# Talk:History of the bikini

This is an interesting article but I find the present title rather strange. In its present form, it would seem to refer to the history of the island (Bikini Atoll) rather than to the article of clothing. I would suggest History of the bikini would be more correct and less confusing. Perhaps you could just move it. - Ipigott (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Done in a jiffy. In fact you could do it yourself fine. :) Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As to the title, I propose that the name of the article be changed to "History of swimwear", as it covers and could cover more than history of bikini. Enthusiast (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), as has been stated to you before, you should be more careful with article moves. Wikipedia:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially controversial moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; it states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." So suggesting an article move on the talk page and then moving the article without discussion, as you did in this case, is commonly not the best route to take. While the term bikini is modern, various ancient swimsuits are also referred to as "bikinis." Furthermore, this article is almost exclusively about women and bikinis, which makes one wonder why a History of swimwear article does not cover men/men's swimwear. With a History of the bikini article, at least it's understandable why the article only or mostly covers women, considering that the term bikini usually refers to a girl's or woman's swimsuit.
WP:Pinging Ipigott and Aditya Kabir, who began this discussion years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am currently away from my base and have not been able to make the changes you mention above. By next week I will have access to my computer. Enthusiast (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not just about expanding the article to be more inclusive of men's swimwear or whatever else; it's about discussing whether or not expanding the scope of this article is what is best. Why not just have this article remain an article that is about the history of the bikini, and let the Swimsuit article cover the more general history, as has been the case? Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Because there was as much material on the so-called precursors to the bikini as there was on the bikini itself. If you are going to have a mention of the pre-bikini, I think you should be comprehensive - hence expanding to cover all swimwear. At the moment the history materials are scattered over a few articles, which leads to some inconsistencies. Enthusiast (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This goes back to my statement that "While the term bikini is modern, various ancient swimsuits are also referred to as 'bikinis.' Furthermore, this article is almost exclusively about women and bikinis." Also, "precursor content" is common in Wikipedia articles; often, this content is the History section. It's common that our article titles are not reflective of everything that is in the articles. Because of this, I don't see a problem with the title you changed it away from. But I'm not going to press this issue. In the future, I hope that you are more willing to discuss potentially contested article moves before moving the articles. Cases like these are why the discussions should happen first. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The image File:Jaynemansfield4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:

      File:MichelineBernardini.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A problem with content forking. Getting there, along with other NFCC. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This article uses way too many of them. Will the primary author remove all but those s/he deems most important? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only the most important bikini moments have been supported by images, free or otherwise, along with ample critical commentary and context. If they seem way too many, then I would really like to have a few suggestions on how to go about reducing the number of non-free images. Compromises are always possible. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently 5 non-free images are being used out of a total of 17. Is that way too much? Please, can someone comment non that? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about this at GA-level.Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See File:FourFavorites3101.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Now I see the point. But, seemingly these are not bikinis as such. In the early times of the modern bikini, the cut of the garment made it different from similar pre-bikini two-piece swimwear. That's exactly why a visual depiction is so important. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I understand -- the bikinis on the comic-book cover are plenty revealing by the standards of 1947 (strapless etc.).  AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this edit, the statement that "Bollywood actress Sharmila Tagore struck a memorable moment in 1967 when she appeared in a bikini in An Evening in Paris" is a POV statement. Can that accusation be clarified, please? Otherwise there may be no reason to keep that inline tag. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Memorable" is a value judgment, and we don't accept value judgments made by our editors, it has to come from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Value judgement? Doesn't "every adjective" in English dictionary fall into that trap? I believe Wikipedia is full of adjectives, more so in featured articles. Supporting every adjective with a  reliable source source would be, I guess, a bit extreme. "Memorable" is not value judgement. "The most memorable" would have been that, and POV too. That surely would have required a citation. Or would you prefer to have a more bland adjective, like "significant"? That again calls for replacing most adjectives with something similar, and would be extreme again. "Memorable" is an English word that signifies something that has been significantly remembered over time, and that is perfectly supported by cited reliable sources. It indeed is remembered by mainstream academia and media through time, even if we count out popular remembrance. We do accept valid adjectives by any editor, and we definitely don't go slapping tags on every adjective, especially if they make good sense and are properly cited. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I prefer that you follow WIkipedia policy and provide a citation to support a value judgment laden statement, or even that the event took place. Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, I prefer that you keep your preference to you and go by WP:BEHAVE. We work towards a WP:Consensus through discussion, and not citing policies unnecessarily (sorry, if this reads rude, but I surely resent the tone of this discussion). Now with that put aside (assuming that both of us know our core policies, in spirit as much in letters), I believe the the problem here is one single word - "memorable" (correct me if I'm wrong). According to the Webster's Dictionary,reference it means "worth remembering" or "notable". According to Oxford English Dictionary,Reference it means "special", "good" or "unusual", therefore "worth remembering" or "easy to remember". With mainstream media and academia referring to the event as a shock, a trendsetter, and a defining point for femininity in Indian films, the most powerful cultural vehicle to the second largest nation on earth, and it's continued reference, do make it "notable", "unusual" and "easy to remember".
I wouldn't mind another word used here, or may be the sentence re-written while preserving the spirit. Please, go ahead. But, that definitely is a matter of WP:MoS, not WP:POV. Alternatively, suggestions can be put forward, and a better word or sentence can be reached that way. I would have made the change already, but I sincerely don't know what would satisfy here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Aditya, in many points this article parrots the enthusiastic tone of the references it uses, and this is simply not acceptable. We should use sources to draw facts, and a minimum of critical judgment is necessary to identify where a non-encyclopedic tone is being imported. This is what seems to be happening with this passage. --damiens.rf 18:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. If there's a copy problem, we can always fix it. If the text reflects reliable sources, and not a POV, as there's no quarter found to have a conflicting or different opinion, then there's nothing to balance. By WP policies there's hardly anything that's simply not acceptable here. Can you please state what's simply not acceptable, and why? Blanket comments and mistagging are hardly conductive of article development. Make suggestions, attempt explanations, even pick at every single word. But, let's do that within the bounds of WP policies, guidelines and traditions. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Aditya -- I don't want to get involved in edit warring over this, but that section doesn't really belong on this article (though in a lightly-modified form it might fit on another article)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing that could really be called an organized feminist movement in 1951, and the title of the reference given refers to ca. 1970, not 1951. AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarified. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They were showgirl performing costumes, not generally swimwear, and were not worn by ordinary respectable women. AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Modern Girl Magazine, a fashion magazine from the United States, was quoted in 1957 as saying: "it is hardly necessary to waste words over the so-called bikini since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing" This statement looks dubious to me; it's too convenient to be true. The source for it is only a newspaper article, which mentions it as a bit of a trivia. A Google search for "Modern Girl Magazine" only yields mentions of this alleged statement. I was unable to verify that such a magazine even existed, let alone ever made that statement. Aquila89 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"In 1965, a woman told Time it was "almost square" not to wear one. In 1967 the magazine wrote that "65% of the young set had already gone over." - also looks suspect. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Aquila89, I am sure you are right, and that this quote is bogus - I was just going to suggest the same. As someone interested in 1950s design I have collected contemporary fashion magazines for many years. I have never encountered a "Modern Girl Magazine" or found any reference to it except for this quote, which seems to have surfaced about five years ago. I think this is a similar case to the "Housekeeping Monthly Good Wife's Guide" - In other words a journalistic invention. Jellyandjocko (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole section is about swimwears and beachwears, not about bikini at all. Does it really belong here? Maybe we need to move to a more relevant article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand -- there's only one fairly short sentence about the 18th century as the article now stands.  (By the way, the words "swimwear" and "beachwear" are not generally pluralizable in English.)  However, you may be correct that the modern Bikini basically came into existence in the 1940s, so that discussion of the pre-1940s history of western swimwear should be somewhat brief... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ewawer (Enthusiast), when adding material to this article, such as this content you added because of what was stated in the #Title of article section above, you should make sure that you are adding sourced material. WP:Reliably sourced. No WP:Dead links, nothing with a Template:Citation needed tag. This is supposed to be a WP:Good article. If it does not remain a WP:Google article, it can be validly subject to WP:Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And/or validly reverted to its WP:Good article state. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, but I note that the material is being transferred from Swimwear#History, with the links etc that were there. If this material is substandard here, it is also substandard there. Enthusiast (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I know that you were transferring material; not only did you state that in your edit summary (which, as I've told you before, is good form per WP:Copying within Wikipedia), the references partly tell the story; for example, the accessdate. I also know that it's common for you to transfer material from other Wikipedia articles. And, yes, the content should be fixed up in whatever article it is in. My point is that this is a WP:Good article. It should be treated like one. Extra care should be taken with it to make sure it maintains its WP:Good article status. If it does not maintain that status, it will be delisted...whether I seek to do it myself or someone else does. Those who don't know what makes a WP:Good article should read the page about it, especially its WP:Good article criteria spin-off. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Ewawer, despite what I stated above, you are still adding unsourced material to this article, as seen by this edit. Why? If you are not going to source the material, you should not be expecting others to source it for you. I will give you some time to source the unsouced content. After a week, I will remove it, per WP:Burden. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing an early discussion (above) about the title, the article is only in part about the history of swimwear, because male swimwear is only briefly mentioned in four short paragraphs. It is entirely about female swimwear, and slightly more than half of that is specifically about the bikini. The three sections about the history of the swimsuit comprise 18 kB (3002 words), although you could make the argument that the section "Exposed midriff" (3579 B (570 words)) might be about the bikini. It should also be noted that a substantial portion of the section "Pre-20th century" and a smaller portion of "20th century" have been copied from swimwear. The final two sections about the bikini total 21 kB (3492 words). The lede is entirely about the bikini. 
The current title and lede are both inaccurate. The contents are neither only about the history of [male and female] swimwear nor about the history of the bikini. I suggest that the article be split into "History of swimwear" and "History of the bikini". This will allow swimwear to more briefly summarize this history section, referring users to the first article that can be expanded to more specifically include men's swimwear, and focus the second article on the specific, cultural icon, the bikini. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't, per what I stated in the #Title of article section above, and per what you stated in this section, we simply retitle the article History of the bikini, cut out the non-bikini content that Ewawer (Enthusiast) added, and then have the Swimsuit article mostly cover the history of swimwear as it did before? I state this because there is not as much to cover regarding male swimwear as there is to cover regarding female swimwear. If a History of swimwear article is needed after significant expansion at the Swimsuit article, then that can be validly done...per WP:Spinout. I don't want to us to have an unnecessary spinout article. By that, I mean an article that is a WP:Stub or close to a WP:Stub, when it can be covered in a larger article. I also think that a History of swimwear article might be largely redundant to the History of the bikini article, considering that swimwear content is more commonly about women than about men. We shouldn't unnecessarily have our readers go to an extra article to read content. That stated, Ewawer is interested in continuing his expansion of the History of swimwear article to include non-bikini material.
Also, for his take on this latest matter, I'm WP:Pinging Strebe from this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer22. It’s heartening to see people take an interest in articles’ balance of topical coverage. The Bikini article already has an extensive history section. Its section on history and the one in this article ought to be rectified against each other, with this article’s pared down to a vital synopsis of the authoritative one in the Bikini article. Strebe (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I renamed the previous article to History of swimwear from History of bikini because much of the material in it was about pre-bikini swimwear (and I'm still not convinced on the significance of the so-called "bikini in antiquity" as these were not used for swimming purposes). I just cleaned up the revised article a bit with some new material. I agree that it can be fixed up more and expanded, but to restore it to where it was before would remove the context of the bikini. The Kellerman swimsuit is a very significant milestone as is the continuing significance of the one-piece swimsuit; as well as other styles to be found today, which are not mentioned adequately or at all, such as the monokini, the micro, the g-string, etc. If anything, the article should be expanded instead of restored or truncated. Enthusiast (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Enthusiast, I agree, "the Kellerman swimsuit is a very significant milestone as is the continuing significance of the one-piece swimsuit," which is pretty much my point. It's about the swimsuit generically, not the iconic bikini, which is pretty well lost at the bottom of the current article. And based on WP:Spinout which I hadn't seen before, I agree on principle that we don't want to create a new stub. While the antiquity content is not necessarily about a swimsuit, a summary of it is pertinent. Since much of the "history of the swimsuit" is already found in the swimsuit article, if you remove the bulk of that -- leaving only the parts directly germaine to bikini -- that would leave a pretty good article about the bikini itself.
As a matter of notability, a search for history of the swimsuit turns up 19,900,000 results while a search for history of the bikini results in 110,000,000, almost six times as many hits. Still,  I'd like to see another editor or two contribute their opinion. Perhaps Aditya_Kabir or Flyer22 might have some input.  — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Beyond 100KB an article "almost certainly should be divided." (WP:SIZESPLIT) The article at the moment is 273 kB long.
Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. (WP:NOTPAPER)
The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. (WP:SUMMARY)
That is the common WP practice - split, don't make it longer than it already was. In its pre-moved version it was 229 kB.
History of Swimwear was already there as part of the Swimsuit. It was underdeveloped, but it had much unique information, keeping it way separate.
The only commonality was the non bikini times. That part was 88 kB as part of the History of Bikini article. It took that size much because of the suggestions made in Wikipedia:Peer review/Bikini/archive1 and Talk:History of the bikini/GA1.
The history of swimwear was 44 kB as part of the Swimsuit article. If needed a separate article on the history of swimwear can be created. There is already enough information available to start at least a C class article.
I see no reason the move the article to the current title, and no reason to add the additional information on non-bikini swimwear over the original.
May be it is just WP:JDL.
If any part of the pre-moved article looks redundant or irrelevant, that can be solved by discussion. Easily and sensibly. That version needs a trim down from 200 kB+ size anyways (or may be further splits). Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ewawer (Enthusiast), we do not know if the bikini-like clothing in antiquity was used for swimming purposes. What we do know is that some WP:Reliable sources cite this antiquity clothing as "ancient bikinis" or "bikini-like," and suggest that it might have been used for swimming. We should go by the WP:Reliable sources, not our personal opinions, for such article content. 
Aditya, when it comes to splitting this article, we should be keeping in mind that WP:SIZE is mainly about readable prose. So when judging the kilobyte size of an article, we should be going on the readable prose, not the references and other things that add to the kilobyte size. When you stated "I see no reason the move the article to the current title", you mean that you prefer the History of the bikini title? Maybe we should take a vote about the article title and whether or not to split this article, and/or where to split some of its content. Either way, I hate to see WP:Good articles deteriorate. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aditya, using WP's page size tool, the entire current article prose size is only 76kb. If you exclude the two sections "In antiquity" and "Pre-20th century swimwear", the article size is 60kb. There appears to be agreement that the topic title ought to be restored to "History of the bikini", though I'm unsure if a new article about "History of swimwear" is agreed upon. The new article would be relatively short, and since the prose size of existing swimsuit article is only about 21kb,  I suggest we ought to retain those two sections in that article at this time.  — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Can you suggest a tool that reliably measures readable prose size? Prose size isn't very effective. I counted the readable prose using MS Word, and estimated article size per the estimates provided by SIZE:
Current: 7,600 words (roughly 58 kB)
Pre-move: 6,200 words (roughly 47 kB)
That alone (even you didn't count it by some other means) I guess renders my use of the rule of the thumb irrelevant. Though the rest of the argument and policies still hold. Additionally, Technical issues section of SIZE still calls this a very long article. By its estimates a dial-up connection would have needed 12 seconds to load the pre-move article, while the current one takes almost 16. That part of SIZE clearly recommends articles of over 200 kB of total size for subjects that require great depth and detail, and still suggests splitting to be a better option.
And, the two subjects Histories of the Bikini and Swimwear are much like articles History of Asia, History of India, and History of Delhi in relation to each other. They already had separate existence - one as a full article (a sub-article for both the Bikini article and History of the Swimwear article (which still is a part of the Swimsuit article). The decision to unite these two under the title appropriate for the second one (i.e. Swimwear) is in essence a content merge.
A move of this size and scope is a very WP:BOLD move (the policy suggests extra care for Good Articles and above).
The appropriate tradition is to follow WP:BRD. I make the change, you revert. I take it to the talk page. We discuss. At that, restoring the article to the pre-moved version and title, and then improving it by discussion from there is the appropriate and sensible way. Then, upon changes by consensus, it may at one point need to change its title, again by WP:CON.
WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (as per WP:WIKINOTVOTE). I don't think we should vote. We need to discuss, and discuss using the Good Article as the starting point. A very bold and slightly controversial edit by one editor and the consequent edits, mostly done to accommodate the bold edit, probably is not an reasonable starting point. If we fail to establish a CON here, then there is always WP:DRN.
Finally, may be creating the separate History of swimwear article first is the best idea. Then both the Histories of the Bikini and Swimwear can have their own articles standing on their own merit, and all involved editors can live happily ever after. I have started working that article here - User:Aditya Kabir/sandbox. So far I have put together all the text we have, without editing, and started researching. There are very good books available. Anyone can join in, if interested. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Aditya, I think prose size should be judged using the standard tool provided by WP. If you consider the current version of this article "long", compare it to, for example, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (120kb), which was recently split off into O.K. Corral hearing and aftermath (53kb), or Battle of the Bulge (115kb)  Thanks for starting History of the swimsuit. I don't think it's necessary to name it "History of the bikini and swimsuit" as that's redundant -- a bikini is a swimsuit after all. So I'm unclear: are you on board with restoring this article back to "History of the bikini"?  — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that polling is not a substitute for discussion, but we've already been discussing the issue. I meant votes to make it clearer where we stand on this matter -- "the article title and whether or not to split this article, and/or where to split some of its content." Even in WP:AfDs, the votes should come along with valid rationales. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the History of Bikini article had most of the material on antiquity bikini-style clothing and the Kellerman swimsuit, which would not reduce the word count as much as suggested above. Perhaps, calculate the size pre-renaming and then take away from the current size. I suggest that the article is not too long, but that if the swimwear part of the article is expanding, as it will need to be, then that may be another issue. Additional mentions would need to be made of the various bikini styles, etc. Enthusiast (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: LOL. My bad. It's my English I guess. I said both the histories... which means two separate articles. BTW, what Wikipedia standard tool? There is none that measures readable prose.
Anyhow, I can agree to a more structured discussion - state your stand, then state your rationale (the way we do it for AfDs). BTW, what is your position? Current title? Or the previous title for Bikini and a separate article for all swimwear? Or something else? Just curious.
My position is simple - this article is about History of the Bikini, and History of swimwear should be a separate article. I a working towards creating that swimwear article.
@Ewawer: I am not sure about the rationale. What is it? Just because the original article had extra fat on Kellerman we have to expand it to encompass all swimwear? A better route is to cut the fat down. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir:I tried cutting down the fat, as well as tidy up the related articles, but all my changes were unceremoniously reverted. My position is that this article should stand and be expanded, and if pruning needs to be done it should comprise the antiquity section, which does not expressly mention swimming but merely the style of the garment; and the bikini material could be trimmed and included in the Bikini in popular culture article. Enthusiast (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, my position is what I stated above in this section: I think that this article should be retitled History of the bikini, and that the history of swimwear should continue to be mainly covered in the Swimsuit article unless it needs its own Wikipedia article.
Ewawer, all of your edits to this article were not "unceremoniously reverted"; most of your edits to this article have remained intact, even if some have been tweaked. If you were talking about one or more other articles, then okay.
Also, to everyone, there is no need to keep WP:Pinging me to this talk page since this talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. I've kept WP:Pinging Ewawer because, even though I'm sure this talk page is on his WP:Watchlist, it can sometimes seem like he is missing the discussion when it comes to articles he watches. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Enthusiast (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Keeping this one as History of bikini and leaving History of swimwear to the Swimsuit article sounds quite alright. Shall we take that as consensus? Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ewawer moved the page from History of the bikini to History of swimwear  18 July 2015 without discussing with anyone. A move of this size and scope is a very WP:BOLD move (the policy suggests extra care for Good Articles and above). The appropriate tradition is to follow WP:BRD. I make the change, you revert. I take it to the talk page. We discuss. 
Here is my proposal. Please state you position and rationale. And, if you have a different proposal, please, add it as proposal two and so on. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


### Proposal one
The current article should remain as History of Bikini, the title it had when it was a good article. Because, this article was a comprehensive article on bikini history, and it was a spinout of Bikini, another good article, article (it has two more spionouts - Bikini in popular culture and Bikini variants, which in turn serves as the summary for a whole list of articles from Monokini to Tankini. When reverted, it also should get rid of the material added, irrelevant to bikini, to accommodate the title change. It should essentially revert back to the good article.
The is no need to copy paste from the History section of Swimsuit. It can remain there, until it becomes expanded enough to have its own article (though, I believe, it already is ready to become an article on its own). 
Pinging @Strebe:, @Flyer22:, @Btphelps:, @Ipigott:, and @Ewawer:. Sorry for the pinging. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on History of the bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223110444/http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/villaromanadelcasale.html to http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/villaromanadelcasale.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419083213/http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949 to http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419083213/http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949 to http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.articles-central.info/Art/22681/48/Short-History-of-Bikinis-and-Swimsuits.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927084552/http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1945-1950_SS/LR4601_S/LR4601.html to http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1945-1950_SS/LR4601_S/LR4601.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419083213/http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949 to http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=6949
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212171149/http://www.pageant-almanac.com/history.php to http://www.pageant-almanac.com/history.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112135654/http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1655251.cms to http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1655251.cms
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=124512
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of the bikini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225093154/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060528/news_1c28bikini.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060528/news_1c28bikini.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925082112/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/12/andress.bikini/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/12/andress.bikini/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214011315/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1452703.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1452703.0.0.php
Added archive https://archive.is/20120707165608/http://123india.santabanta.com/cinema.asp?pid=3236 to http://123india.santabanta.com/cinema.asp?pid=3236
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://photos.newhavenregister.com/2013/07/05/photos-on-this-day-july-5-1946-the-first-bikini-goes-on-sale/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509090426/http://www.bikiniscience.com/bsmain.html to http://www.bikiniscience.com/bsmain.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:ChicagoBikini1973.jpg
The current picture triggered me to wonder what Gilligan's Island might have been like, if there had been a Dennis Hopper–like native islander (a la Apocalypse Now), who is frequently seen running along a beach or a ridge or under heavy canopy in the deep background, and each time this Yeti-like unapproachable apparition is fleetingly perceived wearing ever more of Gilligan's and Ginger's favourite clothing with a wide, chortling, lunatic grin. 
Britannica, this ain't. — MaxEnt 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You might want to add the reference to the ancient Egyptian Dancing girl who wore what appears to be a bikini bottom. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_in_ancient_Egypt
( Archaeolgoist77 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC) )

Not really relevant to the C20 garment, and image is unclear - it may simply be a belt.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I would add some reference, if I could cite a reliable source. Aditya([v]  o  ´X`) 17:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Wrapped loincloths of various kinds have existed in many cultures during various periods of history (and in fact could have been among the earliest cloth garments worn by humans).  As long as they're just wrapped loincloths, they aren't too bikini-relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a significant event in bikini history. Public figures weighed in, paid the fine for the team and much discussion about the reason for the rule ensued. The rule was overturned and many teams now wear shorts and athletic top rather than bikinis 2600:1700:CE30:1EE0:6D54:C36F:B5D4:E584 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

...first test of a nuclear device (nicknamed Able)... was not in Bikini Atoll 80.71.45.68 (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have no reason to doubt that both Heim and Réard hired skywriters to advertise their products, and that their ad campaigns included the phrases "the world's smallest bathing suit", and "smaller than the smallest bathing suit in the world", I am incredulous that the skywriters could actually write the former, much less the latter, due to how quickly skywriting disperses and how long it takes to create.
As the single link supporting the latter is broken, and the other two supporting the former make no mention of those phrases actually being skywritten, I propose to modify the paragraph to reflect only the information actually available in the two valid sources.
Do I make the change myself and wait for reaction, or do we discuss it first?  Thanks! Keyesc (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)