Talk:Bra size

message: ""Top Five Bra-Sizing Myths". Knickers: The lingerie blog. Retrieved 29 April 2010." Links to a oddlooking spammy website...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.129.202.232 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sources

message: The metric conversion in the cup size table is wrong: for example, less than 1 inch is 10-12 millimetres or 1-2 centimetres, not 10-12 centimetres (which is 4-5 inches).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.76 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: My fiancée is currently designing a dress.  Here are some of the things she learned, at least for American bra sizing:
1)  American bra sizes have two measurements:
1a)  The "band size" (such as 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, et cetera)
1b)  The "cup size"   (such as AA, A, B, C, D, E, et cetera)
2) In theory, the "band size" is as described in the article:  the chest circumference, as measured beneath the breasts, plus an offset of 3" to 6".  In practice, many bras only have secure sizes around the chest at the bustline and/or above the breasts, not beneath the breasts.  This means that the "band size" is actually a number that should be fudged to make the rest of the fit come out right.
3) The "cup size" actually measures the radius of the underside of the breast.  This dimension determines the shape of the underwire (or other material that lies on the front of the bra immediately beneath the breast).  The "cup size" is important -- if it is too small (for the woman), the ends of the underwire will poke the sides of the breasts.  Note that the "cup size" does not directly measure the breast volume.
4) The sum of the "band size" and the "cup size" is a useful estimate.  As shown at BiggerBras.com, adding one inch per letter of the "cup size" to the "band size" gives an estimate of the "bust size".  The "bust size" is the circumference of the chest, as measured at the most prominent part of the bosom.  For example, 36C corresponds to 36" + 3" = 39"; 34E corresponds to 34" + 5" = 39".  Because these two sizes share the same estimated "bust size" (39"), they are "sister sizes", as described in the article.
5) Here is how she was able to find a bra that fit well:
5a)  She measured her "bust size".
5b)  She considered bras where the sum of the "band size" and the "cup size" was within 1" of her "bust size".
5c)  She found a bra with the correct "cup size" -- it followed the undercurve of her breast, but did not dig in.  This method of measuring gave a larger "cup size" than she had expected.
5d)  She subtracted the "cup size" from her "bust size", to give the "band size".
5e)  She chose a bra with somewhat less cup material (on the fullness of her breast) than other bras with the same nominal size.  This made up for the fact that her "cup size" was larger than she had expected.
5f)  She tried on bras with similar sizes (to make sure she had the optimum size), but bought the bra she chose in step 5e.
Sources:  
For statements 1 and 4:  BiggerBras.com's Bra Size Grid
For statements 2, 3, and 5:
Observation of bra construction at Seattle-area bra retailers, such as Macy's, Target, and DecentExposures.com.  (It would be nice to upgrade this citation to a published source, so as to adhere to Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research.)
-- Jasper 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A fitting method using cup size and bust size

message: Dressmakers have found two correlations between cup size and breast size.
The first correlation is in the widths of material needed to cover the bust.  This correlation has already been discussed:  The "frame size" (of the woman, not the bra) plus an offset plus the "cup size" (of the bra) tends to be close to the "bust size" (of the woman).
The seoond correlation is in the heights of material needed to cover the breasts.  The "yoke line" is a horizontal line along the body, "just above where the major swell of the bosom begins."  The "yoke line" is typically about 2" - 3" below the collarbone.  The "waist line" is the not-necessarily horizontal line of the person's waistband.  Dressmakers sometimes measure three distances:  along the front centerline of the body from the "yoke line" to the "waist line", over the most prominent part of the breast, from the "yoke line" to the "waist line", and along the side of the breast (beneath where the collarbone joins the shoulder) from the "yoke line" to the "waist line".  Virginia DeMarce states that the first and third measurements tend to be about equal, and the second measurement to be greater by "about one inch per each cup size beyond an A. That is, for a woman who wears a C cup, the distance from yoke line to waist over the bosom is going to be about two inches longer than that from yoke line to waist at center front."
Sources: 
For the first correlation:  BiggerBras.com's Bra Size Grid
For both correlations:
Fitting of Clothes FAQ. Virginia DeMarce, Pam Poggiani, Jessica Schlenker, and others. Originally posted on the Dixon's Vixen conference of Baen's Bar; archived at http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/fitting.html Copyright 2002.
The description of the second correlation is based on Virginia DeMarce's e-mail dated March 16, 2002 06:46 PM.
-- Jasper 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation between cup size and breast size

message: Right now the chart claims an A cup is a two inch difference, but everywhere I remember reading about this subject is that it's supposed to be one inch. Older revisions of this page have charts that start from there, is this a typo? -- 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Cup = 1 Inch Difference?

message: Has someone got an accurate comparison of Japanese/rest of the world bra sizes?
I know that a Japanese C cup, is equivalent to a normal A or B etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese tiny bra sizes

message: Can someone explain why "D" is doubled-up and trippled-up? As in A, B, C, D, DD, DDD, E etc. Why D? 82.152.159.30 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't KNOW the answer, and am not sure if anyone really knows. I'm guessing it just happend. I infer from the historical portion of this very article that this probably came about because the original bra sizes were only A, B, C, and D without even a band size, first introduced by one company then copied by others. I doubt it was obvious to the layman exactly what the increment was for bra sizes, making it difficult to visualize what an E or an F would be had they existed. It seems natural to me that especially well-endowed women were referred to as "double"  or "tripple" the largest size - D. Perhaps the bra makers picked up on this and just started using it. Tinarob1993 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What's so special about "D"

message: Seriously. What?
Does anyone have sources for these sizes, even?
Not to mention this is pretty WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA...
I think this section should be removed as soon as possible. It's not very notable. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrity bust sizes? Seriously?

message: Is there any difference in cup sizes when it comes to height? Like, do a woman who is 4'6 with 36-inch breasts and a woman 6'8 with 36 inch breasts have the same cup size if there measurements are the same? BioYu-Gi! (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: Wouldn't it be great to include some pictures for a visual comparison of sizes and shapes. Robert Vanderbilt (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictorial definitions would border on "wikipornia".  I was concerned about the wisdom of viewing this page at work (I swear, at this time it was a matter of intellectual curiosity), and would have navigated away quickly if I'd found a heavily illustrated page.  Unless the pictures showed a bra on a bright blue mannequin or the like, this is probably unwise.  — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the question the value of including a picture of nude breasts. While the caption mentions information pertaining to "sagging breasts" and, I suppose, brassiere measurement, I do not feel the picture neccessary in this case. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot illustrate how sagging breasts are hard to measure for a bra by showing breasts with a bra on. Goes to illustrate one of the challenges women have. I believe it should be retained. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: it just... sounds wrong. too informal. change? 80.5.57.84 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: style of intro

message: The common method espoused to women here in the States has been mentioned: measure under your breasts for the band, then measure the fullest part of the bust, and finally subtract the band size from the fullest part measurement.  That determines the cup size.  It's a generally decent method to "ballpark" the size of bra a woman needs, but one must keep in mind that it's not foolproof.  Theoretically, if you have the right cup size, your bra should rest flat against the chest wall between the breasts, underwires included.  
As a woman who's dealt with this, I have to say that's just not true, particlarly with women in above-average sizes.  Someone mentioned that if the cups are too small, they'll poke the wearer.  This is true in some cases, but another approach more accurately describes the real problem: there's not enough fabric in most cups whose circumference would otherwise comfortably fit a larger woman.  Therefore, women have to go up in cup size to get the extra fabric to sufficiently cover the breast/get the wires to rest against the chest wall (or they resort to a larger band size).  
The problem with going to the next cup size is that the manufacturers assume the wires' circumference and length must be greater in order to accommodate the breasts.  But most wearers would find them unbearable, because the wires' circumference and length are so great, they literally dig into the wearer's armpit, causing painful sores, or go up so high between the breasts that the bra would probably poke up and out anyway, thus showing under normal clothing.  Tailors deal with this problem-are you ready?-by using a slightly smaller cup size, and bending the underwires so they don't poke forward!  They do not get a larger cup size to make the wires rest against the chest; the bra would never fit the rest of the woman.
If women adhere to this measurement method religiously, they may find themselves in this situation.  This is a manufacturing issue, not a woman-not-finding-the-right-size-bra issue.  Thankfully, more companies are starting to design better bras, so women have to deal with this less than ever.  In my experience, the best way a woman can determine what fits is to actually go and try a bunch on, and pick only the most comfortable, supportive, and attractive.  If you find they're all the same band and cup size, good for you.  Otherwise, sizing be darned!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.185.196 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''' From a Woman's Perspective '''

message: I dispute the neutrality of Bravissimo's claim. 207.67.101.35 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bravissimo

message: remember, the majority of the page is in european measurements, so anything that doesn't seem right, such as 2 inches equaling 14-16 centimeters on the chart, is not incorrect, but just european. another example is both of the pictograms are for european sizing only. an american b cup and a european b cup are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentBob420BMFJ  (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 April 2009
You can not compare the most sold bra of the UK in 2003 to the most sold bra of the US in 2009.  One, it's illogical, two different years, two different countries, what's the point, it's completely inaccurate to use as a comparison .  Two, the people of the UK are not cows, of course they have smaller breast.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.185.91 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: american vs european

message: Where is the info on the Bro?  Or is there a seperate article for men's undergarments?  Seems like sexism to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.36.115 (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on the Bro and Menzire

message: I don't understand why there isn't a full article just on breast size, it's social importance/influence, psychological impact, it's variation by country/race, etc given the huge sums of money spent on implants and push up bras by women not to mention the attention and time spent by men looking at them. Half of the television in the US is centred around breasts. Instead, ridiculously, the pages 'breast size' etc redirect to this 'fashion' article. There should be something comparable to the penis size article.
To start, here's a couple of references so that sections can be added on breast size by country:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article17807.ece
The poll for bra maker Triumph</br>
Percentage of women wearing cup size: D C B A</br>
UK 57 18 19 6</br>
Denmark 50 19 24 7</br>
Netherlands 36 27 29 8</br>
Belgium 28 28 35 9</br>
France 26 29 38 7</br>
Sweden 24 30 33 14</br>
Greece 23 28 40 9</br>
Switzerland 19 24 43 14</br>
Austria 11 27 51 10</br>
Italy 10 21 68 1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1181550/Ee-BRA-gum-Yorkshire-lasses-biggest-breasts-Britain.html
I'm sure a lot of better sources and studies can be obtained, particularly on the social influence and psychological impact in advertising, marketing etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.101.9  (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 January 2010
: Added this chart to Brassiere. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Proper breast size article''' - psych/social influence, variation by race etc

message: Is it just me or is this a topic which could use some pictures for illustration? One or two images of different sizes of bras would help with understanding. IsambardBrunel (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I could only find one image that specifies the bra size. Better than nothing. IsambardBrunel (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how many actual women have edited this article. ww 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  ww I am certain that the answer to your question is n ≤ 1 at this time. I just did. I hope there were others before me. --FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: Under this heading: Majority wear wrong size bra. One line says "...most commonly resulting in too large a cup size (by a mean of three sizes) and too small a band size (by a mean of four sizes)" and the next line says "...most common mistake being to select a bra with too large a back band and too small a cup..."   —Preceding unsigned comment added byJenniferholland (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily a conflict. The researchers and the hospital practitioners cited in the primary sources found opposite conclusions, true. But both findings go to support the overall statement: women aren't able to select correctly fitting bras and as a result wear the wrong bra size. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict in existing article

message: The bra size conversion guide seems to be inaccurate.
US 	UK
32A	32B
32B	32C
32C	32D
is all lunacy.  Even the chart right above it "Bust/band difference and cup size"
states that:
Inches	cm      	US	UK/AU
<1    	0 to 2  	AA	AA
1     	2 to 4  	A 	A
2     	4 to 6  	B 	B
3     	6 to 8  	C 	C
4     	8 to 10 	D 	D
5     	10 to 12	DD	DD
are equal.  Yet suddenly they're now a size different.  Look at http://www.breasttalk.co.uk/size_charts.aspx (Cup Conversion Chart) to see that uk and us are the exact same until E.-NeF (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been fixed. However, there are inconsistencies from country to country and manufacturer to manufacturer. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

text: When you added information, do you also add sources? If you would like to contribute, it is a good idea to create an account. Edits made by anonymous IP addresses raise flags because so much vandalism is perpetrated by individuals using IP addresses. Please do add information just make sure it's got reliable sources. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion guide inaccurate

message: Here is what I take issue with:
"===Older European systems===
The EN 13402 standard was introduced in 2006, and a range of other cup-size definitions are still in use in Europe, using either centimeters or inches to indicate the under bust girth. One common cup size system used by European manufacturers, in order of increasing size, is: AAA-AA-A-B-C-D-DD-E-F-FF-G-GG-H-J, although the use of double letters is not consistent between manufacturers (e.g. some may use EE rather than F, DDD rather than E, etc.). The majority of bra bands run true to size (as in, a size 36 band measures, when stretched, 36 inches).''
This is wrong. Only the British use the inch-based AAA-AA-A-B-C-D-DD-E-F-FF-G-GG-H-J.. system. All other European countries use the metric-based 2-cm-system. Cupsizes run A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-(i)-J-K-L-M-N-O-P. Because of the difference between the two systems 4 cups in the UK-System equal5 cups in the EU-sytem. Just how much the two systems differs can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cupumrechnung.svg (I already created an English version of that, but it got deleted, oh thanks so much.)  
The only thing worth keeping of this section is IMO the reference to EN 13402.
There needs to be a section about conversion of the British system to the EU system(s). I already wrote it, check it up in the erlier versions. (Which some helpful watchdogs undid. Hrmpf.)  Iknowbrasizes (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What needs to be added

message: Her right breast was a B cup ... and two cup sizes smaller than her left breast, a D cup. [snip] In January 2001, she underwent a ... procedure ... which transferred fat cells from her thighs to her left breast.
Wouldn't that make her left breast bigger after stating her right one was smaller?
Grumpy44134 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: The chart with the equivalent band size numbers was off by one step on the US/UK sizes as compared to the EU and FR sizes (which match perfectly). While the US/UK sizes are given in inches, the actual conversion to centimetres (as in the EU sizes) is not particularly accurate, but the convention is that a 32 band size is equivalent to an EU 70 band, or a French 85. This is readily confirmable at conversion sites or sites with size guides (such as  or  or ), and on the tag of most bras produced by companies that sell internationally. I could not confirm the match in dress sizes (thought this measurement would likely be inaccurate in most cases given the variability of breast size), or the Italy and Australia/NZ-specific band size numbers, so it'd be great if someone could double-check that! :) Mirithing (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: International Fitting Standards chart error

message: The table here has a header named weight of both breasts.  Despite what some may think, I am still not sure if it means total weight of both breasts or weight of each breasts.  And I assume I may not be the only one to be confused!  This is a confusing enough a subject to begin with! --90.184.9.209 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah, I forgot to log in for that comment. --Svippong 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity in table header

message: I updated the cup conversion graphics. Any comments? Should US sizes be included? -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cup conversion graphics

message: I have always wondered what exactly do women's bra sizes mean. From this article, I have formulated a rough rule of thumb: The number means the circumference of a woman's body directly under the breasts. The letter then means how much larger than this her actual breasts are. Is this correct? JIP | Talk 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Australia/New Zealand, who use the approximate dress-size for the number - Correct! All the under-bust+0, under-bust+offset, under-bust+chart, over-bust, combo over-bust/under-bust formulae are just ways to estimate what can't be measured because the breasts are in the way. They are not an alternate definition of band size. And, vanity sizing and other manufacturer variations are not OTHER systems so much as they are a case of bras being marked as some size other than what they really are. In the real world, all the measuring schemes just give you a starting point for trying bras on until you find a size that fits correctly. That being said, lots of internet "profiles" giving bra sizes are actually bust circumference (the number) and cup size. In many cases, this is a matter of ignorance. Someone has the girl's basic measurments (bust-waist-hips, which other clothing sizes are computed from), finds out her cup size and just adds it. This may also be done intentionally to provide a larger number to make her seem bigger breasted in a certain industry (rhymes with torn). tinarob1993   — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Of course, the band position is low on some bra styles. But, most bras I buy have a wide band and the center is just below the bust line, but above the under-bust. tinarob1993 17:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this correct?

message: "[...]a size 16 may wear a 16 C (UK 38 C), a 14 DD, 12 F or a 10 G (UK 32 G) underneath her dress[...]"
while the table clarifies...
 Approximate (band) size equivalents between various systems
Under bust (cm)	58–62	63–67	68–72	73–77	78–82	83–87	88–92	93–97	98–102	103–107	108–112	113–117	118–122	123–127	128–132	133–137	138+
EU             	60   	65   	70   	75   	80   	85   	90   	95   	100   	105    	110    	115    	120    	125    	130    	135    	140
FR, BE, ES     	75   	80   	85   	90   	95   	100  	105  	110  	115   	120    	125    	130    	135    	140    	145    	150    	155
IT             	0    	1    	2    	3    	4    	5    	6    	7    	8     	9      	10     	11     	12     	13     	14     	15     	16
US, UK (in)    	28   	30   	32   	34   	36   	38   	40   	42   	44    	46     	48     	50     	52     	54     	56     	58     	60
AU, NZ         	4    	6    	8    	10   	12   	14   	16   	18   	20    	22     	24     	26     	28     	30     	32     	34     	36
UK dress       	4    	6    	8    	10   	12   	14   	16   	18   	20    	22     	24     	26     	28     	30     	32     	34     	36
So what's right?
 
-- and --
 Over the bust / band measurement difference and cup size 
Difference	(inches) 	0 	<1	1	2	3	4 	5      	6       	7    	8    	9 	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Cupsize   	U.S.     	AA	A 	B	C	D	DD	DDD/E/F	DDDD/F/G	G/H/J	I/J/K	J 	K 	L 	M 	N 	- 	- 	-
Cupsize   	UK/Austr.	AA	A 	B	C	D	DD	E      	F       	FF   	G    	GG	H 	HH	J 	JJ	K 	KK	L
Isn't it rather this way?
 Over the bust / band measurement difference and cup size 
Difference	(inches) 	0 	<1	1	2	3	4   	5    	6     	7 	8	9 	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Cupsize   	U.S.     	AA	A 	B	C	D	DD/E	DDD/F	DDDD/G	H 	I	J 	K 	L 	M 	N 	- 	- 	-
Cupsize   	UK/Austr.	AA	A 	B	C	D	DD  	E    	F     	FF	G	GG	H 	HH	J 	JJ	K 	KK	L
The source: http://www.breasttalk.co.uk/size_charts.aspx
--Salvania (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That second table is currently found in the subsection titled Consumer measurement methods > Cup sizes vary (with O added). A bit later, in Manufacturer design standards > UK | Australia / New Zealand | United States and Canada, the prose suggests even more variants, resulting in the following table (M&S is ambiguous; the variants from the table above are similar to #1a, but included separately as #1b/c). — Christoph Päper 16:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Some discrepancies

message: Suggetions:
1) Band size method Underbust+0 should be changed to Underbust.
2) Band size method Underbust+4 should be changed to Underbust+Offset, noting that the offset varies between manufacturers and between regions (Europe, UK, Aus/NZ, Asia, etc.). In the US, 5 inches rounded down to the nearest even number is traditional, but 4 inch and 3 inch offsets are also common, also rounding down to get the number even.
3) Band size method Underbust+Chart might just be a note in Underbust+Offset stating that some manufacturers simply provide a chart correlting size to measured under-bust. Some manufacturers may actually vary the exact offset as the underbust chages. 
4) Add cup-size scheme Underbust-Overbust Interpolation. This method is simple, measure the underbust and overbust. Use the average of these two measurements as the "Rib Cage". Select the cup sized based on the difference between the bust measurement and this computed "Rib Cage" measurement. This method is published by Emma Scott in Calculating Bra Size: The New Way for cup size only. (For band size she uses Underbust+Offset, recommending 4" as the most common offset, rounded down to the nearest even number.) I've found the interpolated "rib cage" works well for me as the band size starting point when I try something new. Tinarob1993 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sizing Schemes

message: By the looks of it this woman was measured with the +4 method (or a European method which delivers the same result: 75D = 34D). The +0 method would probably give the result UK 30FF / US 30H / EU 65H. Having this picture in the article as and example of 75D bust is not helpful. Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, pictures of women wearing bras in size 34D and 30FF respectively (NSFW) who (probably) measured with the +0 method. Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of "Breasts measured to cup size 75D" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bra size. 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/20110225011832/http://www.womenshealthmag.com:80/beauty-and-style/bra-size to http://www.womenshealthmag.com/beauty-and-style/bra-size
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me that there are too many "citation needed" statements. Reading this, it seems clear to me that a reference was meant for an entire paragraph. --Tim Sabin (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many "citation needed" statements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bra size. 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/20080917025215/http://www.ivillage.co.uk/beauty/promotions/articles/0%2C%2C628687_694143%2C00.html to http://www.ivillage.co.uk/beauty/promotions/articles/0%2C%2C628687_694143%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womenshealthmag.com/beauty-and-style/bra-size
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714180216/http://www.ngcimedia.com/programmes/episode.aspx?id=64&episodeid=189 to http://www.ngcimedia.com/programmes/episode.aspx?id=64&episodeid=189
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) 08:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I understand that all measurement and sizing in women's clothing is crazy, but given the measurement systems listed on the page and actual measurements of 30 under-bust and 36 bust, we would get the following bra sizes:
Using under-bust +0 the bra should be a 30DDD
Using under-bust +4 the bra should be a 34B
These give underwire sizes of 38 and 36 respectively, so they are actually different sizes based just on the measurement technique used. The article then goes on to compare the "US System" to other systems, with no indicator if the "US System" is UB+0 or UB+4. (Of course the "US System" could also be the over-bust method, but it normally gives about the same band size as UB+4, and since it starts for two different physical measurements, it doesn't have the same noticeable difference as the two UB methods.)
US bra band sizes refer to ABOVE bust measurement. But most measure UNDER-bust (it's easier to do by yourself). (You could watch Victoria Secret's own video showing self-measuring of OVER-bust and how it spectacularly fails because you see what values the model gets on the tape measure but those values are nonsensical and suggest that the model is flat-chested, which she is clearly not.) 
So, US band size refers to OVERBUST and overbust is "generally" bigger so a standard addition of 4 is done to UNDERbust-measurment and if the measuring it snugly made! So the +4 is a way to crudely convert UNDERbust measrument to OVERbust-based band size. So, UNDERBUST + 4 will give us an some what ok approximation of the US OVERBUST-based band size. The whole US underbust +0 is just a way to get women to choose tighter bra bands because most have too loose bra bands. For European bra band sizes it's easier because the EU bra band size refers to the UNDERbust measurement.
This article explains a lot. https://www.evasintimates.com/blog/perfect-bra-size-starts-with-the-bra-band/ I've cited it two times already but I refrain from taking too much from one source. Check the section "Tight or loose?" The article is quite meaty but it explains things in detail, including the +4 issues. Prepare to get slightly confused at first. =) Kenno Bew (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement section confusion 

message: Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool finds a 67.5% confidence result against Quora, but it happens to be a backwards copy. Answered 37w ago, and surely Special:Permalink/723001726 is older than that.
I checked other results too and they're unlikely, just quotes. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards copy on Quora 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to switch the order of South Korea and Japan chronologically? 秋山夕子 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The order of South Korea and Japan 

message: There is a clear discrepancy in the assumption that “Cups give a hemi-spherical shape to breasts”, which feeds on throughout the table. According to the table in that section, a 40A breast has the same shape and volume as a 34D (given by the volume of a 5 inch hemisphere), and yet the rest of the article is clear that there’s a only 1 inch difference between Over the Bust/Band measurement for the A cup, and 4 inches difference for the D cup. Clearly, the volume figures are vastly out of accord with the rest of the article. It would have been better to use the Spherical Cap as the simple geometric shape upon which to base such calculations. Using Spherical cap formula in the previous example of a 40A breast, radius 'a' would be underwire size 38 = 6.6cm, h(eight) is (for an A cup, say) 0.8cm, which gives a volume of 55 cm^3, rather than 590, as shown in the table - much more realistic. Daveoftruro (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculating cup volume and breast weight