Jump to content

Talk:Bikini/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RE:Use of The Bikini in Female Bodybuilding

Why did you remove the section of this article "Female Bodybuilding"

Did Annette Funicello sport a bikini?

Did Annette Funicello ever wear a bikini in a film? I seem to recall a Disney Channel documentary in which she reminisced about being asked by "Walt" always to wear a one-piece. --Ed Poor

I found this, but is it to the point?

Ironically, in most of those beach movies she wears the most conservative clothes of anyone, though she's the star of "party beach" -- watch how often she's wearing hostess pants and blouses while the girls around her are in skimpy outfits. For instance, in Pajama Party she wears a nightie and flimsy robe while everyone else is in tight-fitting shorts and PJ's that become tight, wet, and see-through when everybody falls in the pool. She has said that she didn't think it would be proper for her to wear a bikini, and Walt Disney himself had asked her not to when she started making the non-Disney beach movies in the early '60s.

Image Organization Needed

The images in this article are all appropriate and fitting to the topic; however, they are all over the place. Would someone organize the pictures to their likeness, possibly in a small gallery at the end, aligning them with the text, etc. Thank you. Alvinrune 12:17, 18 June 2005 (EST)

Better pic

Is it possible that we could find a picture someone wearing a bikini where the head hasn't been clumsily pasted onto the body, using a metal collar to mask the join? DJ Clayworth 21:22, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The picture does look somewhat more suitable for collar (BDSM). -- Karada 01:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mary Carey was recently a candidate for Governor of California, and therefore (I, in my naivete, think) a public figure. Wouldn't her often-displayed campaign picture (which can be seen at http://www.marycareyforgovernor.com/) be useable?
Being a public figure is a defense against claims of breaking portrait right, not against claims of breaking copyright. If you had taken a picture of her wearing a bikini, we would have been allowed to use it, but we're not allowed to just take a picture from elsewhere and use it.
On a more positive note: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=55305 - it's not completely GNU/FDL compatible, since the author must be noticed before use, but it's a hell of a lot closer than much of the other things that are uploaded. http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=84025 has no usage restrictions, but the water avoids a very good view. Andre Engels 04:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neither ideal. I guess we could recruit wikipedians to find a suitable replacement picture. Now please form an orderly queue.... DJ Clayworth 14:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Check out http://www.musicpundit.com/archives/000463.html -- explicitly licensed under the Creative Commons! Alas, it's a very restrictive license: Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike. --the Epopt 03:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Attribution is ok, share alike is borderline but I would like to allow it, but noncommercial is clearly going against the GNU/FDL. Also, the lower part of the bikini is almost completely covered by further clothing, which I think is a big minus. If it's just about a bikini top, http://gimp-savvy.com/cgi-bin/img.cgi?noaclMsNnPAO3pg939 will do - but I would like a picture having both. Andre Engels 10:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did another look at stock.xchng - how about http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=11727 ? - Andre Engels 10:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, it's the best proposed till now, but the current one seems better. Andre Engels 10:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think the best option is to have a Wikipedian take a pic of a willing subject wearing one. I think trying to find a suitable PD source will be more trouble than its worth. Just my $.02. —Frecklefoot 14:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Once a willing subject has been found, please be very gentle in breaking to him or her that monokini also needs an image. More to the point, that page needs expanding, or merging with here to make a nice cohesive article, or both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have received permission from BomisTM, Inc., to use the picture I have added to this article. --the Epopt 19:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It said "Used with permission" but Jimbo says that it's GNU FDL and CC Attribution Share Alike, so I changed it. Katahon 01:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


There is nowhere near enough text to support three images. Looks a mess at my screen res. Pcb21| Pete 13:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was fixed. Pcb21| Pete 10:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One of those repetitive Roman wall-paintings (Pompeii or Herculaneum?) would do well at Modesty. Wetman 10:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An inappropriate image

You should read the discussion about Bikini.jpg in its featured pictures candidate page. The image was criticized being too licentious and objectifying, and thus unencyclopedic. I agree with these opinions wholeheartedly. The picture should be removed from the article. -Hapsiainen 12:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not offended by it, but if you must, try chopping off the girl's head, only showing the bikini and not the sexy pout, or replacing it with the pic from the German wikipedia. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Changed image to the image from the German Wikipedia, Image:Bikini Model Jassi 3.jpg. -- The Anome 00:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your edit is by no means based on a neutral point of view, and I strongly object to it. --the Epopt 04:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is a slightly confusing use of the NPOV principle. The Anome thought the article was better illustrated with the German image - i.e. his opinion was related to the presentation of the article. The NPOV principle usually relates to not advocating opinions in the article. "Bikinis are by far the best form of swimwear." etc. would be unacceptable POV.
In terms of encyclopedic value, neither image is as good as the Micheline Bernardini image. They have no historic interest or value beyond a million other photos across fashion magazines around the world. These factors are, to my mind, more important than picture quality. It is a shame the Bernardini image doesn't have a copyright tag or I would advocate removing both images and using that one as the main picture instead. I would compromise with those proposing keeping a bit of titillation in the article by keeping the FHM picture which at least comes with a bit of social commentary. Pcb21| Pete 10:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Anome admits that he removed the picture because in his point of view it is "licentious and objectifying," qualities that in his point of view are "unencyclopedic." Since it is impossible to define or measure licentiousness, objectification, or unencyclopedicallity, his reason for removal boils down to "he doesn't like it."
On the other hand, I agree completely that "neither image is as good as the Micheline Bernardini image."

--the Epopt 13:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually The Anome didn't make those comments at all - someone else did, but he acting upon them by changing the picture. Nevertheless I think there is a difference between simply not liking the picture, and not liking it in this article. For instance, if the person in the picture were a famous model with an article, I would support including the picture in that article, but I don't in this. Pcb21| Pete 15:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think you're confusing my comments with those of Hapsiainen. The current image is neither licentious or objectifying, but simply depicts a person wearing a bikini -- which is, after all, how bikinis are supposed to be seen. As for titillation, that is in the eye of the beholder. -- The Anome 18:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay. So why did you replace the perfectly good existing picture? ::::::--the Epopt 21:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt, can you put : marks in the beginning of your replies? Then they become indented, and threads are not messed. About the images: Micheline Bernardini image is now rightly the most visible because of its historical value. I am not the only one who opposes Bikini.jpg (Asian woman) image. It seems like The Epopt didn't read my previous comment, because The Epopt attributed my opinions to The Anome. The word "objectifying" doesn't describe my thoughts exactly, but I chose it, because it was used in the feature pictures candidate page. I give a broader explanation. Such bikini 'girl' images define what a woman should be, when they are ubiquiteous. The other images of women become invisible compared to bikini and other 'sexy' images. They are forgotten, and what is forgotten and invisible doesn't exist in people's minds. Then only the 'sexy' are images of proper women, which means that the women that are not like that have been failed. (OK, the Madonna & Whore myth complicates the situation, but I don't go to that length.)
Titillation is of course in the eye of the beholder, but there are cultural definitions for pin-up images. Then members of a culture can recognize its pin-up images (if it has such). And what was the purpose of the photographer, or the model when she took that odd expression?
The image has been criticized for bringing down the tone of Wikipedia, and making people to question Wikipedia as a reliable source. I completely agree with this. An user in the featured pictures candidate discussion said he likes the image because "she's classy...". Odd criteria for selecting an image. Such image in this article can be interpreted that Wikipedia is a playground of a set of heterosexual men, who regard a woman only as a passive eye object. This surely repels some potential female contributors. However, if the image would be in the article about the model, and the model would be famous for such poses, the image would be illustrative.
The descriptive (=encyclopedic) value of the Asian woman is low. She wears a bikini, but doesn't look like typical woman wering a bikini. There isn't beach, and rarely anyone goes swimming in bikini. The expression is already mentioned. I think I have now elaborated my view enough.- Hapsiainen
A woman wearing a bikini

This is why I posted this image. The woman depicted is on a beach, and may well have gone swimming. She does not appear to be oppressed by the male gaze in the least. However, she does look attractive. Should she perhaps wear a burka to prevent this? The bikini was designed for (specfically female) body display. (Note that men's swim trunks are effectively monokinis.) People who do not want to display their bodies will wear a one-piece swimsuit, or the even more modest swimwear which is available from the clothing companies that specialize in such things. -- The Anome 00:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


What is a typical woman wearing a bikini ? The asian girl is in a swimming pool, most girls I've seen in a swimming pool were wearing a bikini. IMO a bikini is a sexy outfit by nature. How to show a pic of a bikini that isn't sexy ? I can imagine two solutions :

- showing a bikini without a girl inside ?

- showing a girl wearing a bikini that is areal turnoff for most peoples ?

Obviously the Michelle Bernardini pic has an historical value but what is it's copyright status, can we claim fair use ? BTW I prefer not to imagine the debate if someone the idea to illustrate monokini. As for the picture from the German Wikipedia I find it's photographic quality very low : bad lighting, bad composition and ugly background.... Ericd 00:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Straw man argumentation. I didn't complain about the visible bare skin, but the Asian woman's expression. And people don't swim in bikini because it can lower when wet. They take the sun. That's why the picture is also unrealistic. I used the word 'sexy' sarcastically because pin-up and similar images depict what people think the other people find sexy. According to such images no man likes plump or curvy women, which is funny. If you crave for more 'sexy' images to Wikipedia, go and place some colour pictures to articles Penis and Muscle. Sarcasm aside, I agree that the Image:Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg looks like it was taken in a backyard of a factory, but the woman's being is more realistic and the picture is hardly offending. -Hapsiainen 20:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people don't swim in a swimming pool they just take a bath...

A real turnoff for one may be a turn-on for another one. I am more disturbed by the piercing that by the expression of asian model. What's offensive for one isn't necessary offensive someone else.

Ericd 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hapsiainen states a batch of opinions -- "...images define what a woman should be...", "...women that are not like that have been failed..." -- as if they were facts. They aren't facts, and the repetition of them don't make them facts. They are simply bad reasons to impose his point of view on this encyclopedia. --the Epopt 02:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Repetition? I wrote it all once. And merely saying that X isn't a fact doesn't make X untrue. You could do something else to demonstrate it, e.g. catch a fallacy. Do it, I'm curious. -Hapsiainen 12:50, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Impossible, because your statements are opinions. They can no more be proven valid or fallacious than can the statement "the Epopt believes that 'a boy has never wept nor dashed a thousand kim'."
What makes them only opinions? I don't get it. At least they have some theoretical basis, which could be proven wrong or inadequate. Opinions are based on some facts (or misconseptions), but developed conforming to the person's experiences and values. I don't understand your example statement, because English isn't my first language, and I don't know what the word 'kim' means. Also the sentence structure is odd, does it try to be sentimental or what? I still have to point up that I haven't considered in this discussion whether modifying the text on the Bikini page is needed. I have just explained why not to use a certain picture.
OK, even if it comes out that my thoughts are too vague to have a theoretical basis, or the basis is controversial (Wait a minute! Is controversiality what you mean? This is something I can agree.), what makes them lesser than your opinion? And also there is The Anome, and 3–4 users (I'm not sure if Solitude counts) that have written in the Featured Picture Candidate page, who think that the picture is offending or harmful to Wikipedia. Why do you ignore their opinions? What makes you still cling to the Asian woman picture, even if it obviously pesters some people? I am not that kooky that I would demand having it deleted. Let it decorate the Featured Pictures Candidates page, because it was indeed a featured pictures candidate. Hapsiainen 16:33, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

alternative image

Image:Beach Towel (occupied).jpg|thumb|right|Another alternative.:::Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The discussions have continued for quite some time over what picture is appropriate. While I personally am partial to the "flowerpot girl" in the back yard, its clear that the discussion here will be based on preference. the current picture has historical significance and i think that this is a way for us to avoid the issue of taste. Let’s stick with something we can put a claim to belonging here other than, “she’s hot.” Cavebear42 15:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I propose that this article name be changed to a disambiguation page referring to each of the three bikini articles, and that this article be renamed Bikini (bathing suit). The bikini garment was named (quite inappropriately) after the atoll that was bombed uninhabitable, and I think first disambiguation reference should go first and foremost to the atoll, which is an ongoing (albeit mostly quiet) political dispute between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States. Out of respect for the Bikini people to be represented fairly on Wikipedia, I propose that the atoll article be first in a disambiguation page, followed by this article on the swimsuit. That way, anyone who speaks English in the world who wants to gather sincere information on the Bikini issue will not first have to tangle with articles about what half-naked women in developed nations wear to the beach. I am also preparing to add an article for Flag of Bikini, one of the most memorable flags that few people have seen. (I originally lived in the Marshall Islands, and I would compare something like this to the idea of having the Titanic article space be about the Hollywood movie instead of the ship that sank, or having the Quaker article be about the computer game instead of the religion that founded Pennsylvania.) - Gilgamesh 13:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It is convention here that we use the most common name of a person or thing. Someone looking up "bikini" is almost certainly looking for the swimming suit, and to receive an article designed "out of respect for the Bikini people to [ensure they are] represented fairly on Wikipedia" would be annoying. In common usage, the word "bikini" with no modifiers refers to the swimming suit. The (former) island has its article at Bikini Atoll. Consider the lone word "Washington." The only thing called simply "Washington" is the state, so its article goes there. Everything else has a natural disambiguator attached (not a parenthetical phrase no one ever uses outside Wikipedia). The city is Washington, DC, the person is George Washington, the obelisk is the Washington Monument, and so on. And by the bye, why the "half-naked" and "developed nations" pejoritives? Is there an agenda here we should be unaware of? [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 17:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pejoratives because, to be absolutely frank... It is nauseating that the most powerful country on earth nukes a distant land with whom they are not at war into the stone age, and yet "bikini" is forgotten by most in that same country except as a swimsuit that impacts men's shorts "like an atomic bomb". That adds sheer insult to injury of the Bikinian people and the people of the nearby atolls who were given fatal doses of radiation from the Bravo test. When you see the official flag of Bikini and its people — which I just barely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons — you will understand. I always attempt to speak with a neutral point of view, but in this case, I need Pepto Bismol. Bikini's citizens are still alive and around, and they still want their atoll back, and they're still begging the United States to help them clean up the poisons that linger in their land. However, editing as neutrally as I can, I chose to recommend a disambiguation page instead of redirection outright. I recommend it because it really has been and still is a sensitive political issue. Would you do the same if suddenly a swimsuit called "Hiroshima" became better known than the city? - Gilgamesh 17:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Flag of Bikini is up. Take a look. - Gilgamesh 17:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So you sneer ("half-naked") at all women who like to wear skimpy swimming suits because you are angry at the government of the United States? I fear for your ability to maintain the NPOV on this issue. Note that women in not-so-developed countries usually wear even fewer clothes when swimming than the "half-naked women in developed nations."
Being interested in vexillology, I was already familiar with the flag of Bikini. I'm afraid it causes me no more intestinal upset than does the twenty-dollar bill when considered in conjunction with the Trail of Tears. I am beginning to get the impression that you want to rearrange articles in Wikipedia because the United States mistreated the inhabitants of one of its territorial possessions. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't want to mistake a strawman for your real position.)
...You're right. This issue makes me angry and I can't keep a NPOV on this issue. I'm not some anti-American crusader though. I just feel close to this particular issue. And I suppose it was short-sighted of me to presume that people in developed countries outside the U.S. are just as clueless as Americans tend to be. I retract my insults and apologize for them. - Gilgamesh 04:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not find your reasons or pejoritives compelling and I oppose your proposal. Since we both seem immovable on this issue, I recommend that you write up your proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and see if you can develop a consensus. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 22:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, read above. I can't maintain NPOV on this issue. I'll move on to something else. - Gilgamesh 04:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A question: are the people of Bikini annoyed that the name of their atoll is used as the name of a bathing suit? Or that the Bikini page in Wikipedia is about a bathing suit, not about the island or a disambiguation page. If you don't know their opinion (or at least the opinion of some of them), don't put words in their mouths. -Hapsiainen 14:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ask them. [1] - Gilgamesh 17:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Very good point. The concept was nauseating to me, but I didn't once think whether the Bikinians themselves had a problem with it. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Their website seems to make easy reference to its history in the links pages with little problem. I don't know. - Gilgamesh 17:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Either way, I'm out of this. I made the Flag of Bikini graphic and article, I linked it, my work is done. - Gilgamesh 17:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I sympathise with Gilgamesh's objections, I think the current state seems satisfactory; after all, even sandwich refers to the food rather than the city after which it's named, and I suspect Sandwich has a larger population. - Mustafaa 11:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Return of the Bomis Girl

I'm following the argument over the image of autofellatio currently consuming the mailing list with great interest. If that image remains in that article, I intend to restore the Bomis image of the bikini-wearer stepping into the backyard pool to this article. ➥the Epopt 03:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care if that picture stays or goes but I do feel that the one we have has historical significance and, this being an encyclopedia, that should outweigh any personal preferences we have of which girl is cuter. Cavebear42 23:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So we include both. I don't see any problem with having more than one bikini-wearer at a time. ➥the Epopt 05:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You can't apply the results of autofellatio image poll here, the cases differ so much. The only common thing is that some people feel both the images are too obscene for an encyclopedia. But no-one has described the Bomis image pornographic. And no-one has stated that the Bomis image proves something that is generally thought impossible, or is good sex education material. On the other hand, no-one has nominated the autofellatio image as a featured picture candidate, or criticized it pronouncing prevalent, twisted norms. The cases should be judged by individual basis, because they are not comparable. -Hapsiainen 15:42, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Your objection, as stated above on this page, is that "The image was criticized being too licentious and objectifying, and thus unencyclopedic. I agree with these opinions wholeheartedly." The autofellatio image is far more licentious and objectifying, yet neither quality renders in unencyclopedic in the minds of its fans. ➥the Epopt 02:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have to quote myself, because you didn't do it properly. "The word "objectifying" doesn't describe my thoughts exactly, but I chose it, because it was used in the featured pictures candidate page." Now, back to the topic. You don't seem to understand my comment. It is a summary of the discussions of the Bomis image and the autofellatio image. I don't agree with all the arguments presented in the discussion, no-one does so.
You shouldn't make simple assumptions of the voters' reasoning. Here's mine: I originally voted to keep the autofellatio image inline, because I thought it proved something which is often thought impossible. Proving such is a big merit. Then I changed my vote, because I realized that the image isn't necessarily honest. It couldn't have other encyclopedic value. You seem to have voted for linking the autofellatio image. Should I assume that you also want to do so with the Bomis image? No. -Hapsiainen 20:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of critism section

"Bikinis are often criticized by feminists as a means of turning women into sex objects. Many from other cultures also criticize it for the same reason." There is lot of weasel words in this section. What cultures, what feminists? Feminism is so varied and long movement, that is is possible and even probable, that a part of is has critisized it. But which part, which authors? Does the contributor of the paragraph know it or was that just a guess? I know only a small subset of feminist literature, but I can't remember such criticism. All criticism that I remember attacks e.g. having bikini 'girls' in yellow press, beauty contest and other public rating of women's looks. But this is different from criticizing a garment. And no feminist has criticised bikini because it makes woman look unworthhy (read: hooker). They have attacked the concept of a hooker. So this addition seems unprecise, even dubious. -Hapsiainen 12:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't contrib this but i jsut finished linking Feminism and unsectionizeing it. While i wouldn't have added this myself and I would like to see the support, feminism is a vast subject and im sure that there is critisim by some part of it somewhere. Cavebear42 20:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

media depiction

i dont see how this really adds to the article. i dont seee how a pic of a allegegly famous chariter which i have never hear of is representative of media. id just as soon see the picture and section go and be reduced to, at most, one line int he above article. what do ya'all think about this? Cavebear42 03:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't mind it the way it is. I think all the info is relevant, including the whole "chainmail bikini" concept, but you may be right about it not deserving it's own section.-LtNOWIS 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are we talking about that Channel 4 100 Greatest Sexy Moments with iconic Bikini portrayals???? Sorry, I can't find anything related on that site. Could you check on another machine, maybe you have some evil cookies leading directly. Otherwise we could link to images.google.com, which finds a lot of Bikin related
Thanks for the explanation at User talk:Test-tools#Bikini, even I have a bit understanding problems. But I would then suggest to use:
-- Test-tools 12:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Old image

What happened to the use of this image? While I don't want to argue over who is cuter/prettier/sexier/blonder, that image is professional quality, while the rest that are currently in the article are just plain ugly (the pictures themselves, not necessarily the models). The old image is GFDL and is incredibly clean. Is there some special objection which I've missed?

Regardless of what is done in reference to this specific image, this article needs cleanup. The current layout of the images is just plain ugly. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:31, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

    • I still oppose the image of the Asian woman. I have nothing new to say about it, though. Everyone insists on their views, so is there really a need to re-discuss this? Byt the way, the recently added image has an unclear copyright status. -Hapsiainen 09:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was not referring to the Asian woman but to "Lita" Ericd 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake about the image, then. I see the "recently added image" line now. My apologies. ➥the Epopt 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Other words?

"Two-piece garments worn by women for athletic purposes have been observed on Greek urns and paintings, dated as early as 1400 BC."

What were these garments called? "Bikini" is a modern word; what were some of the older terms for two-piece garments? Did the top and bottom parts often go by separate names? If so, what were some terms historically used for the bikini top / brassiere and the bikini bottom / panties? I don't mean to sound lewd or anything, but I (and probably some readers) would be interested in knowing what some of the "real" words for these things are, apart from modern-day nicknames, euphemisms, and genericized trademarks. --Corvun 07:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of the bikini - Inappropriate links

The links in the last paragraph in this section are all off topic except slingshot. Teardrop links to a DOS attack, mini links to the car, micro links to the number system. Shouldn't they be cleared out? 68.185.124.163 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the section on evolution of the Bikiki, you have linked to some odd places. In particular, the Mini links to a page about a car (admittedly, a small one!) - did you maybe mean to link to Miniskirt? SteveBaker 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New Front Picture Needed

Can we please replace the picture of the grotesquely ugly looking woman in the red bikini with someone who is a little better looking? I mean the first picture people see should be a 10, not a 6.5. Anyways, just a thought--Geppy 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking to complain about the exact same thing, please... spare us! --Tribe4ever 07:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a sidenote

On the "Roman Bikini" fraction of the article, the veiwpoint is somewhat skewed. I am only quoting a history channel special now, so I could be wrong, but it is beleived that the Romans beleived the breasts to be "too sexual" for public display (even in a non-nude sense), hence the women of the time wore tight cloth bands around their chests to obscure their bust lines. and they looked very sexy thank u!

Image of Girl in Bikini

Hey, about the image of the girl in the bikini: the caption reads that her bikini top says NO WAY. Actually, I saw her on CNN and her bikini top says NO WAR, and then on the back of her shorts it says ON IRAN. Just thought I would mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.117.64.80 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Male Bikini Image

There seems to be a bit of controversy about the scantly imaged women presented in this article. Therefore, I have added a man to balence things out.

gamerfreak

Womens board shorts

someone should put in a bit about how wearing the full bikini including bottoms has faded with the introduction of womens swim board shorts - http://starbulletin.com/96/06/24/features/story1.html PMA 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing as that article was written ten years ago, and bikinis don't seem to be any less popular now than they were at that time, I don't really think it was all that accurate. Full bikinis are still the most predominant female bathing suit style to this day. SteveJ2006 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a woman's opinion on this? PMA 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not amount to much, but why do you insist in keeping this link with movie references where I can not find descriptions of nor pictures with bikinis: Channel 4 100 Greatest Sexy Moments with iconic Bikini portrayals, at the same time throwing out a link that does give information? Besides, when it says Greatest Sexy Moments one already has to deal with POV, not with factual information. JohJak2 07:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I moved this here as it is a question about this article. I left that link in because tt doesn't look "dead" however I am never able to connect, so I cannot evaluate its content. - brenneman {L} 07:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Channel4 link mentioned is of pretty dubious relevance. A couple of the entries refer to bikinis, including number 1 - reference to bikini sales skyrocketing after the release of the Bond movie Dr No. But it's the top 100 sexy moments in movies, not anything intrinsically (or even substantially) about bikinis. I've changed the wikilink in "Media Depictions" to a link to that site, and removed it from the "External links" section; if the consensus is to remove it altogether, I won't argue. Paddles TC 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Media depictions

The grammar in this section was a bit of a shocker, particularly the chainmail bikini paragraph. I've tried to improve it a bit but it could probably do with some more work. Paddles TC 13:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Some thoughts on the images:

The initial picture here is good, although showing a bikini on a dummy might be more illustrative of the suit itself. That's a minor point. If the picture of the woman in the bikini is what we keep, we should probably have one right next to it of a man in a bikini for comparison.

The "monokini" doesn't really seem to add anything, since it's literally just "a bikini with the top removed."

The sun-bathing footnote should be text. There's really no reason to have a photograph at all.

The string bikini is missleading. A string bikini and a thong are different things, introduced in different time periods. Having a picture of a thong makese sense, though the picture we have is not very good. Having a picture of a string bikini doesn't really make much sense unless we have a more complete section on the development of the various styles.

The ancient roman mosaic is great, but the section that it's in is just a caption for the text. That section should be re-written and moved to the start of the history section with a {{main}} link to Swimsuit. -Harmil 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Villa Romana del Casale mosaic outfits weren't "swimwear" at all -- they were workout gear (for exercising and competing athletically in). Someone has removed the section; it should probably be restored (I just added a link for now). AnonMoos 13:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added an image of Princess Leia in the infamous metal bikini. Hopefully it will be considered appropriate; I think it is because an illustration would serve well since there are no pictures for that section (media depiction). Jedd the Jedi 10:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the amount of images on this page is getting way out of hand. Personally, I don't think this page needs any images at all. Who can seriously claim to not know what a bikini looks like? However, I think at the most three images can be justified in an article of this length. I'm going to remove the most recent additions and move the remaining images around to improve the layout. Robotman1974 11:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

malta?

Why do I care about how Malta's political parties relate to bikinis? Also, is that statement sourced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.140.97 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Images moved

I moved some of the images around so that the article looks better and makes more sense. ~Jeffrey S

I've reverted. I don't see how it makes more sense. The bikini is the piece of swimsuit, not what's inside. Kariteh 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Section about asians

seems too specific too me, and i bit weird actually. i'm not much of an editing person, so i'll let whoever sees this make the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.159.132 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it day before yesterday, along with a whole bunch of other stuff on how good bikinis look on different types of people. That stuff was terrible. Scorchsaber 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Picture

I just changed the picture back to the opaque picture. Here is my reasoning: The most noticeable feature of the transparent tankini is its transparency. This may lead readers to believe that the term "tankini" has something to do with the transparency of the swimwear, rather than the cut. The significance of the tankini is the cut. Also, many who choose to wear a tankini do so for modesty reasons because the tankini is somewhat more modest than a standard bikini. Thus it is somewhat misleading to depict a tankini that is arguably more revealing than an opaque bikini. User:Bpsullivan 6:20, 26 August 2006

did you read any of what has been said on this talk page so far? Doesn't look like it, because you have no mention of what has been previously said in your comment here. Neither did you make any other replies to it elsewhere on this talk page. As such I probably just should simply revert back what you did, due to the disregard you showed. However as a simple way to keep everybody happy I've now included both, this way no matter which one you think should be there you will be right because it is there! Mathmo 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not a good way to "keep everybody happy". More than one person has specifically objected to the picture with the see-through top. Both because it is atypical of tankinis in general and because it's likely to be offensive to a significant number of people (which as was pointed out below is against Wikipedia policy unless it serves a useful purpose and there isn't another option.) Can anyone offer a good reason why this particular picture should be in this article? ManaUser 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's ridiculous too, but I've given up. Mathmo's going to keep reverting it, and it's not worth the effort over such a silly issue as a page about a kind of swimsuit Nik42 10:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice Pic- she is so hot Qwert11 07:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This picture is inappropriate and misleading. Why do you insist on keeping it when multiple people have complained? 4 Aug 2007

De-stubbed

This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. It is also appropriately categorized and wikified.

By nature, stubbing and tagging articles devalues them, giving them an aura of unreliability and making them seem less credible. As part of my personal campaign to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged without cause, this article has been disenstubbified.

If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than improve it by adding actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 06:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I like seeing breasts as much as the next guy, but it's not appropriate for this page, as the page does not discuss anatomical or sexual topics. I'm removing the picture of the translucent tankini from this page.

If someone could find a more appropriate picture, please upload it and link to it on this page.

J Riddy 05:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OOO... I didn't know!! Sorry, I put in in... Should I remove it? I don't think it's so bad. The Tankini is like that, and a picture says more than a thousand words.. NorwegianMarcus 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Most tankinie I've seen aren't translucent! Nik42 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why then you don't photograph such a Tankini and upload it. Remember to get a model release for that. Otherwise, I don't understand, why this isn't "appropriate"? This isn't offensive, you can see such things here in Europe any time in public television, also you'll see it here on any public lake, translucent. It took us much time on Commons to find an appropriate picture with a 100%ly correct license and model release. Feel free to provide a better image, but don't remove it. -- Test-tools 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
For policies have a look at Wikipedia:Schools'_FAQ#Is_it_a_safe_environment_for_young_people.3F -- Test-tools 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
BS. Just because you have a release form for it, and just because Wikipedia doesn't censor itself doesn't mean that such a picture is appropriate here, just as a nude picture of a celebrity in his/her biography wouldn't be appropriate there. Besides, this isn't Europe. This is a free encyclopedia for all, and I'm sorry you feel Europe is so much better than the U.S., but such a thing would be considered inappropriate here, and indeed, even illegal for a woman to wear something like that at most lakes.
this is not america either! lol so no need to impose your hyper american senses of modesty to an international site Mathmo
For policies, have a look at Wikipedia:Profanity. Money quote: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
There are, obviously, alternatives to this particular image. And it is offensive. Indeed, this image is rather misinforming, as most tankinis (at least in my experience) are not transparent in the slightest. Sure, if they're wet, you'll get a little bit of that, but not anywhere near as much as this. In fact, tankinis are often considered more wholesome than regular bikinis. This article would seem to imply the opposite.Killua 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that picture that was removed is actually the original picture. There used to be a picture of a girl in a non-translucent tankini, but looking through this page's history, it seems as if somebody has switched that one with this new one, while keeping the same name as the old picture. Is there anyway we could get the old picture back? 69.40.249.100 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

it is back, twice now... heh. Mathmo 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done and done Ronan.evans 09:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can someone restore the picture Tankini2.jpg, please? That girl was so beautiful! And that pic is perfect here, because didn't have any nudity, in my POV. --vonusovef (wha?) 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

History

First, it seams to me problematic, that (unclear) pictures get removed from article, without a prior dicussion and note in discussion page.

The history of the Tankini image

First Tankini picture
First Tankini picture
  • This was taken originally from Flickr and in October 2005 uploaded to Commons.
  • It was legally licenses as CC-BY 2.0. She had also enforced that rights, we (on Commons) assume, that she exactly knew, what this licensing thing is.
  • In June, it was noticed, that this picture disappeared on Flickr. Her Ma had taken down the pictures, even the girl was adult enough. But what do you want to do, if you are still living at home...
  • We on Commons have asked, if we should then then delete that image.
  • She kindly asked, to have her picture removed.
  • We have then replaced that picture. In English language Wikipedia, a cached low-res version was restored. The "old" but correct license information late on also....
Current Tankini picture
Current Tankini picture
  • Really not so easy, to find a replacement picture, but finally got one licensed from www.nixxxe.de
    • The new one isn't offensive, it was never an issue on Commons or other language Wikipedias. Just poking through nibbles are not offensive.
    • The upper old one should be removed by models request (even not legally required).
    • Could someone make a better picture, to replace again?

We have then to decide -- Test-tools 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

After having read through the talk it seems this should be returned back to the orginal picture. Thre is nothing universally offensive about it (EVERYTHING and anything can be offensive to somebody, so just because something is offensive to you personally is no grounds at all for it to be removed). Personally I'm almost leaning towards the 2nd image being more "sexual" in that it shows waaay more clevage and has a massively plunging neckline while the orginal image has a very very high neckline (and then again just because something has a sexual aspect to it is certainly not a valid reason to remove it, EVERYTHING has some kind of sexual aspect). Mathmo 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Setting aside the issue of "is it offensive?" can we look at "is it representative?" The caption — which I realize can be edited — says "typical tankini," which in my experience it is not, by virtue of being so transparent. Whenever I have seen tankinis advertised, they are opaque; in fact, frequently the advertising copy mentions that the tankini offers the two-piece convenience of the bikini with the "modesty" of a traditional one-piece suit. Admittedly, I'm living in the U.S., and what's "typical" here may not be typical worldwide, but it's an argument. (For what it's worth, the picture of the black tankini is also not necessarily typical, in that the tankinis I've seen generally have tank tops that continue down to the waist.) Here is a link to a search of one popular catalogue; again, it is from the Midwestern U.S., which tends to be more conservative, but it illustrates my point:
I think that if we can find or take a workable picture with an opaque suit, it would be better for illustration purposes.Lawikitejana 07:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

History of the tankini and/or its popularity?

I was surprised to see no discussion of how the tankini evolved or when it became popular in various countries. Here in the U.S., I have only seen it in catalogues within the last 5-10 years, but that doesn't prove it hasn't been around for ages. When reading, I would expect to see a bit of history, similar to the bikini or especially monokini articles.Lawikitejana 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

tankini top vs shimmel

The term 'shimmel' has become popular with all major womens' sportswear makers for what is termed 'tankini top' here - a supportive, non-chafing singlet with interior encapsulated bra covering the waist made of fabrics that wick moisture away from the body during a workout. Where does the term 'shimmel' come from? Should it not be used instead of/in addition to the term 'tankini top', which is becoming obsolete? How does it relate to "Shimmel-length" as in Shimmel-length football jerseys (for men)?

Tankini photo

Who is the woman that is in the Tankini photo?

Here is a bigger Question, Why is that picture shown, I know Wikipedia is not Censored, but someone searching for this isnt expecting nudity.
The picture is being shown because there is an editor or two who insist that it is better than no picture, and refuse to listen to group consensus. Eventually we will be able to obtain an accurate picture of a tankini that is in the public domain. Feel free to delete this picture from the article, but I'm afraid to say that editor in question will break 3RR policy and replace it. >sigh< The joy of working in a community. --Knulclunk 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not nudity for goodness sake! Go along to a nudist colony, then you can see what nudity is.... Mathmo Talk 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Will revert both edits to do with that, if you can refer to exactly what you want a reference for then the tag can stay. But until somebody says specifically what they think is "wrong" with this that they would like a reference for I'll remove the tag. As for the link, it is only one and the also the only one for this page. So it shall stay, I'll agree however it isn't an overly good one however so I'll gladly agree to replacing it with any better link that is discussed. Mathmo Talk 07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mathmo. I removed the link per WP:EL. Specifically, please see number eleven here. --Takeel 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the reference, but knew about that already. Hence why I'd be quite happy for anybody to replace it with a better link. You must remember that what you referred to are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines on things to generally avoid. In this case when it is the one and only link for the page you can't at all say there are too many here, hence no harm in keeping it. I'll wait a little while for you to respond before putting it back. Although probably an even better idea would be to find another superior link... Mathmo Talk 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Microkini

Note

Text moved to this page from Talk:Monokini today starts here. -*Ulla* 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

TALK on MICROKINI

Regarding Sanoinsc's step to remove the link to the Microkinis and Minimal Swimwear Yahoo! group, I have to say the following:

Sanoinsc has been banned from that group and also his groups ("Microkini Enthusiasts" and "Microkinists") have been blacklisted for two reasons:

1. Repeated changing of members' group message delivery settings to whatever he sees fit, i.e. forcing the members to accept Unsolicited Bulk Email (SPAM, according to the definition of anti-spam activism organization Spamhaus). This, despite members' explicit and repeated complains.

2. Continuous and repeated pestering to the female members, pressuring them in a most annoying manner to post photos of themselves.

The sole reason for his actions on Wikipedia was a grudge he (understandably) held. Furthermore, he also removed the link to a very serious and not porn-oriented thong wearers forum (the Thong Wearers Message board). Please note that he attempted to make the external links section of the article a list of links to company-oriented (promotional) communities. Such attitude does not fly well with me and I hope the staff of Wikipedia agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.27.2.135 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

Microkini Rebuttal

Regarding Elp_gr's claims:

1: After changes at Yahoo effecting their "Groups" service (the change from Yahoo "Clubs" to Yahoo "Groups", specifically), there was significant confusion on the part of Members of the "Microkini Enthusiasts" about how to receive messages posted in that Group. Two messages were posted, two weeks apart asking the Membership how they wanted to be contacted. Approximately 2/3 asked to have their Membership status changed to "Special Notices" which included getting regular updates from the Group including a monthly e-mail newsletter but not every message posted, by every Member. Apparently, Member "Elp_gr" (who never responded to either of the 2 messages) had his status changed to receive messages and newsletters and got (and obviously still is) upset about it.

Eventually, that Group was hijacked along with +/- 300 other Yahoo Groups in a well publicized Yahoo security breech. The Members of the Group were notified on two seperate occasions of the hijack and were encouraged to leave the Group permanently. The "Microkini Enthusiasts Group", started in 1995, is in now defunct and Membership continues to drop as people opt out.

2: At no time in the past, now or in the future has there been any pressure on any Yahoo Group Member to post anything, including photos within the "Microkini Enthusiasts" or "Microkinists" groups. Members of the "Microkini Enthusiasts" and "Microkinists" groups are encouraged to participate and many do. However, many more do not, and that is and will remain their choice. That said, if any Member of any Group on Yahoo percieves there to be any sort of pressure by the Group Membership or Owner, it is important to remember that the Groups are FREE and that means Members can leave specific Groups or all Groups at any time with no restrictions.

There is no "grudge" with Elp_gr and one has only to look at the mind numbing and acidic statements on his Yahoo Group "microkiniandminimalswimwear" to understand that any animosity is entirely his.

Wikipedia is a free and open-source information resource and in an effort to keep the best known and documented history of Microkinis posted, a throrough edit of the original and highly inaccurate definition of "Microkini" was in clearly in order. Also, the term "Microkini" has been edited by more than "Sanoinsc" to its current status so this is clearly no personal vendetta.

The links to manufacturers of Microkinis have been included in the Wikipedia page in an effort to direct interested parties to websites that will give them a better understanding of the difference between available products. The originally listed manufacturers were listed in order of their history (oldest in business to newest). It is now in alphabetical order and makes more sense.

A link to "The Thong Wearers Message Board" was removed because it no more relates to microkinis specifically than any other bathing suit-oriented web-site.

~"Elp-gr" is directly associated with a specific Greece-based Microkini manufacturer of knock-off bathing suit products.

~"Sanoinsc" is an attorney, licensed in The State of California, The State of Delaware and Washington D.C., U.S.A. and can verify the above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.145.178 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

--If you can verify the above, go ahead. Otherwise, you are committing libel. Elp gr 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia

Again, Wikipedia is a FREE source of information. It is open to anyone to edit and add too.

The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's own Help Page:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by its users in over 200 languages worldwide. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and its contents are free and open. The following articles explain everything about reading, authoring, and participating in the Wikipedia community"

"Anyone" and "Free and Open" are the key words here and the suggestion that it is any way one person's domain is an abuse of the entire concept. No information contributor owns Wikipedia; the point is for it to be informational only.

I've explained the facts relative to "Elp_gr's" incorrect claims and will continue to enjoy what for me is a hobby but I have no intention of letting my name and something I take great pride in, continue to be trashed by someone with no substantive position and one who make erroneous claims with no knowledge of the facts.

Statements and claims made here by "Sanoinsc" are backed by stored and printed source code records, dating back to May 2001 and will gladly be presented, under oath, at the Federal 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, California anytime you're ready. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.145.178 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

First of all, lets's cool down a bit. As I said to Elp gr, I am not into microkinism, so I can not provide with a good third opinion, which is highly required now, as the the argument seems to become an unsolvable personal dispute. Each and every one of us have our Point of view, that is perfectly normal and usually encouraged. However, IMHO, personal claims and unverifiable sources are not appropriate here and cause no more than unnecessary arguments.

Getting to the point, I propose removing all commercial links. As you already know, Wikipedia is not web directory of anything. A quick search with Open Directory Project and Yahoo! Directory did not yield any results. Nevertheless, I think placing an open directory link to all listed maybe the solution to unnecessary quarrels between contributors. I would be grateful, if you could provide with a directory, listing commercial microkini sites and user forums seperately. This would be the absolute solution. Otherwise, article should be tagged with Template:Cleanup-spam.

Hope we could find proper grounds to make the page better. Thanks for your contributions and being here. --Emre D. 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked out this page's history. It was started about a year ago by some user at 147.27.11.160 and it had absolutely no commercial content whatsoever. Even the links that contributor provided were and still are entirely non-commercial and non-promotional. It was 68.5.145.178 who started editing it to take on a more commercial character. Just my $.02 by looking at the early versions of this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.22.25 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 March 2006.
~As it should be. Thanks to you for moderating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.145.178 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
~I could find only one directory listing microkini sites. However, being a closed and adult-oriented directory, I am not sure whether it would be plausible or not. So I am putting cleanup tag, but not touching the links, yet. Still, if you find alternative listings (maybe with alternative names), please feel free to add it to the page. Thanks for your contributions.... --Emre D. 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
~I think it might be best to just remove all of the links in a permamnent way. Since four of the current links are directly related to a specific commercial web-site, users may find the information entirely commercial which has not been the intention. --Sanoinsc. 68.5.145.178 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Four links directly related to a specific commercial web-site? Care to tell us which ones they are? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.22.25 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
~Correction, there are three links that are all interrelated. Aphamoda is listed twice and the "microkini and minimal swimwear group" is a sales conduit for Alphamoda, run by "Elp_gr" for promotion thereof. Simply put, if the Microkini information page at Wikipedia is going to be a commercial advertisement for manufactuers, than it should be a fully open free-for-all and "Elp_gr" should not be able to remove links anymore than anyone else. Otherwise, eliminate ALL the links and make the page strictly informative --Sanoinsc 68.5.145.178 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

~~Further reading;

  • blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-GUN2oH8ieqgWc3YgQX2NdA--?cq=1 Sanoinsc's Blog
this is blatant advertising on his part, even worse it has no entries! Mathmo 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • groups.yahoo.com/group/microkinisandminimalswimwear/ Microkinis and Minimal Swimwear Forum

This argument seems to go nowhere. Anyway, let's sum the points of the argument.

  1. There are no obvious objections about the main informative section.
  2. Links to manufacturer's should be deleted. (see. not web directory )
  3. Links to user forums can remain, but as for personal disputes between yourselves, my opinion is to remove them too.

After an uncertain period of time, when both parties cool down, the article can be rebuild with a more constructive cooperation.

And about Wikipedia being a "fully open free-for-all" medium; it is true for most of the time. You can edit whatever you want and change whatever you want, with factual material. There is a catch though, you can do these unless someone objects. And this is why we have been writing here, we are trying to solve a verdict, in a civil manner.

One more thing, as microkinism also seems to be social statement, one of you should add a line about microkinism and microkini supporting community. At least, the reader should be tempted to do an internet search after reading this statement.

By the way, please contribute after logging-in, in order to keep track of what is said by who. This makes a lot of things easier. :))

Thanks for your contributions.

P.S. Links removed. --Emre D. 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Predictably, the links to specifc manufacturers have reappeared here. Also predictably, they are exactly as the were when "elp_gr" modifed them in the first place.

Is there some way to make this listing informational only or is it now alright to post commercial links?

I wasn't the one who put the links back. Besides, last year, when I started this entry, I hadn't put up any links to ANY manufacturers. Instead, I had given links to strictly NON-COMMERCIAL websites. It was Sano that added commercial links. And if Sano can do it, then why shouldn't I (or everyone else, for that matter), add other makers' links? Elp gr 00:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Wicked Weasel should certainly be included, is famous for providing exactly this type of clothing. Doubt any others could claim greater fame to it than them. Mathmo Talk 10:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
added it, by use of an internal link as is how it is meant to be done.so there is no external link on this page to the manufacture Mathmo Talk 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All the text above is moved to this page from Talk:Monokini today. -*Ulla* 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arqx5 added this gallery, which was removed for the reason "maybe a bit too many images there". But thought it best to paste into the talk, so it is kept here because it could be put into the article. Or perhaps a smaller selection of images. Mathmo Talk 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the other editors who are trying to remove the list of external links to the manufacturers of microkinis. Per WP:EL, links that do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, and links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services should be avoided. Given that these links are all to commercial websites that add nothing to the article, I have removed the list. If there is a good reason for these commercial sites to be linked, I would be interested to hear the reasoning, however. Resolute 22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


some people have turn wikipedia into a jog... What else can i say when showing them having problems only with Microkinis section? They had no problem with the many commercial wikipedia pages & links for wellknown companies like adidas, speedo, etc. But on the same time links on this section brakes WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.73.126 (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The EL's at Adidas, for example, are specifically related to the company itself, and therefore are relevant, though perhaps they should be pruned. On articles on corporations, links to the official website(s) are valid. The EL's at this article are simply commercial links, and basically, nothing but free promotion for those commercial sites. That is the difference. Resolute 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Monokini

There were until now much more old talk on this page, but I think it was more related to microkinis than monokinis, so I move it to Talk:Microkini. -*Ulla* 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

I uh.... -ahem- think that a picture would GREATLY improve this article-- Damien Vryce

I added two pictures here the other day. Do you like them? -*Ulla* 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
eeee, since i now that the woman on the picters is the one from voyageur message to extraterestials ....
it's rather comic ... like if i'm seening saint mary in a bikini or something like that.--Pixel ;-) 08:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're funny :-) . Well, I made them intentionally so that they should just illustrate the "idea" of the suits. -*Ulla* 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ummm when would people use these?

The microkini is NOT a monokini

Although most microkini-wearing females will occasionally go without the top, manufacturers and vendors selling microkinis sell these suits usually as top and bottom sets. Thus, there is absolutely no reason for the microkini to be merged with monokini; in other words, the microkini is NOT a subcategory of the monokini (which is a female-only design); instead, for the females it is a very skimpy version of a bikini or a one-piece suit and for the males, a very skimpy thong or g-string. Plain and simple. Elp gr 15:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just moved microkini to its own article. *Ulla* 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking. By moving it to its own article, we're avoiding confusion. Elp gr 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bikini Atoll

This article makes a point of clarifying the etymology of monokini as being flawed, but it doesn't specify the etymology of bikini as used in Bikini Atoll, and neither does that article. It's still possible based on this articles text that monokini is the correct construction, can we get a source that at least specifies that bikini is not derived from Greek? Vicarious 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are some iteresting photos. ;)

Whose definitions?

Neither of the two definitions of monokini offered by this article fitted my preconception. At first I thought this was simply because I'd been wrong. But apparently not. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004 ed.) offers only one definition of "monokini": "a woman's one piece beach garment equivalent to the lower half of a bikini". This definition must therefore be a common one in the UK, probably the most widely accepted one in the UK and perhaps in other countries. Neither of the monokini styles described by the current article fits that definition (lower half of a bikini). Is this a difference between British and American English? Either way, since the Oxford definition is presumably one of the most (if not the most) widely accepted definition in the UK, it ought to be reflected in the article. -86.134.90.115 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bikini/Archive_1&oldid=1146702581"