Talk:Bikini/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Girl in the red flowered bikini

I'm afraid that the woman in the current picture at the top right corner of this article is, to put it flatly, emaciated. Perhaps, a healthier looking person might be better for this article? 70.144.214.140 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. She looks like she spent a great deal of time in a concentration camp. To keep eating disorders to a minimum, the image should be changed to one of a much healthier person. 99.246.143.181 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The topic isn't the person, it's the cloth. And, that part is illustrated quite alright in the image. In short, it's quite encyclopedic, and the person wearing it is really not a matter we should discuss here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look in any medical textbook, clothing catalogue, or whathaveyou, the people in them are always modest and in good health. It seems odd to me that of the millions of bikini pictures out there, this article contains one of a woman who CLEARLY is not in good health. Anyone with a ribcage that is entirely visible other than beneath the breasts is significantly underweight, especially a woman. If the image is just about the cloth, why not just use an image of JUST the cloth? Women and girls are evidently sensitive to how they look and are quite prone to eating disorders and other personal abuse. It seems reasonable that a webpage which is supposed to be encyclopedic and is viewed by millions of people should contain an image of someone who is in good health, or an image of no one at all. And as for her feelings, I don't see that being a relevant issue; it is not my responsibility nor anyone else's to ensure that the woman in the picture is kept happy by being on Wikipedia. 99.246.143.181 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm... let's not go off-topic, like guessing a stranger's feelings. But, how do you propose that the person wearing it is clearly not in good health, and it somehow would promote eating disorders? Is it the use of images of women with over-spilling flesh (often enhanced by silicone etc.) in bikini catalogues that lies behind this perception? Please, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything. It's the lead image we're discussing, and if it REALLY needs to change, we shall do so. Right? But, as I understand, none of the other images in the bikini category on the commons come close in aesthetic values, and an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily require ugliness. Do you have any image to suggest that can replace the lead image? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I took matters into my own hands. I removed the girl in the red bikini, especially since that photo was no longer under a Creative Commons license. I suggest that the bikini picture should be of a model, because ordinary people might feel upset if their picture is the main picture for "bikini", typically associated with a sexy image. And it should include a beach, because bikinis are beachwear. I hope that the new picture is good, but there are many other good pictures on Flickr. I should know, because I just spent an hour to get a good one. Twocs (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change for 2 reasons. 1)The image you uploaded and put in the article, while showing on Flickr that it's free to use, is actually owned by BetUS and is in their calendar and DVD, which are both copyrighted. 2) The image you removed was originally free and verified as such by an admin. License can not be revoked. Therefore, regardless of the Flickr user having changed the copyright on Flickr, the original license still stands and is valid. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that photograph is not in their calendar. Secondly videos are on DVDs, not photos, so how can a photo be on a DVD as claimed? Just because a photo is taken during a photoshoot does not mean that it cannot be licensed Creative Commons by the photographer. Twocs (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the red bikini picture clearly violates the Wikipedia image policy, which says that pictures of people in swimsuits cannot be used without their explicit permission. Twocs (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly which policy are you referring to? Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The policy of Wikipedia about photos shown in commons:COM:PEOPLE#Normally_not_OK suggests that this young girl, who is clearly identifiable, and is in some body of water that may be a private space, has legal rights for her photo in a revealing bikini. Twocs (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Images of people in public places, which this clearly is.. I see an ocean/lake/pond/river and not a private swimming pool.. are allowed as long as they are free. Additionally, to further cement that the image is fine and free to use, I've added the Personality rights template to it. If you still feel the image is unacceptable, nominate it for deletion at Commons where it is hosted. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
An "ocean/lake/pond/river" is not always a public space--the photo is from Italy and most beaches in Italy are private. It's good to add the Personality Rights template. Also, Italy has some of the strictest privacy laws on the planet. I will nominate this picture for deletion, but because there are a number of steps that should be done to nominate a picture in the proper way, I will do that when I have more time. Twocs (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you know the photo is from Italy? I see nothing on its Commons page or on the original Flickr page that says it's in/from Italy. Even if it were, remember that Italy's privacy laws do not apply to the United States where the Wiki Foundation is based and under which laws the Foundation are governed. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 08:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong--Italy's privacy laws apply to Wikimedia "if there are any local laws which control the taking of photographs, or the use that may be made of them without the subject's consent, those will take precedence" (COM:PEOPLE). The photographer is from Italy and he works in Italy. Furthermore, he has pictures of the same girl from the same photoshoot on his commercial website, which was the same reason you (Allstarecho) used speedy deletion on the other bikini picture. This picture was obviously taken on a private beach, because most beaches in Italy are private. Twocs (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a little question - if the pictures have already been used commercially, shouldn't that mean that the person featured has provided formal consent? This line of reasoning looks like way less speculative than the "it has to be a private beach" line of speculation. If the image was released as CC2.0, it is perfectly alright to use it on Wikipedia. I read through the "Law" quoted here, and I sincerely believe that there's some Wikilawyering in action here. It is important to understand the principle behind a Wikipedia/Wikimedia "Law", rather than using the words of the "Law" to achieve some kind of personal goal. I am sorry if I am wrong, but it seems the discussion started getting hotter since Twocs's image addition was removed, till then it was mostly about appropriateness of the image, and since then it became an exercise of quoting and strategically interpreting a "Law". Let's not game the system, please. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not true that if pictures have been used commercially, the person featured has provided formal consent for use in Wikipedia. Twocs (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The red bikini image is fine for illustrating this article. The girl looks plenty healthy to me. The shot was obviously taken with her knowledge, hence the pose. Finally, the image has already been through wikimedia review for use on Wikipedia. If any of you are copyright lawyers, please produce your credentials. In the meantime, I vote that the red bikini image stays where it is and that we debate something more productive.Jarhed (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If a red bikini is not worthy of debate, then what use is Wikipedia? (attempt at humor) Twocs (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
HEY. Women in red bikinis are NOT funny.Jarhed (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. Only women in yellow bikinis are funny. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
However, wikipedia is NOT a porno website. It is an encyclopedia and the article is about Bikinis and the image clearly illustrates the appearance and use of one. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Are women in black bikinis funny too? Please, advise. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

She's underweight. These images have an impact. It's a real shame that other issues got in the way of this discussion. Oli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Way to promote an incredibly unhealthy body image, Wikipedia. Not like there's thousands of pictures available of girls in bikinis who DON'T starve themselves. Nice that it's at the top of the page, too: hey girls, don't miss it! This is what you're expected to look like! This makes me sick. 74.178.160.184 (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion would be important to have if there were absolutely anything wrong with the healthier picture, or anything preferable about the emaciated picture. If the alternative to the flowered bikini picture was no picture at all, maybe we could have this discussion. But there are thousands of pictures of women in bikinis, and the one that is currently on the article is perfectly fine. There is no reason whatsoever to insist on constantly returning to the flowered bikini picture. That woman is *not* healthy. Her poor health distracts from the point of the picture (to display clothing). We would not put a picture of a 400 pound woman, an armless woman, or a woman who has any sort of condition which distracts from the purpose of the picture. We want a nondescript picture which focuses on the clothing, and the flowered bikini is anything but that. Enigmocracy (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahahahahhaa... that was the nicest argument I've read on the Wikipedia in a long time. Yes, it makes perfect sense, and was also a wonderful read. (BTW, talking of distractions, I think it can be claimed that any deviation from the average would make some distraction or other. Shall I venture to propose that we use a young Chinese woman to make it really no stand out? Just kidding.) Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tankini

Can someone please remove the misleading "tankini" pic with the girl on the right merely covering up a bikini top with a tied up t-shirt?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.54.160 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Talk:String bikini

you couldnt find a hotter chick for the pic?? Indeed, string bikinis are indicative of a permissive western society that has hit the pits when it comes to morals and values is not NPOV. Come on, get a better picture. If you want to look at porn, go look it up, this is an encylopedia. Get a clue. Those pics weren't of a string bikini, but of a woman wearing a thong. There are plenty of photos out there that are not BSDM related, could we try to find one of those? 129.100.217.198 09:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say - "this is porn". This is not, and Wikipedia is not censored. You are also wrong in deciding it's not a string bikini. It is, very much. But, you are very right when you say - "could we find another picture?" The current picture doesn't portray the bikini too well, and focuses more on the person wearing it. I already have replaced one image for exactly that reason - the garment, not the person, is the subject here. If you can help replacing the image with a better one, please go ahead and do so. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

rephrase "now"

I think that the statement

Participants in the Miss Teen USA pageant are now required to wear bikinis.

should be

As of XXXX, participants in the Miss Teen USA pageant are required to wear bikinis.

I think this arrangement provides more information. What do you think? Kushalt 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it's trivia of no obvious relevance. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree it is trivia. It's more encyclopedic to note it more generally: "Participants in some beauty contests, such as the Miss Teen USA pageant, are required to wear bikinis as part of the competition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twocs (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaced two images.

[1][2] In these two edits, I replaced two pictures because I think they illustrate the paragraphs better. The original images gave the idea that a regular bikini reveals a lot of skin, which it doesn't. The other image implied that a string bikini is the same as a thong or g-string which is not necessarily the case. Just thought I'd mention this here since there appears to be some disagreement. : ) 156.34.232.216 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasons, but couldn't the images replaced by you somehow stay in the article? --Catgut (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go right ahead and add them if you wish. : ) It might "crowd" the article, though. 156.34.212.170 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the string bikini image. This one shows the "strings" more appropriately, both for the top and the bottom. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All righty. 156.34.225.28 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick-on Microkini

Isn't that rather an intimate pasty than a bikini. --Avril1975 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. It may be a pasty alright. But, it may be a microkini at the same time. So, what do you suggest we do? Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Outrage

THIS IS SICK!!!!!!

I AM OUTRAGED AT THE CONTENT OF THIS FOTOGRAF!!! THAT WOMAN IS (AND 95 PERCENT SHE IS WOMAN IN WHITE SLAVERY!) SHE IS WEARING NEXT TO NOTHING. SHE IS SIX QUARTERS NAKED and SINCE KIDS MIGHT BE WATCHING, DIALING IN THIS PICTURE in a SCHOOL LIBRARY and possiblely masturbating with this. this is wikipedia, not playboy. i am a major funder and will withdraw payments unless all pornographic, child porn, and likewise obscene material withdrawn. at the very least, could this picture show a more covering bikini (most women's bikini's do not show stomach area AT ALL just go to the beach sometime YOU IDIOT! S Or just show a bikini sitting on the ground without any girls in it. THESE ARE MY OFFICIAL SUGGESTIONS.

I DEMAND REASBONSIBLITY IN THIS SITE. PROTECTRING CHILDREN IN OUR MAIN RESPONSIBILITY. WHOSE WITH ME? 67.160.174.24 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the stick-on microkini image has been removed (I think I deleted it as a copyright violation actually), I will assume you are talking about Image:Microkini.jpg, or possibly more generally. Let me address your concerns as best I can. First off, Wikipedia is not censored - now, this does not mean we gratuitously add nude or risqué images to every page, but where it illustrates the subject we will. On this page, the images illustrate the subject quite clearly. I am sure you understand that it is impossible to really tell what a piece of clothing looks like until someone wears it, and that is the case with a bikini. You say that most women's bikini's do not show stomach area AT ALL - I'm afraid that these are not bikinis, merely swimming costumes. If you will read the first sentence of the article, the bikini is characterized by two separate parts — one covering the breasts... the other the groin... leaving an uncovered area between the two garments.
Now, you say that protecting children should be our main concern - I can understand that viewpoint, and I agree that children should be protected. However, Wikipedia is not a site designed for children - it is an encyclopaedia for people in general. If you wish to protect your children, especially while at school, contact your school's IT department and ask whether a content filter is in place. Such software would block access to pages such as bikini, penis, sex, etc. I'm afraid that simply because some content is unacceptable to some parts of the population is not a reason to remove it, as otherwise we would have to remove all coverage of subjects such as evolution, God, war, Pokemon and of course the washing machine in case the Amish get offended. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.
I hope this has answered your questions. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello. Mattbuck's completely right about the censoring stuff and I agree with him about almost everything, but the image in question blatantly is more porn than informational - let's face facts, it's not just to "illustrate the subject quite clearly", you'd never ever find that sort of image in an encyclopaedia, you would find (if anything) a picture of a mannequin wearing one. This image is a woman posing sexually for a photo, perhaps to try and sell the bikini or simply to arouse I don't know, but it's NOT an informational image. I don't think it should be removed because it's dangerous to kids or outrageous, I think it should be replaced because it's cheap and not what I'd associate with an informational site. The same goes for the main picture, why does it need to be a gorgeous woman coming out the sea with her hands on her head? A mannequin would be so much more appropriate. I came to wikipedia because I was wanting to find out the exact difference between underwear and bikinis, I'm off to google images now for my sexual needs - and these should be kept very separate. Right now I don't feel they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.77.254 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, bro. The images on this article are cool. That's what I feel. AdjustShift (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Check his user contributions. This was a joke. Just a vandal/griefer.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"i am a major funder and will withdraw payments unless all pornographic, child porn, and likewise obscene material withdrawn."

Now seriously, given the nature of Wikipedia, I think threatening the page with payment withdrawal is ridiculous. Besides, there is no child porn on wikipedia and if somebody does upload any, it gets removed before anyone would actually get to see it. --87.188.64.26 (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

conversion from square inches to centimeters

>That bikini, a string bikini with a g-string back made out of 30 inches (76 cm) of clothes with newspaper type printed across, was "officially" introduced on July 5 at a fashion event at Piscine Molitor, a popular public pool in Paris.

30 square inches is not 76 square centimeters. You can't just multiple square inches by 2.54 to get square centimeters. 30 square inches = about 180 square centimeters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.104.12 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After using the Template:Convert, it should be alright now, like 194cm². Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Villa Romana del Casale

The Roman bikini girls should probably be mentioned somewhere. -- 93.106.49.15 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough material yet to warrant a splitting. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the monokini?

I've noticed a few shopping sites on the Internet indicate that a "monokini" is more than just a bikini bottom or similar, but rather a swimsuit that is a single piece, but still resembles a bikini, particularly in the back. For instance: http://www.charlotterusse.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3190629]. Seriously, put "monokini" into Google Shopping, and that's the style you come up with, and the article says nothing about this style whatsoever. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be counted as WP:SPAM, a serious policy breach. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No, seriously. The only pictures I can find to illustrate the design I'm discussing are commercial sites, and so please don't take my for-instance as spam. And you've not addressed my argument - is this kind of "monokini" design worth discussing in the encyclopedia? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The one you demonstrated is not even a monokini as such, it's just a regular one-piece suit. If we are discussing monokinis, we may also illustrate them fine. Wikipedia is not censored. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
No one is suggesting censoring Wikipedia. I'm saying discuss both. But these appear to be one-piece suits being marketed as "monokini" because while they are one-piece, the back is designed to resemble a bikini. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And found a reliable source for it. [3] I'm adding it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Use it as an add-on, because a monokini primarily is what has been described already, not what you're suggesting. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In the modern age the bikini had to go through a checkered history, unlike the Greco-Romans!

Kudos to all you editors who have provided so much great work and academic detail for this article. I know nothing about this subject other than what I have seen at the pool. However, I know a little bit about writing, and while this article is good, there are lots of typos and misspellings. Worse, some of the syntax is so twisted it makes my eyeballs itch to read it. Finally, there are some data that should not be in this article, such as the reason for the 'coronation' title of the bikini girl mural.

I would be glad to spend some time working on this article. However, I think that the changes it needs are pretty extensive, so I want to check with you guys first. If this is someone's pet article and you are going to flame me for changing it, I would prefer to do something else.

Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. Sorry that my English is atrocious. Someone else tried to lend a hand in copyediting, but unfortunately that person had a very simple solution to problems - kill the problem by removing it, don't try to cure by rewriting. If you can lend a hand there it would be so nice. Good copywriting support is getting rarer and rarer by the day. All the copyeditors I know here and can rely on are on long Wikibreaks, and therefore... here I am, pleading for help. I only hope you are more into discussions than some abrupt editors. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Brother thank you for your cordial reply, and I will be delighted to contribute as I can. Please be patient, and please feel free to change or revert anything I do, I completely do not mind. As for your post on my homepage, if you believe that the History section needs an expanded lede, I will be delighted to edit it to your specifications. Are you the editor that put in the history? If so, that is amazing. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy. Also hope to see expand a bit more as work progresses. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Variant - trikini

While trying to find images of tankinis, I came across quite a few references to trikinis, which appear to be one-piece with material connecting the crotch to the top, but with more coverage than a sling but less than a normal one-piece. Don't know if it's notable or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A trikini is basically a bikini that connects the two pieces of a bikini with a small piece of fabric. Because there is a redirect for the word trikini to the page bikini, I think one sentence about trikini on the bikini page would be enough. But on the other hand, it is not a common swimsuit, so it shouldn't have its own article. An image of a trikini appear in the article Bikini_variants. Twocs (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. What you are talking about is a monokini. A Trikini would be a three-piece swimsuit - e. g. a skirted bikini, consisting of a top, a bottom and a skirt. -- 79.238.171.198 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the set of two pieces connected together calls monokini. Trikini is set of bottom and two top pieces, covering breasts separately. --Stizerg (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Skirted Bikinis

I think this articles should also mention skirted bikinis. -- 79.238.171.198 (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember?

Does no one else remember from the late 1940s that the bikini was talked about as signifying "wearing next to nothing" because that's what was left of the atoll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.226.187 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get the question. Would you explain it a bit more? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He is referring to a joke about Bikini Atoll. In fact, a similar pun appears on the page in the second paragraph of this section: Bikini_Atoll#History. Twocs (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember a cinema newsreel at the time presenting the fashion to the UK which said in part "Why Bikini? Because they tested the Atom Bomb at Bikini and after that there wasn't much left". Those as far as I can remember were the exact words. It made a great impression. 86.186.147.246 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

general comment

This is an article that could have been subsumed into the broader category of swimwear/beachwear. The article 'feels' titillating in content ie less scholarly than it could have been. Certain of thse images have a sexually stimulating overlay to them rather than being purely illustrative - although, given the 'fact' that a bikini, in that strangely contradictory way with minimal clothing, is both concealing yet designed to be sexually attractive to the onlooker - this duality is difficult to avoid. The first pic. is so obvioulsy posed and therefore again draws the viewer away from an informational position. The pic. of a beach volleyball player is (to me) objectifying - her face is not visible and her buttocks are the point of focus. In contrast the pole-vaulter is an objective image. Use of a mannequin would defeat the whole idea of what impression the use of a bikini on a human conveys. The person who ranted about the 'sick' nature of the images etc. should restrain themselves from further comment until they have examined the apparent psychological dissonances he/she is experiencing. These outbursts are also unscholarly and unsettling esp on an ostensibly knowledge oriented aite. I have never heard of a male bikini - one would assume a covering of the pubic area and also a separate piece of material covering the 'costal' area and this is patently what is not meant here (or perhaps someone might elucidate me). Such an piece of clothing is as risible as Sacha Baron-Cohen's 'Mankini' - yet someone is bound to see the item as valid (non-ironical) clothing. In Britain 'Speedos' are bathing trunks or 'bathers' (colloqiual to some parts of Britain). The American product promotion method of pushing a brand name into generic terminology is evidential of a particular national mind-set - again not scholarly. Gr1bble8s (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SO what propose ye we do? Azx2 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For User:Enigmocracy

Discussing your revert as counselled by you. Though I don't know what to say to this. What is your reason to repeated revert ([4] and [5]) to the current image from a long standing image which amply illustrated the subject of the article? Apparently your first reason was - "why does anorexic flower girl keep getting edited back? that picture is more appropriate for an article on emaciation, not clothing.", which was followed by "please stop re-adding this picture, especially without contributing to the discussion about it on the talk page". Wikipedia has no prejudice against thinner body types, and neither of these two rationales are consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, custom or culture, as far as I can see. Therefore, without a stronger argument, the long-standing image may stand instead of the current image, or a number of other images that briefly replaced it (some of them were even clearly copyvio and was deleted as such). Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the ambiguity - my comment regarding this matter is in the section regarding the red flower bikini girl, where I provide a more detailed argument.Enigmocracy (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the point

This is regarding this and this edits. While I understand that you are trying to make the image layout better, and you are doing something that is not explicitly prohibited, I really can't see the point. For one, putting images in relevant places in the article is advised in the guidelines, and all these years and all across Wikipedia most of the editors used the method of putting them after the relevant sub-header. And, also consider that putting images that way unnecessarily carry the image across the line of second-level headers, messing up the standard layout of articles. All that stepped over because one editor believes it looks better, especially when it actually makes no improvement! Really, how is it better? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I prefer Aditya's layout. The other way looks pointlessly disorganized. Townlake (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
agree i prefer adityas layout as well. Bouket (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree as well - the version BMK is reverting to is horrible looking on my screen, Aditya's is much better. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshall Islands cultural controversy - citation needed

A user was kind enough to add some info to the article re. cultural controversies (see below). I've marked it as requiring source citation(s), however, and hope they will return to provide documentation for the interesting points raised.

The text in question now reads:

"Considering the bikini was originally designed in the Western World primarily for Western women, it was also named after Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and it is noteworthy that the bikini's design violates the traditional female modesty customs of Marshallese culture in its exposure of bare thighs.[citation needed] Conversely, traditional Marshallese modesty does not apply the same social stigma to the exposure of bare breasts, which the bikini does cover. In modern Marshallese society, it is generally fashionable for women to wear Western World-influenced clothing that covers both parts of the body, but it not generally considered modest for a woman to be seen wearing a bikini for the reason that it exposes her bare thighs.[citation needed]"

Cheers! Azx2 18:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Image additions and deletions

not quite the best "main" bikini image?

I can understand why it's tempting to add images to this article, as the subject matter has the potential for pleasurable viewing to many (though not all, of course), but it would be great if we could strive for consensus with regards to adding or deleting bikini images going forward. The picture at right, for example (which was recently added by one contributor but then deleted by another), is very nice, but I believe the current main bikini article picture to be more appropriate since by virtue of having captured two models walking in opposite directions, it presents the reader with both front and rear views of common bikini style. I honestly don't think it's frivolous, the question of the main image, and while I'm in no way wedded to the current image, I do hope to foster consensus if there's a move to change it in the near-term. So can we discuss any photo changes? (And as an aside, if there's a better "sport bikini" photo that could replace this one, please someone feel free to suggest it!) Cheers! Azx2 06:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"by virtue of having captured two models walking in opposite directions, it presents the reader with both front and rear views of common bikini style" - that mode of both sides of the case at hand makes sense (I'm not commenting on a specific photo but rather that it makes sense to present both sides given each side is different.)WestportWiki (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the article as it stands now is sufficiently stocked w/ images? I understand that it could be easy to saturate an article like this, given the potential for inclusion of so many visually-appealing pictures, but believe we must resist the temptation to indulge and be very selective in what photographs accompany the text. Azx2 06:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Contextually on sub-topic photos that enhance understanding could be added (eg less distraction more enhancing understanding & informational value in relation to visuals).WestportWiki (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I added what I thought was a contextually-relevant image of WWE Diva wrestlers in their bikini-like outfits to the appropriate section. Do you think it works? Azx2 02:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I also reintroduced an image of the mankini to the article, given the lack of any visual reference to anything related to men's bikinis. Nevertheless, I'm not a huge fan of the image to begin with, and I don't like how it contributes to the visual look and feel of the article. That said, someone might make a case for its inclusion - would that be you? Or anyone? I'd be interested to hear some feedback. Cheers. Azx2 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
hi, the WWE addition is by and large overly characterized as sensational and I can foresee could be improved upon. Hope that's helpful.WestportWiki (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thanks for share your perspective. cheers! Azx2 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I spend some time today reworking the images for this article and am very happy with the new selections and layout. Constructive feedback is welcomed, however. Note that, rather than re-add the mankini shot, since that content was reduced, I found and used a pic of bodybuilding briefs. Azx2 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a one-line gallery of images as a sub-section to the article today, to better represent the variety of bikini designs and styles discussed therein. I also included the mankini image, which had previously been in the main body of the article. Azx2 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Today I asked another Wikipedia editor, user:FAEP, to assess the image selection and layout for the main body of this article and the gallery subsection, and hope he will provide his feedback here. Azx2 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess user:FAEP hasn't had time or interest to offer his feedback. OK...at least an effort was made. Azx2 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Today I reverted the edit by User:Kentongreening in which they unilaterally made the decision to replace the main article image and asked that they participate in discussion here concerning adding and deleting images to the article and establish consensus before making such a profound change to the article in the future. While User:Kentongreening describes themselves as a "Specialist in Greek, Roman, and early Christian mosaics..." and that could've been motivation for making such a change (switching the main image to a picture of the bikini girls mosaic), I hope they'll come here and make their case for why the image should be changed before doing so again. Azx2 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW - there is an image of the bikini girls mosaic in the gallery subsection. It's of an individual "bikini girl," however, and not the entire mosaic. If someone thinks the article would be better served with the full mosaic in the gallery, or even in addition to the single girl, I could see the logic in that and wouldn't oppose such an update. Regardless, it would be good to hear from them so we can all get onto same page. Cheers. Azx2 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I put User:Kentongreening bikini girls full-mosaic pic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_romana_bikini_girls.JPG into the article's gallery here to try it out. Any feedback is appreciated. Azx2 21:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Men's bikinis

I found it really baffling that this article flat-out says "women's swim suit," when the word "bikini" is in common usage to describe a similar style of men's bathing suit. The word clearly seems to have been applied to the women's style first, but it seems bizarre to act as though men's bikinis don't exist, especially when they're referred to as such in the Speedo (suit style) article. I'd make the changes myself, but (a) I don't know the history of men's bikinis and (b) it would require a heck of a lot of editing of the article to change all the references that ignore men's bikinis. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know what the most preferable solution would be. --Grvsmth 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. And the overall article is too focused on swimwear. I have worn men's bikini underwear since I was 12, and was surprised there is no mention of boy's or men's undergarments here. They are sometimes referred to as "European style underwear". Teamgoon 05:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, balance for all such swimwear (be it for males or females) and details on the other clothing called "bikini" would be very helpful -Harmil 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I've never heard men's trunks being called bikinis (in England). Maybe that's an American thing? I've always just called them speedos. I've added a line linking to speedos, anyway. Fishies Plaice 11:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've never heard anyone refer to a piece of men's swimwear as a bikini. Speedo, yes. And I'm American, so I don't think it's an American thing. Doctormatt 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have, and I'm also an american. It's definitely far rarer in colloquial speech, but when you go into a store and need to disambiguiate what style of stuit you are looking for, I would ask for the "Bikini style" men's bathing suit, not "speedo style". Speedo is a brand... it's kind of like saying that people only ever call tissues "kleenex".Lemon-lime 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Those are swimming trunks. The clue here is bi, as in two parts. Speedo is a brand name which has become genericised, though, like hoover or kleenex. We have had many many attempts to add nonsense about "male bikini wearing" so you're going to ened some really solid sources if you want anything about men in this article. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not "nonsense." "Bikini" has nothing to do with "bi" meaning two. How do you explain the term "bikini" when referring to a women's undergarment, which is one piece? Or "bikini briefs" when referring to men's underwear? I'm for adding the info. PacificBoy 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Men's bikini's do exist so yeah, there should be a refrence to it. And i agree with Pacific Boy. There are men who wear bikinis, and leaving them out of an article on bikinis is absurd. I've worn men's thongs since i was twelve, and over in the thong article, there are sections on male thong wear.Guy113 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the section on men's bikini's? it just dissapeared. I don't really wear bikini's (g strings have been my choice of underwear since third grade) but come on guys. a whole section doesn't just dissapear. Men's bikini's exist and are sold, and people buy them. i'll add it myself too, and i'm open to suggestions.Speedo113 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't vanish, really. It merged with the intro. As bikini is primarily women's swimwear, it didn't really fit well into the variants section. But, it apparently is a phenomenon big enough to prominent a good position in the article (i.e. not a footnote or fine-print). There were two ways to deal with that — either a section on its own, or a merge into the lead. Since there was not enough content for an independent section, I went for the second option. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I made this edit to the lead, to at least have a bit about the term applying to men's swimwear situated there as well. It was there before, but was removed.[6][7] And, frankly, if this article is going to cover both sexes' swimwear, then the lead shouldn't only describe it as women's clothing. Thus, I made that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
For anyone coming to this debate late, there is now a section titled Men's Bikini, though it's not a topic for the intro, imho. Cheers.Azx2 16:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Date convention - currently many different formats

I'd like to see this article nominated for GA-status eventually, and inevitably one thing that will have to be done is to rationalize the formatting of dates (especially in the source citations) to ensure consistency. At present there are several different date formats. Can we agree on one and begin correcting all the dates (in text and references) to that format? And is there a "bot" that can do the process automatically? Thanks. Azx2 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment/Review

Would anyone be willing to undertake a reassessment of the bikini article w/ an eye towards improving it to status of a Good Article? I've contributed so much to it that I'm disqualified from reviewing this for GA-status, so it's basically pointless for me to lead the reassessment imo. But I think the feedback would be valuable, b/c I very much so want to see this article nominated for the GA-designation, which it will merit eventually (especially once we standardize the date format!!). Azx2 23:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

While the article seems well-referenced, there are still two sections with no reference at all: "Bikini tops", and "Bikini underwear". Also in Men's bikini, the final line about the "mankini" and its popularization is unsourced. Other than that, great overview of the subject. Thanks for your effort. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Dimadick. I'll look at this, but please feel free to add any references to the material in question if you can turn them up. btphelps also suggested to start an outline of possible areas for improvement here, so anyone could contribute to it. I think that would be a good step but am not sure exactly what format or style the "outline" should take. Does anyone have any experience w/ this? Azx2 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
OK Dimadick, I added two citations for the mankini popularization by Borat. I also added references to the two sub-sections you identified. Azx2 21:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I moved some info that's in somewhat rough shape from History of the bikini a little while ago and need a bit of time to edit it into shape. A recent editor commented that the "history section is seriously flawed still." The same editor removed a couple of what I thought were judiciously chosen images, which is to say, images that are informative but don't titillate, a potential challenge with this kind of article. Since there's been no previous discussion of the history section, I wasn't aware it was in such awful condition. In fact, I thought it'd been well improved over the past month. If anything, there may be too much info in the history section, since there is an entire article devoted to the history. If there are problems with the history section or the choice of iamges that you can identify, please describe them here so they can be discussed and rectified. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I came in too strong. The "flawed still" remark was not for you, as the history section has been flawed for quite some time. It still is far from the high standard Wikipedia tries to promote. The images were removed because they had no information, especially when the original research in the section was removed. Nothing to do with the choice of images. And, sorry again for the late reply. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Aditya and btphelps: thanks for meeting here on the talk page to discuss this. You two are the only editors who I've had the pleasure to interact with in improving this article during the past month, and I appreciate you both contributing to the article ongoing. Having corresponded with each of you individually and in detail, I know you're very sophisticated editors with a genuine interest in making bikini as good an article as it can be.... That's all...just wanted to express my belief that we're all on the same page in our desire to make "quality" edits to this article, and it's nice to see that people can check-in with each other and ensure there's no miscommunication or misunderstandings when working quickly and boldly! Thanks again to both of you for the work you've done here - I hope we can continue to move the bikini fwd together! lol... Cheers Azx2 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Elle magazine bikini timeline w/ some interesting quotes, that could be of use going forward in improving the history section, if it's nto already factored-in:
THE HISTORY OF THE BIKINI - From fabric rationing to g-strings, swimsuits have come a long way, baby | BY ELLE | APRIL 23, 2012 12:00 AM | .... Oh and btw, btphelps: it's got a Honey Ryder slide: "Early 1960s | In 1960, Bryan Hyland releases a hit single: "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini." Two years later, Ursula Andress emerges from the sea wearing a belted white bikini as Honey Ryder in Dr. No, Sean Connery's first James Bond film. That same year, Playboy finally puts a bikini on the cover."
Cheers! Azx2 06:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I coincidentally ran across the Elle article two days ago as well. It confirms a number of facts in the article and I used the better image of Micheline Bernardini modeling the swimsuit to update the existing image on WP. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Bikini

I propose we set-up automatic archiving of this article's talk page, which can be done using any one of a variety of bots or manual processes, once consensus has been established. While I will wait some time to allow other editors to express their support for archiving the talk page, I do want to go ahead and propose that we use either MiszaBot or ClueBot III to automatically create cut-and-paste archives for the discussion page. They'll move sections to a subpage after they have received no comments for a specified period of time. If I don't hear any objections I'll go ahead and set this up. Azx2 17:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

note: I did add the {{archives}} template to display a prominent archive box since this talk page had already been manually archived once already and there's a long series of discussions there. Azx2 17:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm trying to set-up the auto-archiving now. Hopefully it works...Azx2 05:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it worked! From now on, this talk page will be archived "automatically" by a bot, w/ corresponding archive link displayed in a prominent position above. Cheers. Azx2 03:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gang, do you think we should throttle-back the archive speed (so to speak) for this talk page? Right now it will cull discussion threads older than 31d w/o response iirc - is that too little time? Should that be extended to 60 days, for example? Or fine as is at 31d? Azx2 05:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't tweaked the archive date range but I did add the Auto archiving notice box to this talk page. Have a good weekend, everyone. Azx2 07:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible areas for improvement

  • There are still two sections with no reference:
  • "Bikini tops"  Done
  • "Bikini underwear"  Done
  • Appropriateness. Some possible sources:

— btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi btphelps. Thanks for the feedback. Very helpful. Per my comment above, I added citations for the popularization of the mankini by Borat, and also found basic source citations for the previously-unreferenced sub-sections. I also provided some additional references throughout the article, including a helpful one from The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Charleston, Beth Duncuff. "The Bikini". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/biki/hd_biki.htm (October 2004) I can see now we have some work to do w/r/t the other areas you identify. I know you added quite a bit back into the history of the bikini, but do you think that these (Public perception and acceptance; Influence of swimsuit design on underwear; Fabrics; Geographic acceptance; Legal issues) should be added as entirely new sub-sections, or could they be integrated into already-existing spaces? I'm thinking fabrics could fall under "variants," legal issues and geographic acceptance could go into "controversies," and Public perception and acceptance could be discussed in cultural controversies, perhaps explaining some difference in perception and acceptance? Cheers. Azx2 22:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW - is there an already accepted/common format for an "outline" on a talk page that we can use to make it easy to keep track of proposed changes we're discussing? Thanks! Azx2 22:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
See my comments inline above. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The legal section interests me. I'll work on that section separately and add it when I'm done. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The article has grown from 43K on August 1 to 71K on August 16. I think I've done my piece for a while. Please pitch in using the list above as a starting point. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well done, btphelps! Great to see the positive contribution that can be made by a newly-involved editor. Really appreciate your effort, and hope others will be likewise inspired to further improve the article! Note: I make some comments to the outline above. Azx2 23:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, although I've actually been contributing to WP since 2004–03–17. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hehe ya I meant "newly-involved" (newly-(re)involved?) with the article in question, not Wikipedia, as you're obviously a very experienced and sophisticated Wikipedia contributor! Thanks again for helping improve this article!! Azx2 05:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Added a new section above loosely named "Appropriateness". — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bikini statement

It should be mentioned that the bikini is an outfit to attract the opposite sex. The people of this age are obsessed with sex, just sex. The Bikini makes a bold age old sttaement: "SEX SELLS". Period. -59.95.31.122 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable source(s) for a citation in which that statement is made, then you may consider adding it to the article, if consensus exists. Please report back with your findings. Azx2 19:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bikini/Archive_2"