Talk:Bikini/Archive 3

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

new Commons photos of swimsuit competition entrants

New photos of bikini-clad female contestants have been uploaded to WMC from a 2012 swimsuit competition. The images may be useful in some articles related to Bikini, or of interest to you personally. For your perusal:

  • Entrants in a Texas bikini contest
    Entrants in a Texas bikini contest
  • Pageant competitors en route to parade
    Pageant competitors en route to parade
  • Twin Peaks 2012 bikini competition
    Twin Peaks 2012 bikini competition
  • Candid moment for those same ladies
    Candid moment for those same ladies

These images originate from an expansive, interesting, and approriately-licensed flickr set: "Twin Peaks Bikini Contest 051212" that I strongly encourage you to examine. Please note: "Twin Peaks" refers, in this case, to a restaurant in Round Rock, Texas, USA, and not to any anatomical requirement for competitors. I tried to use the Flickr-to-Commons TUSC tool to bulk upload more images, but could not get it to work so just left it at these four uploaded manually. But yes, there are quite a few interesting pics of various bikinis from the 2010s in the flickr set that may be of interest to students of the subject(s). Azx2 19:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Since bikini contests are part of the Bikini in popular culture article, I guess, the discussion for these images should go into that talk page. For this article they are not particularly relevant. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aditya, I agree that they definitely may have relevance to the swimsuit competition article (which is its own unique article) because they were taken during a bikini contest, but the gallery may also be useful to those interested in bikini studies, as there are several excellent photos of individual models (and pairs) wearing bikinis that are presented in great detail, front and rear. For example, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the following images from that set provide useful detail, especially in better-understanding fit and coverage specifics:
  • Model in a bikini contest in 2012, poses on the bar
    Model in a bikini contest in 2012, poses on the bar
  • Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind
    Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind
  • Models in a bikini contest in 2012, captured up-close, from behind
    Models in a bikini contest in 2012, captured up-close, from behind
  • Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind
    Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind
  • Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind posing candidly
    Model in a bikini contest in 2012, captured from behind posing candidly
Anyway, as always, thanks for providing your insights and feedback. Cheers! Azx2 00:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Legal and social issues

This section seems choppy, like a bunch of news items mashed together, some significant while others trivial. I would look at each paragraph and analyze what encyclopedic value it brings to the article (as opposed to, hey this is an interesting bit of trivia). Maybe model the section on Brassiere#Social_issues_and_trends. --NeilN talk to me 06:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the legal section is just a collection of interesting facts that haven't yet been linked into a whole. It does need more thought given to it and synthesis. Interestingly enough, I wrote most of the section on Brassiere Social Issues and Trends that you refer to. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The controversies section still doesn't meet WP:UNDUE. A whole paragraph on some incidence in a Dubai Mall? Another paragraph on two Philippines girls posting on facebook? The Pamela Anderson paragraph is not even about a bikini. Too much information for an encyclopedic entry on the whole subject of bikini. Too much importance given to too little things. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. While the sensational stuff are not not taboo, it is hardly acceptable to have so much focus on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bikini&action=edit&section=3#the sensational stuff.
BTW, the Marshall Island culture bit doesn't look to be a fact at all. The references given don't mention it at all, and no reference to support that bit of information could be found. Let's stick to verifiable facts, and not hearsay. And, on top it, that information has nothing to do with the etymology. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I also took the liberty of removing the princess Leia bit, because it was quite trivial to the larger picture of bikini history. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: I'm not sure how you're applying WP:UNDUE. That guideline suggests that the article fairly represents all significant viewpoints... of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I appreciate your bold edits and desire to improve the article like the info you added on the first Miss World contest. Within the constraints of identifying worthy reliable sources in the English language, the information developed so far demonstrates different culture's reactions to women wearing the suit in different contexts. I personally don't think Pamela Anderson is all that newsworthy, but she is depicted in the controversial ad wearing a bikini which forms an essential part of why it was banned, as noted in the content and in the reference. If we can locate less "sensational" and more substantive info on a relatively lightweight subject like the bikini, then go ahead and add it, but I don't think the information present should be deleted pending finding more weighty, scholarly sources. Further, I'm not sure why some of the information developed so far is "sensational" and what you think needs to be added to make the information more representative. Please elaborate.
As to some specific edits removing content:
  • The closing of Réard's company folded in 1988 is a relevant bookend to the start of the bikini design which he conceived.
  • Miss Maryland Jamie Fox's bikini is another relevant bookend to the trajectory of acceptance of the bikini over time.
  • The impact of the bikini on Demi Moore's career demonstrates its cultural impact.
  • Carrie Fisher's metal bikini is "one of the most memorable swimsuit moments in cinema history".
  • Marshall Island customs. Not sure why the info isn't relevant or why the refs don't pass muster. It adds a world-wide vantage to the article which from my perspective helps to reduce your concern with undue weight given to Western points of view. Perhaps it doesn't belong in Etymology but in Cultural Issues.
  • Images were removed for unknown reasons along with some unsubstantiated, possibly wp:or content (that could have been developed with some references), for no apparent reason in this edit.
So I'm a little confused about what appear to me to be somewhat arbitrary decisions about what comprises encyclopedic content in an article topic that is in reality pretty lightweight as a subject matter. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

btphelps, I think this is a very fair inquiry on your part and reasonable request to better understand the perspective that Aditya reflects on when considering how to edit this article, and I hope it's something you can resolve quickly and amicably. I know neither of you want to waste your time - or another editor's - by adding content to the article that's then removed, but I'm concerned that this could be a danger here (which is no doubt why you're pausing to check in with AK). And Aditya, please just try to keep in mind that none of us is adding content to the article that we think is inappropriate, just to compel someone else to remove it. So yeah, perhaps we can discuss here the abrupt or large-scale removal of even seemingly trivial information that's only recently been added, before it's removed!
Like BT said, "I appreciate your bold edits and desire to improve the article" and I'm really glad you came back to the article on my request after several years away. I also think there is value in the inclusion of information that "demonstrates different culture's reactions to women wearing the suit in different contexts" (BT) and wouldn't want to see that information simply deleted w/o discussion, especially if we could find a better way to utilize it. I definitely don't think that btphelps is trying to amass a collection of bikini-related trivia, and would just encourage the raising and discussion here of concerns about information that any one of us has added recently, before deleting it without allowing a chance for the editor to contextualize the details. Thanks again to both of you for continuing to contribute to this article. I really hope we can eventually bring it to GA-status, as that would be an amazing show of intellectual ability, to take a topic as potentially titillating as bikinis, and produce a highly-encyclopaedic and interesting article on it but still w/o being dull or censorious! Azx2 22:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer

Trying to answer.

Undue. I am quoting the whole paragraph that applies here for proper understanding of the policy (adding underlines for emphasis):

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Too much focus and too detailed information on things that has little impact on the subject hardly makes the article encyclopedic. Consider the facts that you wrote a whole paragraph on some incidence in a Dubai Mall and another paragraph on two Philippines girls posting on facebook. And, funnily enough you wrote yet another paragraph on Pamela Anderson paragraph that hardly refers to a bikini.

The same applies to the Princess Leia bit. Do you really think that this popular bikini or that popular bikini should feature in short summary of the history of the bikini? How many of those popular bikinis should be included (unless they have a serious impact on the history, like contributing to mass acceptance of the bikini like the Dr. No bikini, or setting a milestone like the Million Years BC bikini)?

I am sure that you are aware that hundreds and hundreds of actresses "walked out of the ocean wearing a bikini". How is Demi Moore wearing a bikini more significant than the rest? Since the an Elle slideshow was provided as a citation to that bit of information, I am curious to know what you think of the next slide that says Gwyneth Paltrow wore a bikini on Steven Spielberg's yacht. Was that a significant moment in the history bikini as well?

A suggestion. If you are inclined to make a note of all the great bikini moments, try out a separate article on that subject. If its encyclopedic and notable enough it will stay on. There are many such moments. Check FHM, Cosmopolitan, and Elle for preview of the potential of such a list. Alternatively you can add those moments to the Bikini in popular culture article.

The two "relevant bookends" that you quoted are definitely relevant if we were not trying to do a summary of the history. Incidentally, both bits of information are already there in the History of the bikini article, which is longer than the history section here, and obviously can accommodate more details and somewhat less significant information.

OR. While you complain about removal of some image without mentioning the information it was accompanying and while you claim that the "Cultural differences" section adds worldwide vantage, you keep ignoring a core Wikipedia policy - WP:OR. For proper understanding I am quoting a whole paragraph again (adding underlines for emphasis):

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

What you write on the Marshall Islands is a serious example of WP:SYN, proves no point and the citations that you provide do not refer to the garment even once (the only bikini they quote is an island, not a beachwear). This is perfectly unacceptable, and adding it repeatedly back in various pretexts ("Cultural differences", "Etymology", "Island culture" etc.) amounts up to WP:DISRUPT, a very nasty violation of the policies here.

The same applies to "this edit".

Where did you get the following information - "Bikinis gradually became briefer and lower with narrower sides in the 1970s, and by the late 70s/early 80s very low hipster bottoms with string sides and ties became the fashion. By the 1990s however, fashions changed and high-cut bottoms and bandeau tops were in vogue. Bikinis went brief again in the early 2000s as they followed the trend for everything hipster ('low rise'). Despite the high popularity of skimpy thongs and g-strings as underwear from 1998 to 2006, thong bikinis never made it into high-street fashion. Low-rise bikinis with string and tie-sides are currently fairly standard, reminiscent of late-70's designs but not so low-cut"?

Either cite a source acceptable to WP:SOURCE, or accept its removal. "But I know the truth!" is not a reason for any information to stay in Wikipedia.

Let's not use unnecessary images

What Wikipedia is not. Please consider that Wikipedia is not a directory. If an image does not illustrate any point in the article and used only gratuitously, it becomes pretty unacceptable. I am referring to the low rise bikini image you keep adding back on some pretext or even without one.

Finally. You have moved a very large section on bikini material from Bikini variants to this article. Why did you do that? This particular edit disrupts WP:LENGTH and, once again, violates WP:UNDUE by putting too much weight on the material. Please, check WP:SPINOUT to understand why we need separate articles on different aspects of a subject while keeping the main article as a WP:SUMMARY.

P.S. I am fixing the broken parts now, and I hope you understand the reasons. Please prove why those stuff should be done your way and not the apparent way of Wikipedia policies, traditions and spirit before you change them back. I hope that will keep any sign of WP:TEDIOUS out of this article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Update. I have removed some stuff because the sources failed WP:SPS, a serious Wikipedia policy. You can add them back only with proper citing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: Well, since you think you have the WP "Way" cornered, and aren't really working in a collaborative fashion, I'm going to leave it to you to finish this in any way that pleases you. I moved the content from Swimsuit as noted in the edit comment to integrate it later on. You've tackled that in a head-on fashion it seems without any real input or regard for other people's process and I don't wish to butt heads with someone who regards himself as the expert on all matters WP. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 15:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here, and I don't have to "finish" anything just because the WP "way" pleases me (yes, the Wikipedia process over "other people's process"). I also don't think that going ballistic over a detailed explanation of all the reasons (you wanted answers, and I did furnish them, employing significant time and efforts), as well as suggestions and ideas, amounts up to working in a "collaborative fashion". I am sorry that you chose to think that way, and not to reconsider your edits and mine. But, I don't get surprised by angry reactions when meeting Wikipedia standards and policies. Us volunteers are, generally, high on ego trips. Choosing quitting over learning doesn't help anyone. Sadly, the only party that suffers a loss in this, probably, is the Wikipedia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir:, you misread me. "Ballistic"? I had to laugh. I really don't have that much invested in this article or in WP. I'm happy to contribute to WP and have been doing so for a fair amount of time. My experience on this article is that you've made changes arbitrarily and quickly without seeking input, edits that I don't necessarily agree with. Instead of allowing me to develop content, you just remove it. You suggest that I am "nastily" engaged in WP:DISRUPT as if my edits purposefully sought to violate WP policy. If you'd bothered to check my edit history, you'd see no evidence of that kind of behavior. Demanding that I add sources, you ask me where I got the content, "Bikinis gradually became briefer and lower...", but if you had examined the page history, you would see that this content pre-dates my contributions to the article. Your manner can be likened to "ready, fire, aim!". You've accused me of motives and emotions that have no basis in reality. Your provocative statements exceed my interest in answering them further. You are quite clear and emphatic that you know the one and right way. So have it your--or the WP--way, whatever you'd like to call it. Finish your edits here, or don't. I've got better things to do. Another long-term WP editor says, "See ya later. It's all yours." — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 10:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys btphelps and Aditya, I haven't been able to contribute much to WP during the past several months, and while I think I'm happy that the article has continued to evolve (in what I hope is a positive direction), I also think I'm a bit bummed to see a potential disconnect here. I'm not sure what the issue is as I'd have to go back and review the edits and exchanges, but suffice it to say that I hope you both can find a way to contribute effectively to this article ongoing...I genuinely do.

It would be great if we could achieve reasonable consensus here on any given issue before potential conflicts develop through editing the article. As but one example, Aditya, you and I very successfully negotiated image selection (which the article has seemingly evolved beyond, in many sections), and the main image I favored was retained, while I made way for other images you considered more appropriate to be included. I'm just pleasantly recalling that moment of collaboration, and hoping that other editors with a genuine interest in the topic and willingness to work hard at improving the article can do so collaboratively. Thanks to both of you for the work you put into this article, and thanks to any other editors who have done and are doing the same...And I really do appreciate the positive contributions b/c it was a very lonely time here this summer trying to improve bikini on my own, without the support of other experienced Wikipedia contributors! Cheers! Azx2 06:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Azx2, can I draw your attention to three other articles on the same subject? They are: History of the bikini, Bikini variants, and Bikini in popular culture. All three serve as spin-off articles for this mother article. Anything that can't be accommodated here without making the article unmanageably huge or terribly skewed, can definitely fit in one of those three articles. Also, two variants have their own articles: Monokini and Tankini. There's a side bar in this article that links to five famous bikinis. Can we collaborate on the three major spin-off articles. It's a lot of work for one or two editors, but some one needs to do something. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aditya! I absolutely agree with you that the spin-off articles are valuable and can serve as repositories for any overly-detailed information that might otherwise saturate this bikini article and make it too dense to serve as the effective "umbrella" article that it could be. I really appreciate your laser-like focus and the effort you've put in here, striving to keep this article manageable/reasonable in size. Let me ask you this - do you think bikini is now in need of a reduction in content, or is the article granularly-appropriate, with highly-readable subsections that provide overview and enough detail to educate reader but w/o usurping the role of the more focused spin-off articles? My goal all along has been to see bikini reach status of GOOD ARTICLE, and you're very right that such an achievement can be subverted by too much content as easily as by insufficient content. Azx2 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Btphelps' accusations

I have just divided the discussion again, to increase accessibility.

I can't help feeling a little attacked by btphelps' repeated accusations, mostly misplaced. Therefore, I have taken some time to present the whole story. Here it goes, blow by blow:

  • 29 July 2012 (18:46): User:146.90.58.79 adds - "Bikinis gradually became briefer and lower with narrower sides in the 1970s, and by the late 70s/early 80s hipster bottoms with string sides and ties became standard wear for any follower of fashion. By the 1990s however, fashions changed and high-cut bottoms and bandeau tops were in vogue. Bikinis went brief again in the early 2000s as they followed the trend for everything hipster (low rise) and tie-sides are currently fairly standard." in the history section.[2]
  • 21 June 2013 (00:35): User: Gilgamesh adds - "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. Contrastly, traditional Marshallese modesty does not apply the same 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-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." in the cultural controveries section. [3]
  • 24 June 2013 (00:30): User:Azx2 adds template:Citation needed to User: Gilgamesh's addition. [4]
  • 24 June 2013 (01:18): User: Gilgamesh adds citations Marshallese Culture and Marshall Islands Facts, information, pictures to the section. [5]
  • 15 August 2013 (21:14): User:Btphelps adds a sub-header ("Changes in design") to User:146.90.58.79's addition, still keeping it under the history section. [6]
  • 15 August 2013 (21:21): User:Btphelps adds template:or to User:146.90.58.79's addition. [7]
  • 17 August 2013 (03:22): User:Btphelps adds a sub-header ("Marshallese island culture") to User: Gilgamesh's addition, still keeping it under the cultural controversies section. [8]
  • 18 August 2013 (04:07): User:Btphelps adds Image:Bikini models running on the beach- Pensacola, Florida.jpg with the caption - "Girls wearing bikinis on the Pensacola, Florida beach in 1969" to change in design section. [9]
  • 18 August 2013 (05:12): User:Btphelps adds File:2009 Run to the Sun Fashion Show in Anchorage Alaska 11.jpg with caption - "Women modeling a low-rise bikini with tie sides at the 2009 Run to the Sun fashion show in Anchorage, Alaska". Changes the caption of the bikini models running image to - "Girls wearing mid-rise bikinis on the Pensacola, Florida beach in 1969". [10]
  • 18 August 2013 (08:00): User:Btphelps changes "Marshallese island culture" to "Bikini Island culture". [11]
  • 18 August 2013 (15:19): User:Aditya Kabir removes the changes in design section along with more changes to the history section with an edit summary that says - "some useless stuff removed and put some more in context, but the history section is seriously flawed still". [12]
  • 18 August 2013 (16:17): User:Btphelps re-adds the changes in design design section along with other changes with an edit summary that says - "move some info from History of the bikini; restored some changes pending further discussion on Talk page; rm dupl graf on mid-2000s". [13]
  • 18 August 2013 (16:26): User:Btphelps posts to the talk page - "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... 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." [14]
  • 18 August 2013 (18:55): User:Aditya Kabir removes the section again with an edit summary that reads - "wikipedia strictly discourages WP:OR - please substantiated the information with WP:V sources before reinstating". [15]
  • 22 August 2013 (19:41): User:Aditya Kabir removes the section Bikini Island culture with an edit summary that says - "nothing of that sort is mentioned by the references". [16]
  • 25 August 2013 (16:13): User:Btphelps re-adds the whole content of the island culture section into the etymology section with an edit summary that says - "+ Marshall Island customs". [17]
  • 26 August 2013 (09:29): User:Aditya Kabir removes the section again with an edit summary that says - "please, don't keep adding this back without a proper reference (see talk page)". [18]
  • 26 August 2013 (09:57): User:Aditya Kabir posts to the talk page - "the Marshall Island culture bit doesn't look to be a fact at all. The references given don't mention it at all, and no reference to support that bit of information could be found. Let's stick to verifiable facts, and not hearsay. And, on top it, that information has nothing to do with the etymology" among other things. [19]
  • 2 September 2013 (10:17): User:Btphelps adds back the images from changes in design section with an edit summary that says - "re-added two relevant historical images". This time Image:Bikini models running on the beach- Pensacola, Florida.jpg was added to bikini precursors section and File:2009 Run to the Sun Fashion Show in Anchorage Alaska 11.jpg to mass acceptance section, both under the history section. [20]
  • 27 August 2013 (14:21): User:Btphelps posts to the talk page - "Marshall Island customs. Not sure why the info isn't relevant or why the refs don't pass muster. It adds a world-wide vantage to the article which from my perspective helps to reduce your concern with undue weight given to Western points of view. Perhaps it doesn't belong in Etymology but in Cultural Issues." and Images were removed for unknown reasons along with some unsubstantiated, possibly wp:or content (that could have been developed with some references), for no apparent reason in this edit among other things. [21]
  • 2 September 2013 (10:51): User:Btphelps adds the island culture section back with a new header ("cultural differences") with an edit summary that says - "added Marshall Island info to cultural differences". [22]

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

  • 3 September 2013 (14:49): User:Aditya Kabir posts to the talk page, among other thing - "While you complain about removal of some image without mentioning the information it was accompanying and while you claim that the "Cultural differences" section adds worldwide vantage, you keep ignoring a core Wikipedia policy - WP:OR. For proper understanding I am quoting a whole paragraph again (adding underlines for emphasis):" see left. It also read - "What you write on the Marshall Islands is a serious example of WP:SYN, proves no point and the citations that you provide do not refer to the garment even once (the only bikini they quote is an island, not a beachwear). This is perfectly unacceptable, and adding it repeatedly back in various pretexts ("Cultural differences", "Etymology", "Island culture" etc.) amounts up to WP:DISRUPT, a very nasty violation of the policies here."
The post also included this image: "Let's not use unnecessary images" [1]
The post further reads - "The same applies to "this edit", and further - "Where did you get the following information - "Bikinis gradually became briefer and lower with narrower sides in the 1970s, and by the late 70s/early 80s very low hipster bottoms with string sides and ties became the fashion. By the 1990s however, fashions changed and high-cut bottoms and bandeau tops were in vogue. Bikinis went brief again in the early 2000s as they followed the trend for everything hipster ('low rise'). Despite the high popularity of skimpy thongs and g-strings as underwear from 1998 to 2006, thong bikinis never made it into high-street fashion. Low-rise bikinis with string and tie-sides are currently fairly standard, reminiscent of late-70's designs but not so low-cut"?, and further down, - "Either cite a source acceptable to WP:SOURCE, or accept its removal. "But I know the truth!" is not a reason for any information to stay in Wikipedia". [23]
  • 3 September 2013 (14:59): User:Aditya Kabir removes the cultural differences section with an edit summary that says - "removed obvious WP:SYNTH not verified". [24]
  • 3 September 2013 15:08: User:Aditya Kabir removes the WP:GRATUITOUS images added back into history section with an edit summary that says - "removed unnecessary images that illustrate no point in the article". [25]
  • 3 September 2013 (21:48): User:Btphelps once again fails or refuses to "get the point" and posts to the talk page - "Well, since you think you have the WP "Way" cornered, and aren't really working in a collaborative fashion, I'm going to leave it to you to finish this in any way that pleases you. I moved the content from Swimsuit as noted in the edit comment to integrate it later on. You've tackled that in a head-on fashion it seems without any real input or regard for other people's process and I don't wish to butt heads with someone who regards himself as the expert on all matters WP." [26]
  • 3 September 2013 (22:21): User:Aditya Kabir posts to the talk page - "We are all volunteers here, and I don't have to "finish" anything just because the WP "way" pleases me (yes, the Wikipedia process over "other people's process"). I also don't think that going ballistic over a detailed explanation of all the reasons (you wanted answers, and I did furnish them, employing significant time and efforts), as well as suggestions and ideas, amounts up to working in a "collaborative fashion", and "I don't get surprised by angry reactions when meeting Wikipedia standards and policies. Us volunteers are, generally, high on ego trips. Choosing quitting over learning doesn't help anyone. Sadly, the only party that suffers a loss in this, probably, is the Wikipedia." [27]

That was enough drama. At one point it showed signs of degenerating into a wheel war. I don't think User:Btphelps can keep this up much further without drawing some community attention. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, Wikipedia notified me that my name was mentioned in this talk page section. Does something require my attention? - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Probably not, Gilgamesh, but take a look at the article again anyway if you have time, since it's up for a GA-review and there's still time to edit it before that process starts, so as much proofreading, copyediting, and any other appropriate editing is totally helpful now!! Azx2 18:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Comment

Just a heads up that since the article has entered into a period of stability, with the three most prolific contributors having concluded their most active periods editing and improving the article, I made the Good Article Nomination for bikini.

The top-3 editors, at the time of this nomination, are:

Edits User first edit last edit
532 (479/53) Aditya 2007-11-24 13:22 2013-10-22 04:42
124 (98/26) Btphelps 2013-08-07 20:55 2013-09-03 04:29
112 (84/28) Azx2 2012-11-21 02:25 2013-12-13 19:28

Hopefully this gets picked up for review soon and we don't have to wait months. But I wanted to notify you, Aditya and Btphelps, so that the two other top editors would be aware of the nomination and hopefully available to respond to a reviewer should one materialize. Hopefully any reviewer considering this article will also notify both of you if they proceed so that you could respond. And I also wanted to make you aware of the GAN so that any reviewer would see that whatever the differences are that may have informed your perspectives in editing the article, it IS stable and not subject to any edit warring whatsoever, that anything initially viewed as contentious has either been re-evaluated or otherwise resolved. Thanks! Azx2 19:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bikini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 08:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
The modern bikini
Social resistance
Rise to popularity
Mass acceptance
  • It is odd to have a see also template at the bottom of a section. Move it to a section at the bottom of the article above the references.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Bikini variants
  • "The amount of coverage can vary widely, from a string bikini with very little coverage to a full design with maximum coverage" is an odd sentence because there are two designs with less coverage and it does not name a design with more coverage. Do the sources support something like "The amount of coverage can vary widely, from a pubikini, microkini or string bikini with very little coverage to a fuller designs with more coverage such as the tankini, skirtini or bandeaukini"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • These three short paragraphs need not be redundant with examples.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to better integrate the table and the prose. I.e., there are a lot of things in the prose not in the table. Can we find content and pictures to improve the table?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems like some prose should discuss how the trikini and tankini are both considered part of the family even though the navel is exposed, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Variants
Beach volleyball
  • Either link women's Olympic beach volleyball or just the last two words.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Dancers, sex appeal and bikinis worn by women players as much as athletic ability made beach volleyball..." is either ungrammatical or not explaining something.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bodybuilding
Age appropriateness
Health issues
See also
Hmm
Images
  • This article has a long list of minor fixes for the most part. It will take a lot of work to clean up. I'll review the progress in a week. I am putting it on hold now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello TonyTheTiger briefly - but firstly thank you for reviewing the bikini article. I have been unable to respond to you personally or the article review since last week momentous events occurred effecting our family (but thankfully positive ones!!). I have not even been able to visit Wikipedia but for once, briefly, in the past nine days... I understand the article needs specific improvements but what is the best course of action from this moment forwards? Is it such that the final pass/fail can be delayed for some more days while I try to personally set aside time to edit, or would I want to formally " withdraw" the nomination (so it doesn't automatically fail b/c the changes aren't made timely)? Of course the intent is to make the necessary edits, it's just like I said there was momentous personal events last week that turned this world upside down so I have not been able to follow-up with you before now. Please advise on the best course of action and thank you for your time Azx2 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ps. I left you the same message on your talking page so is to you where best to reply. Thx!!! Azx2 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Take your time. RL will happen. I can wait a week or two. Please respond at your earliest convenience.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
If RL has taken over your time for now maybe I should close this review. Let me know if you object.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from other users

  • The lead is so long that I have tagged it already. I will try to help with this GA as much as possible, however. Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on this. Azx2 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the following sentence: "The bikini gradually grew to gain wide acceptance in Western society, though it is still unacceptable in most Muslim countries. Some Muslim countries permit the wearing of a bikini; however, it is usually heavily frowned upon. Other Muslim countries entirely prohibit the wearing of a bikini." -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

love hate relationship with bikinis

As a swimsuit designer I have found that a bikini is a very personal thing to each and every women and I'm curious to the women reading this article what do you like in a bikini? kachkaswimwear.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.52.159 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Rephrase in head of page note

I have taken liberty to extend the comment to read it doesn't accurately summarise the body OF THE ARTICLE (my emphasis), lest the body referred to be thought to refer to bikini wearers!Cloptonson (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Check - who got the fan mail?

This article mentions Reard, the designer, got 50,000 letters in 'fan mail' over the first suit he had modeled - but in the Wikipedia article on the model, Micheline Bernardini, it is her who is referred to as getting the 50,000 letters.Cloptonson (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

american/uk terms

what is the rules on wikipedia for american/ uk english preferences? pantys is a very american word, and aounds pretty funny to us. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.206.145 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

See wp:retain and wp:engvar for an overview. Essentially, unless there are "strong nationalistic ties" to a topic (such as Buses in London or The Lincoln Memorial for example,) then the style used after the article ceased to be a stub is used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

See Also section

As per wp:seealso from the Manual of Style: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

  • The term "swimsuit" is mentioned and linked in the very first sentence of the article, and is also linked (again) in the Bikini waxing section.
  • Both Monokini and Tankini have their own detailed subsections including both images, and linking of the term. Where is the justification for these specific terms when none of the other bikini styles are also listed in the "See Also" section?

Removal is warranted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. But, should we not try for easier navigation? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible commercial connection

Per the image information, the woman on the picture is named Anna Paola. Googling "anna paola swimwear" I land in a web shop. One "Anna Paola" works there as a swimwear designer.

Simply on the suspicion that the current picture might be associated with a commercial endeavor, I suggest the current picture be replaced by one with no (possible) ties to commerce.

Please note: I am making no accusations here. It's quite possible the uploader of the picture is in no way connected with this shop or any related commercial ventures. CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the images in the article are rather poor and should be replaced, including the first one because of its poor lighting on the actual bikini. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
yeah, well, that's an entirely different subject. Feel free to start a new section on the technical merits or limits of the pictures, and feel free to voice your opinion on whether to keep or remove the lead picture on grounds of suspected commercialism in this section :-) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked over the edits and didn't see any obvious problems, so I think we should WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead, per WP:Lead

Regarding this removal by Aditya Kabir, keep in mind that the lead (per WP:Lead) is supposed to adequately summarize the article, including the history of the topic, and that the lead is now significantly lacking in that regard. This is just a note on what is generally expected of Wikipedia leads. If this article were up for a WP:Good article nomination, for example, the reviewer (if experienced in knowing how a good Wikipedia article should be formatted) would note that cutting the lead down so significantly is not desired when it comes to Wikipedia standards, and would ask that it is significantly expanded (but ideally does not exceed four paragraphs). Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Consider the leader as work in progress. By the time I post this it already has taken a new shape. With the little more continued effort I am sure it will be up for strictest of standards. It at least should be better than before already. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I too am concerned about the lede. Was not there done a Good Article review that would've provided a very accurate template for what had to be done to this article to improve it? One paragraph of the lead listing other styles of bikinis I would not think it. And also am surprised by the radical replacing of so many images, including the previous lede image, which was stable and seemingly not a problem prior to the change.
One question though: if wikilinks are made in the lead, should they then not appear again in the article? For example, w/ the names of celebrities associated w/ the bikini? JDanek007Talk 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, your concerns and Flyer22's concerns are completely different. Flyer22 was concerned about a particular edit (this one), and not the lead in general. A general concern about the lead was expressed by TonyTheTiger in his Good Article review (see Talk:Bikini/GA1). It needed to conform to WP:LEAD, especially in terms of adequately summarizing the article (which includes the stylistic variations, making your point "One paragraph of the lead listing other styles of bikinis I would not think it" very invalid). If you have any specific observation about the lead (apart from the fact that it has been edited, or that you have a problem with someone editing it), please, state it.
As for you other concerns try to understand two things
  1. The article was never a Good Article, it was a failed Good Article, which means it didn't pass through the Good Article Criteria.
  2. "Stability" of an image (which means it has not been changed for a long time) is NOT a sign of suitability. Peter Isotalo changed it with an edit summary that said, "switched lead pic to one that actually focuses on normal use of a bikini rather than modelling" (see here).
"Am surprised by the radical replacing of so many images" is hardly a valid concern. If you have any complain about any image put in or put out, please, state it. Be more specific to be constructive. I have worked on the images quite a bit, and I know it is not easy. Critical evaluation of them is needed, but surely not a general surprise. As for the question on linking, you are right. WP:REPEATLINK says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Gonna chime in on this one on account of the image switching. This is an article about a type of clothing, not bikini models. As such, it should at try to illustrate reasonably normal people wearing this particular type of clothing. We're illustrating an encyclopedia here, not an Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Peter Isotalo 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If this is true, can the main image not be of just the clothing, without it being modeled by a person at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.108.192 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case you'll not know what the clothing looks like. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bikini shop image

With regard to this edit, and my reversion.

The image was removed by me here and there were no comments regarding it at the time of removal. I don't think it's a good image for the page, as outlined in the edit summary: I'm pretty sure that as there has been a considerable time delay in the removal and re-insertion, I would be justified in removal and beginning BRD from there, but for once let's not. My reasoning against it:

  • We don't need a "bikini store image" - what value does such a specific image add to the page?
  • The bikinis in question are behind the main subject, not the focus of the image, and one of the three is completely obscured by a windows pillar anyway
  • A much better example of bikini variants exists in the next section, which includes descriptions and images of the different types

This just image insertion for image sake - just because it contains a couple of bikinis is nto grounds enough for inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The image was re-added for several reasons:
  • Wikipedia is not about pretty or perfect images. It's about relevant and encyclopedic images. It doesn't really matter if "the bikinis in question are behind the main subject, not the focus of the image, and one of the three is completely obscured by a windows pillar anyway."

I'd rather have an image from a wikipedian that's not quite as good, than a professional image which we can only use under the very narrow doctrine of fair use. We're not fundamentally about having a really pretty encyclopedia, we're fundamentally about having a free encyclopedia, and in the end that's far more pretty.

— Jimbo Wales, Opening Plenary of Wikimania 2006 (transcript)
And, while you keep repeating that - "A much better example of bikini variants exists in the next section, which includes descriptions and images of the different types". I can see none. Can you link the image here? The next section is about bikini underwear. If you meant the sub-section then, please, notice that all the images were carefully selected to demonstrate individual styles, and not a variety of images.
The image in concern has already been discussed in the peer review, and no solution was found. Here is the discussion. Two other options (storefront with different styles of bikini, from commons) - File:Holt Renfrew Bikinis.jpg and File:Colour Bikinis.jpg - were discussed and rejected.
Finally, I believe, it needs to be mentioned that you approach to maintain you edit was also flawed. You reverted the re-addition with the edit summary that said - "if you want discussion to take place regarding re-insertion, then it should be done *prior* to the re-insertion." What you said is in direct contradiction to WP:BRD. There was a request to discuss, which, before eventually complying to, you decided to ignore, even derogate against policy.
Even when you discuss, you propose not to follow BRD, and hence WP:CON ("I'm pretty sure that as there has been a considerable time delay in the removal and re-insertion, I would be justified in removal and beginning BRD from there, but for once let's not").
And, your assumption that "this just image insertion for image sake" shows a a marked disrespect for research and other editors. If you had researched you would have known that I have been working long hard on removing all irrelevant images down to the last detail (and that includes a storefront too).
I have engaged with you before, and I find you to be a sensible editor. I have no clue as to what provoked you so. But, rest assured that I don't own the image, and I am ready to remove it myself (an intention that was expressed in the peer review as well).
But, please, discuss and be rational. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment - To be honest, I don't think the image adds to the page, personally. While a bikini store image would be great, you can barely see them in the image - they're right in the background, fuzzy, poor quality, etc. They are not the primary focus of the photograph. I think I see why the other images were rejected, because they show other swimsuit styles, not just bikinis. Given that there are numerous other images in the article I'm not sure why THIS one needs to stay in, especially as it's really not very good for the purpose it is supposed to serve. Mabalu (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
With regard to my motives, I am fully aware of BRD - and after considering it decided I was in contravention, so I reverted myself as you'll see from the page history. the timescale is a tricky one. If an image is removed, and no comment is forthcoming, at yet it is then later re-instated - at what point do you consider that the reinsertion is a revert of the earlier edit, or is it a "new" edit that can be reverted itself as part of BRD?
In essence, how long before the BRD process resets itself? A week? a month? Less? More?
Nothing has me riled. I just feel that the image in question is unnecessary to the page, for the reasons stated above. There's no reason that an image of several types of bikini should be included when this section has much better images of them all - whether they're individual, or collected in the same picture is not an issue. Regardless of whether it's a free use image, we should be asking whether any image needs to be used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Three editors have already found the image to be redundant. All with fair amount of logical argument. That should decide the fate of the image anyways. Hiding it right away, though with a bit of regret, as a fair long section without an image to break the monotony reduces accessibility and readability somewhat.
As for BRD, it is not the timeframe, or nitpicking the policies, rather it is more about using discretion and being reasonable (and, of course, it's about not using the edit summaries as an alternative to discussion). We are all volunteers here, and there is not deadline. If someone requests a discussion, the best approach is to comply and not try to find policies to throw at their face. That essentially is bad attitude. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bikini waxing section

So, as seen here, here and here, Ewawer (Enthusiast) has attempted to remove the Bikini waxing section because "Other than the use of the word 'bikini', bikini waxing has nothing to do with the swimsuit." and because "[He says] that just because the word bikini appears in an expression, does not mean that it relates to a swimsuit. A bikini line may be more related than a wax.", and I have reverted him. Like I stated in my edit summaries, the topic of bikini waxing largely concerns bikinis, which is indicated by the WP:Reliable sources for the content and the sourced Bikini waxing article. The fact that bikini waxing can happen independent of ever wearing a bikini does not mean that the topic of bikini waxing, such as including a Bikini waxing section, should not be in the Bikini article. Furthermore, bikini waxing is currently mentioned in the lead, and, per WP:Lead, information should generally not be in the lead unless it is covered lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ewawer has made a number of fine edits here, and I think I will like to hear his point of view before passing an opinion. I have reinstated the section, with some edits made per WP:BRD. I definitely am looking forward to some fine discussion. Please, join in there, but be rational for the sake of article improvement. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir (Aditya), yes, I know that you consider Ewawer's edits to the article to be generally good. As someone very familiar with Ewawer's editing, however, I would advise you to make sure that he is staying true to the sources and is not adding WP:Original research. For example, this change I made (followup here) is a tweak to one of his edits that did not remain true to a source (a slight matter of straying from the source, but straying nevertheless). As for the section you restored, you seem to be confusing the sections. I restored the Bikini waxing section, and my rationale above is quite rational. Ewawer removed a section on tanning, and that is what you restored with a different name. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Okay. Both Bikini waxing and Bikini tan are back. Keep and eye on the edits if you can manage the time. So far Ewawer haven't made any comment. And that cannot be good. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know I was making such an impression. By all means keep me on the straight and narrow, or as some say, keep this bastard honest. As for my rationale for deleting the bikini waxing section - it is that just because an activity uses the word bikini does not necessarily make it anything to do with the article of clothing or swimwear that normally goes by that name. In reality, the term bikini has a positive connotation, and marketers use the term for their own promotion and marketing purposes. The same applies to so-called men's bikini and bikini underwear. And what has a one-piece or monokini got to do with a two-piece swimsuit, normally called a bikini. And I just noticed that the section on bikini tan has absolutely nothing to do with a bikini, just general information on tanning. Enthusiast (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I don't see any valid reason for deleting the Bikini waxing section; I already addressed that above. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Just one more point before I leave this topic - what is the promotional rubbish in the Men's bikini section. This objection ties in with the views I expressed above, which is that anything that adds bikini into its description gets thrown into this article. For example, why is a "bikini tan" here? It is because the tanner was wearing a bikini which leaves a tan shaped by the bikini. What if the tan was shaped like a camel, should that also go into the camel article? Also, I note the statement at the top of the article as to what it is about - which refers to a female swimsuit. Enthusiast (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What "promotional rubbish in the Men's bikini section" are you referring to? You may disagree that a man's swim briefs can be classified as a bikini, but plenty of WP:Reliable sources refer to the briefs as a bikini, including the Merriam-Webster source used in the lead. The lead and many WP:Reliable sources note that a variety of swimwear are bikinis, not simply called "bikini." And these varieties are not always a two-piece woman's swimsuit, or a woman's swimsuit. Yes, the term bikini generally refers to a two-piece woman's swimsuit, and the article makes that clear, while giving WP:Due weight to other versions. It's not up to us to state, "Nah, that's not a bikini." It's up to us to follow what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What reliable sources? Merriam-Webster is not really a reliable source. I still say that these categories are marketing-based and not popular community terms. I note that in Swim briefs there is no mention of a man's bikini. Enthusiast (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Merriam-Webster is not really a reliable source"? It most certainly is a reliable source, and it passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline. That does not mean that the source is always right (for example, it can sometimes be outdated, like a lot of dictionaries), but it is usually reliable. And as for other WP:Reliable sources referring to non-standard bikinis as bikinis, they are clearly in the article. As for your WP:Other stuff exists argument about the Swim briefs article, something I also thought about before you mentioned it, that article is not about the topic of bikinis; yes, a man's swim briefs will sometimes be referred to as a bikini, but it's clearly not the general case; I already acknowledged that above, including that the article is clear about what the general case is. The man's swimwear aspect not being the general case is why it does not need any space in the Swim briefs article. Does it need space in the Bikini article? My opinion is yes, given that this article should cover all types of bikinis with WP:Due weight; a man's swim briefs are a part of that. Building a comprehensive article on the topic of bikinis includes addressing non-standard bikinis. Various WP:Reliable sources refer to men's swimwear as a bikini; whether that is a marketing strategy or not, that's the case. It (the existence of male bikinis) is also a matter that has been discussed at this talk page before; see Talk:Bikini/Archive 2#Men's bikinis. Flyer22 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I checked the Oxford, Collins and Macquarie dictionaries and none of them mention a men's bikini. Enthusiast (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And that doesn't negate a thing I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bikini/Archive_3"