commercial-2001 show
  • Tyra Banks: 1997 original commercial-2005 show
  • Chandra North: 1998 fashion show
  • Ines Rivero: 1998 Angels 2000 campaign-1998 Christmas Angels
  • Laetitia Casta: 1997 Christmas commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dvboorgsc) -2000 Cannes show
  • Yasmeen Ghauri: 1998 Angels in the catalog
  • Adriana Lima: June 2000 Arena cover-ongoing —Precedingunsigned comment added by 86.212.253.80 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. If I write to VS and say "pretty please" would they send us an official list of the current Angels? I'd rather have a source confirming material, not contradicting it, but if we're going based on this Forbes article, then it looks like there is a compelling case to argue that Doutzen is the most recent Angel signing. But then again, Prinsloo and Swanepoel saying they're Angels is compelling too. Plus, there's that VS has been promoting Swanepoel and R.H.W. like crazy lately, which is odd for non-Angels, and a million legit sources now passingly refer to those two as Angels, posing verifiability issues. In other words, what's more reliable? Forbes or the models themselves? I might lean toward non-Angel status for those three, just because I recall seeing Swanepoel doing swimsuit work for a rival company, which I thought was disallowed by an Angel contract, but maintaining the change is going to be a pain. As for Miller's status being debatable, between who is and who isn't, the dates of former Angels, and Heidi still being listed yet never doing anything Angel-like, what isn't debatable at this point concerning the Angels?
I'd seriously prefer to see secondary sources (a vain hope, I know), but it looks like enough research has gone into the former Angels dates now for me to be on-board, if someone wants to change it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I know... The thing is, VS has been promoting just about every model recently (Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, De Paula & Iman prior to the VSFS, Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, Decker and Mariano for swim, Swanepoel, Heatherton & Iman for the Nakeds, Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellinsgon, Heatherton, Niiaria & Iman for BBV, and now Huntington and Swanepoel for the "bombshells") but they did use a Onweagba a whole lot back in the days, even as non Angel, so it doesn't mean much. If we don't follow what facebook and VSAA say, why should we follow what the girls say? Icould say I'm an Angel, that doesn't make me one. Right now what we could say is that the brand started in 1997 with commercial, which had a big impact, leading to follow-up commercials (Christmas and English lace) and with Ghauri, Rivero, Klum, North and Casta as models for print (see above), following years are less blurry and then by the end of 2009 the focus shifted from Angels to supermodels. If we go strictly for Angels, then Forbes is as reliable as it gets. They even quote Razek in the blurb so they would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.253.80 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No one else has an opinion then? Damn. Well, a few days ago I posed a generalized question regarding this issue, particularly the reliability of claims by a subject in an interview versus another source, and the responses I got were of no help at all. And yes, it's a relevant point that VS has used many non-Angels in advertising, but none of them were so widely referred to as Angels as Swanepoel and Whitely have been by reliable sources.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oluchi, kinda. I think we can at least list it as "disputed" like Lima's starting date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.36.3 (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Although it's clearly not a solution, I went ahead and tagged the "Current" list as disputed.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my same thought when I saw the forbes article, claiming Doutzen being the last contracted angel. I think we have to wait for this year's fashion show to see who will be included in the introduction. I know, last year the intro also featured Swanepoel, Huntington, Ellingson, Prinsloo and Heatherton, but their intros were a bit different than the real angel's intros. When it comes to Huntington, I don't think her source claiming her being an official angel is accurate. It's not an interview, it's an article calling her an angel, but I also saw an article on essence.com claiming Chanel Iman being an angel. When it comes to Swanepoel, I think she's an angel because she said she was made an angel a couple months ago in that Cosmopolitan-interview. I don't think she's a liar. I know, Adriana allegedly once said she started working with VS when she was 18, although she walked the 1999 show when she was 17, but you can confuse your age at certain events, but being an angel, you cannot confuse it - either you signed a contract or you didn't. Or she was simply misquoted in that interview. As for Prinsloo: I never thought she was an angel. She should be removed from that list. I mean, how could you possibly sign a 6-figure-angel-contract by doing nothing than PINK and not even standing next to the other angels during the last year's 1st taping of the fashion show. Plus: She was never featured in the forbes-list although she's supposedly an angel since 2008. I know she also claimed to be an angel in that Cosmopolitan-interview, but I think she entitled herself being one since she's the PINK spokesperson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.224 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Prinsloo saying "almost two years" coincides more with her PINK contract anyway than with her being an Angel as she wasn't in the "credits" in late 2008 (and only at the end of 2009's). Likewise, Swanepoel was probably referring to her contract being upped. I agree on Huntington's source, it mostly coincidates on that same VSAllAccess page date-wise. I'm also very iffy about them being Angels and Ellingson not being, as they were added on the. very. same. day. All in all I say go with Forbes, it seems to be the most reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.252.177 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

VS produced a video congratulating RHW for landing the role in Transformers 3, and it refers to her as an Angel. You can watch it here.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So Facebook is bad but Facebook videos are okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.146.185 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Just throwing it out there as fodder for argument.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like we have to wait for this year's introduction of the fashion show which is like the most accurate source we have. Yes, I know there have been Lindsay, Behati, Erin, Rosie and Candice in last year's intro as well, but like I said their intros were a little different from the real angel's intros (Alessandra, Miranda, Marisa and Doutzen posing backstage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.224 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that Behati being a PINK spokesmodel must be an Angel as she's done work for VS as well, then Rosie probably is with the Transformers preview, and also because there's a YOUTube video of her and Alessandra's lives as Angels. Then Candice has so much work for the brand I think there's a great possibility she is one, but I don't think Erin, Chanel, or Lindsay are just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.10.116 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret gradually uses the term "angel" as loosely as other media as well. Lindsay is most def not an angel because she was heavily used by them like a season and now she's kinda gone. It's all about Candice, Rosie, Erin and Chanel now to become the new angels, but like I said - the term is used so loosely nowadays that we can't even recognize a truly new angel if there's a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.235 (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization for Angels table

First off, I can see that creating the recent table was a lot of work, and it does look clean creating a sort of timeline rather than separate "current" and "former" lists, but it's a big enough change to warrant a consensus first, and there are some issues. For example, what evidence is there to back up the "first contract" dates? How do we even know the models were contracted on these dates anyway? The table supports that there is officially a contracted "Supermodel" status, when there are no sources that I know of that actually address this - it's still fan speculation. It also basically says not only that Supermodel status encapsulates Angel status but even trumps it (via the bolding). Maybe the would-be reference that the editor attempted using (the ref contained no actual link) would have cleared some of this up, but w/o that link, the table just looks like a fan reinterpretation.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The dates come from their first job/campaign/runway (whichever comes first). I put contract because it sounded better. You may notice that a lot of the spaces were left blank, that's because I don't know when the models were first hired and am planning to do the research.
The Supermodel listing was basically a way to satisfy everybody and keep the page from being edited every other minute by people who want to list Candice/Erin/Lindsay/Rosie/Chanel/Behati, as even VS seems to use the term Angel very loosely (see the announcement of this year's show and the NYPost blurb on Heidi's departure). The term was chosen because its what the company appears to refer to them by on the "official list" (alongside Angel, which appears not to encompass the above 6 and maybe Marisa, and Bombshell, which is basically referring to the member of a campaign, like Bodies before it). Bolding was just for added clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I see your point on referring to first contracts, as "First started working VS" or something similar sounds clunky, but we don't actually know when a model simply working for the company actually became contractual, so the label is still misleading and virtually unverifiable. As for the research you want to do, keep in mind WP:OR. It's not up to us to do research; that's for actual sources. If certain info is only obtainable through our own research, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I completely understand the need to come up with a system that satisfies everyone, but I think what might be best here is renaming the section "Spokesmodels" and creating subsections and individual tables for Angels, PINK spokesmodels, and "Supermodels." That way, we can at least give details prior to each table, rather than lumping everything into one as if it's all interchangeable. I just spend the past half-hour experimenting with using timeline-graphs for a more visual perspective on VS spokesmodel status, but it's a lot of work for saying nothing new. Ugh.  Mbinebri  talk ←


I meant google search, and maybe TFS lurking, not actual fashion history research. Just going by press releases about the VSFS and Forbes/NY Post articles you can probably find dates for the recent Angels at least and all fashion show debuts. I think an introductory line such as "the brand currently lists 12 active supermodels" would be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heidi Klum is American too

To the person who keeps removing the flag in front of her name, please check your facts: http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/03/09/heidi-klum-becomes-a-citizen-for-her-children/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.40.83 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding the Supermodels

Not that I'm against the idea (hence the line about the 13-supermodel line-up), but most of the sources used pre-date the Forbes article that stated Doutzen was the last sign up adn as far as the "Angel line-up" goes, the CBS press release made it clear that all models who take part are Runway Angels, so yeah... Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On the CBS website for the Fashion Show, there are videos that very clearly let us know that many of the models we've been debating on for the last year were indeed, Angels, specifically, Candice and Chanel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.188.220 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Which videos? On the other hand, this chart looks like pretty solid evidence to me: http://www.bellazon.com/main/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=1191973 also, while not in accord with the Forbes source, Behati introduces herself as an Angel in this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDEuJEeRUso , that we can't blame on misquotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.146.13 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
On the vsallaccess page for the Fashion Show, on the right-hand side you can scroll through what's clearly stated to be the Angel line-up, and it contains Swanepoel, Whiteley, Iman, etc. I think at this point we're only kidding ourselves by continuing to use that Forbes article to trump any notion that there are new Angels. The models are calling themselves Angels and that chart posted above is telling.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out a limb and say we add Ellingson as well. I'll leav her as past Angel for the time being due to her uncredited status, but obviously Supermodel=Angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or have the numerous IPs editing this page become incapable of discussion or even edit summaries?  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I kinda gave up to understand who is a real angel and who's not. As for Ellingson, I wouldn't add her name because an angel-contract last at least for 3 years and she was barely 1 year in demand as a "supermodel". However, maybe VS is changing its contracts, including the duration and the worth which why they can suddenly afford so many models at the same time. Like I said - I kinda gave up to understand that whole "angel/supermodel/bombshell"-system.--58.62.42.215 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on Ellingson. And I think at this point it's not what we individually think or believe to be the case for the other models' Angel status. Enough sources (including VS sites) have called these models Angels that it's verifiable for the purposes of Wiki-truth. 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've never quite bought into the 3-year thing, hardly any of the models had a 3-year, 6-year, 9-year or 12-year longevity and even if it is true, nothing stops VS from terminating a contract. That put aside, throughout the 2010 year (up until Aldridge's rise to Angel-dom actually), Ellingson was put on the very same level as the rest. Just like the rest she got multiple "Angel profiles", just like the rest she was featured in the promotional Canada videos, she got some catalog covers and so on and so forth. If the models were Angels then, then so was she. As far as the Fashionista source goes, it does state "pre-Angeldom" in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.122.45 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellingson followed the exact same pattern as the rest: commercial (Christmas for Ellingson, Huntington & Swanepoel, Nakeds for Iman and Heatherton, Biofit for Aldridge), followed by Angel profile on facebook, followed by addition on VSAA. She was also photographed amongst the current and ex-Angels and PINK Girls present at this year's VSFS pre-show event. Conversely, none of those criteria are met by other spokesmodels (i.e. Niaria, Decker, Mariano, Carvahlo & Sosa) except for De Paula who only meets one (the profile, which was promptly rectified as "new face"). While she probably isn't an Angel now, Ellingson clearly was one earlier this year.81.194.35.225 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe in the 3-year contract thing since KK, Selita and Izabel and Marisa all left after 3 years - I don't think it's a coincidence that all left after 3 years. On another note: Why is Chanel an Angel? She's not even 21! Well, I guess VS contradicts itself again... like for the 200th times?? --58.62.42.218 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All this proves is that those 4 models held an Angel contract for about 3 years, not that the contract lasts that long. I still think that Ellingson can't be just an exception on the Supermodel list. Out of curiousity, where did you read/hear about the 21-year-old rule? Casta, Lima, Bundchen & Prinsloo weren't when signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When Casta, Lima and Bundchen got signed, it was a totally different time. Rules have changed! - just like the age for models to walk the show. Back then, KK walked her first show with 16, but now (because of CBS rules) VS can only let models walk the show that are at least 18. That's why Chanel said she couldn't walk the 2008-show because she was still 17 by that time. As for Prinsloo - when she got signed in 2008, she got signed to become the PINK-spokesmodel and not an Angel. I still doubt that she was made an Angel this year along with the other bunch of girls, but at least it fits "my theory" - now she's 21, but Chanel isn't. That's why I'm still suspicious that six (!) girls became Angels in one year (??). But like I said - VS has become unreasonable and therefore some kind of a joke to me... or rules just have changed again.--58.62.42.215 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Adriana Lima 1998.

Adriana started working for the company in 1998, it's been stated by Ed Razek in several interviews. Also, Adriana's first national campaign was the Spring 1999 Cotton Collection, now it's not officially stated anywhere but everyone knows that VS shoots their spring campaigns in the winter before (Alessandra Ambrosio's twitter, she states she's shooting spring as of right now) so that would have made her shooting the campaign and commercial in late 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The year she began working for the company has been thoroughly debated in the past, obviously with no definitive result, hence it's disputed.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In the VH-1 special of the "Angel Across America tour", Ed Razek said that Adriana started working with them, when she was 16 years old! Since Adriana Lima was born in summer 1981, she had to be already working with them before summer 1998 because that's the year when she actually turned 17! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.223 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Razek said she was 16 and Lima has said herself she began when she was 18. As I said, it's already been debated and mediation did not support one side or the other.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, when Ed Razek was talking about her working with them since she's 16 years old, they rolled a picture around that showed Adriana in a commercial-shoot that resembled the first angel-campaign, which was done in 1998. I think Adriana didn't even know if she was sure when she supposedly said she began at 18. I mean, we all know for sure that she walked the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 1999, which was held in February, and by that time she was 17! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.195 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's clear up a few things. The pics that rolled in that video were from the Angels Uplift campaign which happened in '04, way later than the original '97 Angels. This is Lima's first campaign and first VS job. Now, we all know she was in the VSFS on 2/3/99, so this was obviously cast and shot before castings, fittings and all this happened, thus, she was first booked in late 1998 for a spring 1999 campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.77 (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting that the black and white commercial was shot before the 1999 fashion show, or how it even matters. You're point seems to be simply that she was theoretically booked in '98 for a '99 campaign, and theories are irrelevant here. All the dates for the models in the article should be based on the publication of their work. Including content based on potential booking dates for any of the models is guesswork and original research. Arguments based on OR is all there ever has been in the debates over this.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting it from the fact that a first job is a FIRST job, thus the VSFS 99 can only be a second job, thus happening afterwards. This is further backed up by the upper cited VH1 Special which has Razek saying that he thought Lima loooked like a baby when he first saw her and then the camera started rolling, once again placing this shoot (or at least a shoot) before the 99 show, as well as an E! video I once saw on Youtube and will do my best to find. Also, the table lists "Hiring" not "Publishing", "Airing" or "Walking". And finally, if Wikipedia is about consensus (see the Ellingson debate below), the consensus here is against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.77 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to establish something as happening prior to the '99 VSFS is not the same as proving it happened in '98. Your argument is still nothing more than original research and synthesis, and that's all that's ever been provided for the whole 1998 argument. I provided a source stating she began with VS in '99. If you have a reliable source specifically stating she started with VS in '98, feel free to provide it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Revamped table

I have edited the table so that the columns are all sortable and formatted the names so they sort by last name and added country names so they too are sortable. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Monikangana Dutta

A user added Dutta to the list of Angels but I've removed the claim because of how dubious it is. That I can see, the information is totally based on Dutta telling the Indian press she's an Angel. Quite frankly, that means little. Any celebrity can make such a claim and expect the press to repeat it, especially when the (foreign) press consistently doesn't seem to know what an "Angel" is. Is Dutta listed as a contracted model on the VS All Access page? Has she ever shot for VS? Has the American media get in on the story? That I can tell, no. Even the Indian FHM piece questioned the claim as a hoax and Dutta backtracked and could only say she's contracted to VS but that it's a secret. That's a threadbare claim, and stronger arguments than that haven't got models on this list. Until she does something as an Angel to back up her initial claims, she doesn't belong listed as one.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay Ellingson

I removed Lindsay Ellingson from the Angels-list. I mean, seriously?? She was credited in 2009, and was given the boot in 2010 and now in 2011 she's in again? As we know by now, it's tougher to separate the true angels from the so-called angels than any case Agatha Christie has ever written but I don't think an angel-contract works like "2009 you're in, 2010 not, and 2011 you're in again"--VSfan88 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, though. The points is, VS's facebook put up the pics of Lily and Lindsay listed as Angels, they are called Angels here as well. The current policy is that if VS says their Angels, then they are (aside from the generic "runway angels"). And either way, if she was credited in 2009, and was given the boot in 2010", that means she was an Angel. So 2010, or 2011 she's been an Angel at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.77 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If she was an Angel at some point why is she listed as one of the current Angels? Besides that, Arlenis Sosa was booked for one VS campaign, but then her footage (alongside Alessandra's) was not used for the commercial, but before the commercial was released she was previewed on VS facebook-page as the new Angel. Does that mean she was also "an Angel at some point" and should be included in the list? And besides that, Heidi and Marisa are still listed among the 13 models on the vsallaccess-page. Does that also mean they're still Angels??--VSfan88 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Arlenis a featured model on VS All Access? Did she get multiple Angel/Supermodel profiles on facebook? Was she featured in many Angels videos? Did Arlenis have the 4th highest VS cover count last year? Was Arlenis featured on the center of GQ's "VS special"? Apples and oranges. VS has referred to Lindsay as an Angel multiple times, so have various media outlets. Adriana Lima didn't do much for VS in 2000-2001 yet we have her listed as an Angel, when she wans't even in the credits of the 2001 show. Is every single model listed on VS All Access's Supermodel was/is an Angel except for Lindsay? It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.77 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you argue with how many times Lindsay was booked by VS, does that mean Oluchi Onweagba is also an Angel? I mean, she was also booked multiple times, been in a VS x-mas commercial and did promotion for VS lookbook besides Heidi, Adriana and Gisele (who are/were well-known Angels). I'm suspicious in the case of Lindsay Ellingson because she was credited in the 2009-show and then she had to go to the regular castings for the 2010-show which is not necessary if you were a contracted Angel (on top of that she wasn't credited for the 2010-show) and now she's mysteriously back on the heights of being an Angel? But pardon me, I totally forgot that everything is accepted as true as long an official website says so without using one's common sense to see if the info sounds right. That's why there was a time when the wiki-page said that Emanuela, Chanel, Candice, Rosie and Lindsay are the 5 new Angels because VS facebook-page claimed so and then that info was deleted because VS facebook-page suddenly change it to 5 new faces and not "5 new Angels".--VSfan88 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Onweagba sure wasn't and Angel but I don't remember VS itself repeatedly hailing her as one. I know Ellingson wasn't credited in 2010, which means that at the time of the runway show, she wasn't an Angel, hence why she had been removed (then again Prinsloo got a "special credit" in '09 despite being called an Angel, so yeah...). However, Ellingson is being used a lot more right now and VS has yet to retract the Lindsay/Angel reference (which makes it different from the New Angels/New Faces debacle). I mean, they removed some of the pics and left just Aldridge and Ellingson. If Ellingson wasn't an Angel, then why keep her and remove the rest? We spent much of last year going back and forth about Prinsloo, Swanepoel, Huntington, Heatherton and Iman and it turned out they were all Angels... I offer we keep her until the next retraction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.77 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Last year Prinsloo, Swanepoel, Huntington, Heatherton and Iman weren't thought to be Angels because Forbes.com said Doutzen Kroes was the last model that became an Angel and over fashionspot.com (which is known for having members with connnections to fashion people) the ppl still claim that Ale, Adriana, Miranda and Doutzen are the only models with the true Angel-contract. Well, it's not that serious to me anyway. If the Wiki-page says Ellingson is an Angel because VS official-whatnot-sites say so, then it's not Wiki's, but VS's false for spreading confusing information for about 2 years by now.--VSfan88 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

She's just been announced as having a solo Angel event. So this settles that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Rosie

She hasn't worked with the brand for a yea (aside from the 2010 show, obviously) and she is not listed in this year's press release, should we finally go ahead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.115.1 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I read several articles about her that refers to her as a former Victoria's secret model but there are still some articles that refers to her as "Victoria's secret angel". I think it's safer to wait for this year's fashion show and see if she will be included in the Angels intro unless you got a source that is mainly and trustworthy about her departure from VS. --210.38.110.232 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some missing element

" the Angels started out as Victoria's Secret's lingerie line" Something's missing here, as the phrase makes no sense as it stands.--Wetman (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Parking Suspicious Content

Parking - Many fashion historians believe...

  • Reason(s) for Parking
    (1) off topic content & (2) possible vandalism
    Posted by
    64.78.84.72 on 28 September 2012
    Content
    Many fashion historians believe there to be a connection between the Victorian era and the clothing and lingerie of Victoria's Secret. Fashion specialists seem to think that a connection between the shape of a woman's body and fashion trends and designs throughout the years have influenced the creation of Victoria's Secret lingerie. The corset was the form of women's fashion that first influenced the "scandalous and sexy" lingerie that is now sold worldwide to hundreds of millions of customers. [1]

WestportWiki (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Workman, Nancy. "From Victorian to Victoria's Secret: The Foundations of Modern Erotic Wear". Journal of Popular Culture; Fall96, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p61-73, 13p. Retrieved 28 September 2012.

Source

I came across this source in improving the article on Playtex and thought it would be immensely helpful here.[1] Corporate 14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

great. looks useful. Thank you for sharing Corporate. Looks like we edit similar spaces. Hope we can work together. WestportWiki (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

overlinked

To clarify for all other editors: This is tagged as overlinked because some links are duplicated. Thank you user:Toccata quarta for helping with this. R00m c (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking also refers to linking to unrelated articles. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I looked for unrelated articles, but did not see many. As you pointed out there where many duplicated links. I removed the duplicated links. I kept the one that was used first in the article. R00m c (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How many stores, again?

I've added a [contradictory] tag over this.

There were, apparently, 4 stories in 1982; but immediately before the sale there were either 3 stores or 6 stores, depending which article you read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant copy edit required

This article has numerous problems. The lead section "generally doesn't contain citations" unless the facts are controversial, and 8 citations for a single fact is excessive. One citation is adequate, unless the fact is controversial, when another citation from a reputable source may be appropriate. The lead doesn't adequately summarize the entire article.

The article contains too many subheads, making the body very choppy, as in the section 1983–1990: Expansion into malls, which is composed of 8 paragraphs and 12 sentences, and other sub-sections in the History section. This is an encyclopedia article and it doesn't need to capture the company's entire history. The history section could be substantially improved if only the notable facts about the company's history were retained. There are other facts that aren't as presented particularly notable, like the Music CDs. Either this and other sections like it need more exposition to explain what's notable about them, or they just ought to be removed.

The article is very choppy. All of the information about its subsidiary Pink (Current Pink products, Pink spokesmodels,) ought to be consolidated into a single section devoted to that business. The section on Executives doesn't need three subsections for each subsidiary, which doesn't appear to be complete, as the leadership of Pink is not listed. The Corporate Affairs section is chronologically confusing. Just list the name changes and owners in order. The language is often cryptic and note-like. The sections on Controversies and Criticism either ought to be expanded or removed to the talk page until someone has time to do that work.

The company's marketing practices have generated ongoing controversy, including their use of teen heart-throb Justin Bieber "on the stage as models wearing the colorful Pink line cotton panties and bras strutted across the stage," obvious retouching models photos, Karlie Kloss wearing an racially-insensitive Indian headdress on stage, their use of black models, their use of mannequins in store windows, and so forth.

The article includes citations using naked URLs that need to be cleaned up. There's lots more that could be done, but these steps would be a good start. For more help, refer to fixing the body. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I worked on copy edit but sleep calls. Geraldshields11 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lily Aldrige

Please incluse a photo of the current angel the lovely Lily Aldridge, she deserves it 204.99.118.9 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 - archiving of TP

i propose we set up auto-archiving for this talk page. Anyone object? Concur? Thoughts on parameters for misza bot (sp?)? How many threads should we leave here current? all hose not active in last 30 or 60 days or more still or less or?? Thanks! Azx2 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Adriana Lima's contract

Adriana Lima is listed as signed in 2000 (probably due to VH1 special on the Angels Across America tour, which states that her performance in Cannes elevated her to Angel status) but it seems weird because: 1) Lima doesn't appear in 2001 show opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOoNNTGcxlg 2) In this video she states that "They chose [her] to be there" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6VGklUb5A, implying she was not an Angel at the time, otherwise the show would have been in her contract 3) This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NZB1YFUSz4 features an interview by Monica Mitro, which can be dated to 2001 (see the above one), where she talks about Lima as one of their future big girls, implying she was not yet contracted with them at the time. 4) Her first event for the brand as a spokesperson was in 2002 whereas all the other Angels have had events scheduled much earlier into their contract.

So at best, Lima was contracted in the last days of 2001 and more likely in 2002 or 2003. 90.35.167.14 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

the sources that you give still don't validate that she was contracted later than in 2000 as the points you're giving are not merely more than speculations that can be refuted as follows: 1) Selita Ebanks and Izabel Goulart are also not credited in the 2005 show intro, even though they were already contracted by that time. 2) It could mean that she wasn't an Angel by that time, but it could also mean that she's all in all happy that VS picked her to work with them. 3) I think you were missing the point when Mitro said that about Lima. See, new Angels don't become household names overnight. It barely happens that new Angels become household names in the very same year they got contracted. It usually takes years, e.g. in Miranda Kerr's case: she was contracted in 2007, but she became famous not until 2009 when she started dating Orlando Bloom. Another example is Gisele Bündchen who was contracted in 2000 but became a real household name not until she started dating Leonardo DiCaprio and got the record-breaking-$30-million-VS-contract in 2003. You might as well can look at the current Angel-squad. Some of them are also not known to the general public, even though most of them have been Angels for years. 4) Lima's English was limited in the early 2000's (to a certain extend, her English is still limited to this date!), so there you have your reason why they could have been reluctant to send her on events to TALK.

Furthermore, I would like to say that I would never trust Lima when it comes to the chronological order of her career. She also said in the 2011-show that her first show was in 2000, and as we all know that's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSfan88 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

None of what you stated actually disproves the points made above 90.35.229.182 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

victoria'§Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).s secrret bridal shoes from 1963 (my wife owns a pair)

my wife owns the shoes from our wedding which took place in 1963 in Brooklyn,N.Y. which are cleary stamped "Victoria Secret. If the company was founded in 1977, why was the name used 13 years earlier?Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.73.147 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

What will happen? Nothing? Quo Vadis? 

Headline-1: Investors Rattled After Victoria's Secret CEO Quits Suddenly

QUOTE: "Victoria’s Secret CEO Sharen Jester Turney has quit unexpectedly, news that stoked investor anxiety about the prospects for L Brands’ LB -1.32% biggest business by far. Shares were down 5% midday on Friday. ... Turney, who took the helm in 2006, helped turn Victoria’s Secret into a cultural touchstone." -- AstroU (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Victoria's Secret. 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) 22:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Article too long

You say the lead-section does not adequately summarize the key points. I say it's the article that is far too long, and full of items that are simply not notable. Also needs updating, as mentioned. Valetude (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The entire article needs a good clean-up. As you noted, the lead section is way too short and the rest of the article is basically a mess with a lot of unnecessary details. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Victoria's Secret. 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) 07:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Added to Lead, Compressed History

In an attempt to fix the lead of this article, I have compressed some of the history section while updating it to somewhat current day. Overall, the history section needs a whole overhaul as it is very long and probably too detailed.--Courtc22 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Good job. I did some additional compression of the history section by eliminating some of the sub-sections, but your right that the entire article needs a total overhaul. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria's Secret. 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) 00:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria%27s_Secret/Archive_2&oldid=1080950600"