Talk:Swimsuit

message: http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/chronology.html has a detailed chronology of the development of the swimsuit, but some of the aspects of the site make me unsure that it is appropriate as an external link here. However, it does seem an interesting source.
: Interesting it certainly is, but a lot of information is outdated and I haven't seen it being updated in ages. Elp gr 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible extlink? 

message: It is a violation of federal law to make clothing out of a flag.  4USC8 "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery."  I thought it was the height of foolishness to try Abbie Hoffman for wearing his flag shirt, but that doesn't make the flag bikini anything but offensive to lots of Americans, including yours truly, Ortolan88 03:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The person in this picture does not appear to be using the U.S. flag as apparel, or to have made clothing out of a flag.  Rather, it appears to me that she is wearing a two-piece swimsuit made from a material that has been printed with a pattern that resembles a flag.  That is not the same thing at all.  I don't think there is any law against wearing clothing with red and white stripes or with white stars on a blue field.  -- Dominus 13:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I disagree, and I also wonder if you know what "casuist" means.  You're right; the swimsuit is not made of bunting, and it's not ilegal to make clothes out of bunting---which means that the thing about the bunting is totally irrelevant.  The law makes it illegal to make garments out of the flag; that swimsuit is not made out of the flag; therefore the swimsuit is not illegal under that law.  You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a crime.  If it really bothers you, I suggest that you complain to your congressman. -- Dominus 09:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I doubt very much whether they made it by starting with U.S. flags and cutting them up. I would imagine they started with two bolts of cloth, one printed with white stars on blue, and another printed with red stripes on white. In this way, at no time is a U.S. flag either created or destroyed. A Google search finds many U.S. suppliers of "stars and stripes bikinis", some describing them as "patriotic wear". -- The Anome 16:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Something that is strange about my country is that you sometimes happen to see people wearing clothes with American flags on them, but you never see people wearing clothes that have a German flag printed on them. It's weird, but I think it has something to do with Germany's lack of patriotism. -- 79.238.161.7 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: OK, now I understand what Jack O'Neill did in Stargate SG-1 when Daniel Jackson decended from a higher level of existence. Jackson appeared naked in O'Neill's office and O'Neill broke a federal law by giving him something to wear for the time until Jackson had proper clothes. -- 79.238.161.7 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag bikini offensive, illegal

message: I reverted the unexplained replacement of the male model with a female model. I see no particular reason why the bikini pic is any more informative, and I suspect some sort of bias in believing that somehow a woman in a bikini is more of a swimsuit model than a man in a low-cut suit. FCYTravis 03:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But monokinis are only for women. Men have swim trunks. *Ulla* 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Please can someone provide a photo of a woman in a one-piece costume?  as worn for swimming rather than sunbathing.  CarolGray 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, preferably to replace the image of the girl in the red bikini at the bottom of the page -- we do not need two images of females wearing bikinis. More interesting would be images of (a) the Pompeii murals (b) the 'sling bikini' Njál 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image needed

message: If it is not merged, then the user can enter the term "monokini" and find it without having to think of the possibility of "swimsuit" and without having to wade through all of the other definitions and discussion of "swimsuit." Steve_geo1 1425, 22 February 2006
:I agree. I will set up a vote to merge or not. Weirdy 23:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monokini should not be merged 

message: This article is for the vote of merging the Swimsuit article to the Monokini article or vice-versa ONLY. Anyone who wishes to post disruptive comments throughout the seven days of discussion will be either warned or blocked depending on how they vandalise this page/section. This talk officially started 20 May 2006 and shall end 7 days after that, which means the vote ends at 27 May 2006. Please correct User:Weirdy if he put the date wrong. Thank you. Weirdy 08:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the other article, Microkini? I personally think that they should be merged together. Microkini and Monokini are related pieces of clothing. Weirdy 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related, perhaps, but not the same. *Ulla* 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Swimsuit]] and [[Monokini]] merge or not?

message: # Merge: Monokini is a short article referring to a type of swimsuit. Definitely belongs in the article. Abel 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the other article, Microkini? I personally think that they should be merged together. Microkini and Monokini are related pieces of clothing. Weirdy 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related, perhaps, but not the same. *Ulla* 11:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree Merging

message: #I disagree merging these two articles because Monokini should not be merged into swimsuit as it is a different genre altogether. Weirdy 08:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree Merging

message: First of all, microkinis are NOT women-only designs, unlike the monokini. Second, women's microkinis come in two formats: bikini and one-piece. The bikini format, however scant, certainly has nothing to do with the monokini category. The one-piece version, on the other hand, either provides coverage for the nipples - and thus is NOT a monokini - or, if it does not cover any part of the woman's chest, it is usually purchased/sold as a set with a bikini top, in which case we again cannot identify the microkini with the monokini. Third, the mere fact that so many microkini manufacturers out there (and even some whose main target market is NOT microkini wearers, but do cater for them as well) offer extremely skimpy bikini (i.e. microkini) tops to be sold as sets with their microkini bottoms, separates microkinis from monokinis entirely. Elp gr 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved microkini to its own article. *Ulla* 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was Microkini merged with Monokini?

message: I think the model in the designer speedo is more than sufficient, why dont we use the space the lower speedo photo takes to show what men's Boardshorts look like?
Lemon-lime 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need two Speedo pictures?

message: Does the extreme closeup of some man's goodies really need to be the first thing one sees on this page?
csiefken
I do agree with this sentiment. It'd be better to find an example of a thicker and therefore less-revealing Speedo garment to illustrate this; if that's even necessary given the 'Speedo model' pic further down.
Sinnyo 14:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does it really need to be so in-your-face?

message: (Reply to comment in edit summary by Bardsandwarriors)
Categories should be excluded if there isn't a reasonably good reason for *in*cluding them.  (Wikipedia:Categories advises restraint, and makes the point that the more categories you put an article in, the less useful they are.)  Some swimsuits may be "one-piece suits", but the connection (if any) between the general topic of swimsuits, and the category of "one-piece suits" seems to me to be highly tenuous at best, and not strong enough to justify the category placement.
As far as people browsing the category, they'll come across the one-piece swimsuit article, and if they want to know more about swimsuits in general, they can follow the link from there. Anonymous55 07:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. As I've said, I was making a quick run through a lot of things. I didn't realise I had already put "one-piece swimsuit" into the category. I will revert my own reversion now. Bards 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:One-piece suits

message: I've taken the liberty of adding a "fact" tag to the "sling bikini" paragraph, as the only photographs I've ever seen purporting to show such an item were obvious Photoshop jobs.  It seems to me that such an item would serve more as floss than coverage. Cactus Wren 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of Googling for "sling bikini" shows that garments of that description are certainly manufactured and sold. Whether anyone wears them outside of a sexual context is another matter. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sling bikini" -- real item? 

message: It appears that somebody, try as hard as they might, has edited the latter end of this article and made some sentences very difficult to understand. I can appreciate not everyone speaks fluent English, but is this really acceptable for an English-language article? I've tried, but I can't make sense of a lot of this. If someone could re-interpret the 'maintenance' paragraph in particular, I'd certainly be grateful.Sinnyo 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Language mix-up 

message: This picture was discussed here.  I have to concur with the slashdot poster in question: it does appear to be a BDSM pic that has been badly photoshopped to remove visible restraints.  Which is doubly ironic as it was apparently used to replace an image described as "too licentious".  See also this search. Any chance of replacing it with something more appropriate? JulesH (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this already when the image was added. The image is fine and replaced an image that was inappropriate. Bringing up old discussions just because Slashdot claims it was photoshopped is disruptive. It does not matter what has supposedly been removed. We are simply using someone else's commercial image to illustrate a type of swimsuit, as long as the swimsuit is in view we see no problem. I have placed a warning on your talk page about causing disruptions. You may want to review Wikipedia's editing policies. Consensus is that the image stays up, you may want to read the archives before adding more disruptive comments to the discussion page. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Bikini_Model_Jassi_3.jpg]] 

message: The beachwear article is short, discusses most of what is already here, and since its inception, that article has had its problems, judge from its discussion page. Civil Engineer III (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge. The Beachwear article says most of what is already here. AdjustShift (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beachwear article merge 

message: The Jammers article is very short and mostly reiterates what exists here. I proposed the merge. --Terrillja (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I actually think the other way around. I think the content of the jammers  article which currently gets redirected to the swimsuit article should be merged into swim jammer, and the combined article should perhaps be renamed jammers instead of swim jammer.Jammers are notable enough to have an their own article. I don't see why should they be stuck in the swimsuit article.Farine (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Swim jammer]] 

message: it is against the COPYRIGHT.  maybe he got permission  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.151.163 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More like http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Swimsuit is a copy of the text from the Swimsuit article.  It happens a lot, and since all text in Wikipedia is released under GFDL, there is no copyright issue.  However, quite why a supposed astronomy site needs a page about swimsuits is beyond me.  Astronaut (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal  copying from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Swimsuit 

message: Is there any evidence that these are actually worn as swimwear in any culture? The article claims they were 'popularised' by the film Borat - yes they were, but as fancy dress items! If no one can provide any kind of citation that these are actually worn as swimwear I think this section should be removed. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this notion...  It's just a costume, not an actual swimwear. —Peco! Peco!TALK 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Mankini'

message: An image used in this article, File:Stock-photo-17479206-young-woman-showering-outdoor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Stock-photo-17479206-young-woman-showering-outdoor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Does any culture make swimsuits for pre-pubescent girls that don't cover the breasts? Or is anything you wear while swimming a swimsuit? Rmhermen 21:35 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
:Anything you wear while swimming, since the article talks of men's shorts or briefs. We should probably mention that that swimsuits are also worn on beaches (even if no swimming is involved), and that children of both sexes should probably wear t-shirts outdoors to protect from sunburn. -- Tarquin 22:08 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
::Here in Germany (just to give one example), it is considered acceptable when girls below the age of 6 swim topless, although most girls above the age of 3 use to wear a bikini or one-piece suit. And yes, we got topless swimsuits for girls of that age. See here: http://www.google.de/search?q=m%C3%A4dchen+badehose&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=QMUMT-OuIczN4QSvxr2xBg&biw=1674&bih=810&sei=T8UMT6e-DOHm4QT8s4STBg -- 79.238.161.7 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monokinies for pre-pubescent girls 

message: I'm sorry, but right|250px|Naru kigurumi in a swimsuit just creeps me out: the person is wearing the swimsuit over a whole-body bodystocking, and is also wearing a whole-head mask. On the other hand, it would be an appropritate illustration for both the cosplay and spandex fetish articles... -- The Anome 15:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The rest of the article is about swimsuits worn by humans, not anime characters; the illustration just doesn't go with the article. And Zanimum, I think adding it was not a "minor" edit. -- Infrogmation 15:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This image creeps me out! 

message: I'm not happy with the line "garments designed to reveal as much of the body as possible without actual nudity" If skin is shown, isn't that nudity? I'd prefer to say "actually leaving the genitals or nipples visible". But I don't feel like changing it just yet. Moilforgold 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly change it to without full nudity? Anyway, the link to nudity makes it clear that what we're talking about is the state of wearing no clothing or of exposing the bare skin of intimate parts. Also, covering the nipples is far from universal. Several European countries have wide-spread topless sunbathing, for instance. Fishies Plaice 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nudity? 

message: This article says nothing about Sun protection suits as they're common in australia. (See here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EXjDzfPiwu4/S1gf66awIYI/AAAAAAAAFNo/spAkkr4rASc/s1600-h/Sand+fort+at+Long+Beach.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EXjDzfPiwu4/S1gf9JctN5I/AAAAAAAAFOI/o16SLtiyS-M/s1600-h/Halfdozen+looking+at+Long+Beach.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EXjDzfPiwu4/S1OsIn7AYNI/AAAAAAAAFLg/8Od5e5hgmlo/s1600-h/Half-dozen+at+Birubi+beach.jpg ) The suits on these photos are only two-piece, but there are also one-piece sun-protection suits. -- 79.238.161.7 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is mention of these over in the article on Rash guard, perhaps a reference is mentioned in this article, but I believe the main content does belong more with rash guard than with swimsuit, as the sun protection suits are not primarily for swimming, rather sun protection during various outdoor sports which may or may not include swimming or bathing. —Peco! Peco!TALK 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun protection suits 

message: i have seen a type of bathing suit that looks kind of like a blend of a one piece and a dress. i do not know its name but i was unable to find it in the article.84.212.73.96 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  seems to be missing something 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Swimsuit. 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/20120730021624/http://www.essortment.com/child-safety-public-swimming-pool-49723.html to http://www.essortment.com/child-safety-public-swimming-pool-49723.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413060128/http://www.drexelmed.edu/Home/HealthEncyclopediaArticles/DiseasesandConditions/Vaginalyeastinfection.html to http://www.drexelmed.edu/Home/HealthEncyclopediaArticles/DiseasesandConditions/Vaginalyeastinfection.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331110705/http://www.bn.org.uk/pages/pages.asp?page_Id=3 to http://www.bn.org.uk/pages/pages.asp?page_Id=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Bathing suit mesh entrapment - An unusual case of penile injury https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6603068_Bathing_suit_mesh_entrapment_-_An_unusual_case_of_penile_injury Acute Foreskin Strangulation Injury due to Bathing Suit Mesh Entrapment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5409500/ Foreskin caught in the mesh lining of swimming trunks https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/8y7vq2/foreskin_caught_in_the_mesh_lining_of_swimming/ 1 Check Every Mom Should Make to Her Son's Bathing Suit to Prevent Serious Injury https://beta.cafemom.com/parenting/176240-mesh_bathingsuit_boy_penis_stuck Five-year-old British boy almost lost penis in swimming shorts netting https://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/world/fiveyearold-british-boy-almost-lost-penis-in-swimming-shorts-netting/news-story/a3eaf0e0fefa98e2b553afd45783640d 87.143.177.244 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IP, please explain how you propose to improve this Wikipedia article based on the content you are posting here on the Talk page.  That is the only purpose of this Talk page. See WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOMEDICAL, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTNEWS. General Ization Talk   20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, General Ization, thanks for your comment. Health is one of the most important things - and especially the health of all children. Genital injuries caused by swimwear are a top priority for this Wikipedia article. An encyclopedia should mention the subject. "Tesco apologise to boy aged 5 and launch probe after he almost loses penis in swimming trunks horror. Five year old Jack Collins was left in ..." https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/tesco-apologise-boy-aged-5-6486084 87.143.177.244 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury due to Bathing Suit Mesh Entrapment 

message: Here we say she was arrested and ordered to further cover up, but on Kellerman's own page, it says there are no contemporary news articles or police records to corroborate her story and that she may have made it up.
Do we know which is correct? 2D0XPS (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annette Kellerman — Indecency 

message: This link about skateboarding in bikini from Daily Mail is an unreliable source. Isn't all Daily Mail sources unreliable? Also removed statement about "skateboarding" in swimsuits because it seems ludicrous. If this statement comes back, make sure to add reliable sources. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail Skateboard 

message: I couldn't get much sources about topics about sharing swimwear. Of the ones I tried finding, I found only a few that seem decent:
*elle.com article
*std-gov.org article (possibly unreliable?)
Unsure how I could deal with that sharing swimwear thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety of sharing swimwear 

message: Should the variety of synonyms be plonked into a new Header 2 section called something like Other Terms or something? Just a food for thought to improve the page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The variety of synonyms 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion