Talk:Bikini/Archive 1

message: :::Image:Beach Towel (occupied).jpg|thumb|right|Another alternative.:::Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative image 

message: "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)
thread_title: Criticism of critism section

message: 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)
*The Micheline Bernardini image is in because it is a famous bikini. See also the talk above. Pcb21| Pete 20:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake about the image, then.  I see the "recently added image" line now. My apologies.  ➥the Epopt 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evolution of the bikini - Inappropriate links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weird choice of links 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was looking to complain about the exact same thing, please... spare us! --Tribe4ever 07:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Front Picture Needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Image of Girl in Bikini

message: 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)
thread_title:  Womens board shorts 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  External_links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media depictions 

message: 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  link to Swimsuit. -Harmil 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
thread_title:  malta? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Images moved

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section about asians

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  De-stubbed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of the tankini and/or its popularity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tankini photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi, Mathmo.  I removed the link per WP:EL.  Specifically, please see number eleven here. --Takeel 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  references and links 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: TALK on MICROKINI

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Back to Allowing Select Manufacturers Links 

message: Image:microkini 1.jpg
Image:microkini 2.jpg
Image:microkini 3.jpg
Image:microkini 4.jpg
Image:microkini 5.jpg
Image:microkini 6.jpg
Image:microkini 7.jpg
Image:microkini 8.jpg
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)
thread_title:  gallery 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: :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)
thread_title:  Talk:Monokini 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just moved microkini to its own article. *Ulla* 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good thinking. By moving it to its own article, we're avoiding confusion. Elp gr 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The microkini is NOT a monokini

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bikini Atoll 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whose definitions?