Talk:Wonderbra

message: Please put it back, or at least tell me her name!
This page is considered featured content, and today it is on the main page. Wikipedia is used by school children of all ages. In my opinion having this pornography of a woman wearing a Wonderbra on a featured page destroys Wikipedia's respect and prestige. This picture must be taken down.  biblefreak123 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I demand that a photograph of a human female wearing nothing but a Wonderbra be added to the article. 66.41.212.243 09:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a picture is a good idea Bsmntbombdood 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually IMHO a photo of an actual wonderbra would be good for starters. A photo of someone wearing on will be useful but a photo of the actual bra prefebly in a way to try and demonstrate it's design is more important IMHO. Nil Einne 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the wonderbra itself doesn't look anything special, a woman has to be wearing it to confirm the desired effect. -Iopq 01:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Isn't direct copying from the Wonderbra site not allowed? *shrugs*
Michas pi 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted information? 

message: Failed for the following reasons, consider fixing and resubmitting:
1. multiple external jumps, , need converted to standard web refs
::Corrected.  May need a check from an editor.  Mattnad
2. The 1975 TV screen shot is tagged GFDL, but I find that hard to believe, it more likely should have the same tag as the 1974 screen shot.
::Corrected  Mattnad
3. double check other image tags
::All fine.  The others are either from US patent office, screenshots, logos, or photos I took myself.  Mattnad
4. Refs should never have external jumps, see fn 22 and 23 for what not to do
::This I had difficulty fully understanding.  I did conform all of the refs to citation templates, but throughout Wikipedia including featured articles, there are many example of reference that have external links.  Is this a rule, or a style preference?  Mattnad
5. Web refs should have retrieval dates
::Done  Mattnad
6. Wikilink dates in refs please
::Done  Mattnad
7. Brassiere should not be in See Also, it's wikilinked in the first sentence
::Corrected  Mattnad
8. Lead does not summarize the article
::Did some minor edits, but wanted to avoid repeating the overview.  Mattnad
9. decades should not have a ' and can be wikilinked, your format is not even consistent
::Corrected  Mattnad
10. Only boldface the title once
::CorrectedMattnad
12. Many terms can be wikilinked
::Did my best to find a balance and added many wikilinks.  Mattnad
13. give it a good copyedit
14. Don't use both & and "and", be consistent
::CorrectedMattnad
15. There should be no space btwn punctuation and a footnote
::Corrected  Mattnad
16. This: "only 10.3 million women and girls older than 13." should not link to a web site, make it a footnote.
::Corrected  Mattnad
Sumoeagle179 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. I was confused on the links in the refs, don't worry about it. Resubmit for GAC. I defer to a different person to review this time.Sumoeagle179 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'm concerned about is the style of the lead section - it should lay out the key facts, not say 'this article will cover x". You might wish to cut down the overview section and use it as the lead. The Land 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I've given it another bit of editing. Thoughts? Mattnad 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting there but I'd say your current version is too long and detailed! I'd like to see it start with a 1- or 2-sentence definition. "A wonderbra is a type of bra developed in 1960s Canada and famous across the developed world for ..." - followed by one or two paragraphs giving a summary of its history and impact. Have a look at the lead sections of galaxy or any other Wikipedia:Featured articles for an idea of the style. If this can be got right I don't think there's anything to stop this being a GA. The Land 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This time I trimmed to the point of a very basic outline of the contents.  It's shorter than some of the leads represented on featured articles I checked.  I could summarize more, but then I felt I would be leaving out references to major article topics.Mattnad 15:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brevity is no problem! I've just slightly tweaked it myself - after this basically happy to pass it, good job! :) The Land 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Since this section has been mentioned to me in a couple of discussions, I thought I might offer a point of view on the external links to vintage Wonderbra commercials hosted on youtube (and I recognize this may be opening a can of worms).  These links were brought up and discussed at length during the FAC process.  SandyGeorgia and I also had a nice long discussion about it off stage on her talk page.  For some members of the Wikipedia community, links to Youtube are frowned upon because they could be in violation of existing copyrights.  This however is a controversial stance, as demonstrated by this extensive discussion on the topic.  Out of curiosity, I had a media lawyer friend look into the the status of those commercials. They are probably public domain in the US due to the years when they were aired, that they were foreign (Canadian) and there was no copyright filing or notification at the time (see this example for Night of the Living Dead with technicalities on how parts of US copyright law worked in the past).  At any rate, WP:EL guidelines only require us to avoid knowingly linking to a copyright violation.  An expectation for anyone to proactively prove content on other sites is used with permission, fair use, or public domain goes beyond the guidelines.  Given that these external links add a lot to the article, I would expect that anyone calling for the removal should demonstrate actual, rather than assumed copyvio.  Mattnad 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: On topic, I've added some links for the infamous UK 'Hello Boys' campaign. Don't know where the information about outdoor models came from but it wan't in the source quoted, and besides, all anyone remembers about that campaign in the UK is Eva Herzigova looking at her boobs while men (apocryphally) crashed their cars ...
Off topic, do the other 'Greatest Canadian inventions' need mentioning?  I only ask as including the telephone is to call down a shitstorm.  OK, that's what the poll voted for, but that's not to say that it's correct.  Alexander Graham Bell was a Scotsman who lived in Canada for a bit, but invented the telephone in the US, where he then took citizenship.  So it's either a Scottish invention by dint of his nationality when he invented it, or an American one by dint of his location when he invented it and by his later assumed nationality/citizenship. The Canadian claim is highly dubious and having it in an FA is going to bring all sorts of crap your way.  Better just to leave it out, eh, as it doesn't directly relate to the WOnderbra (which I didn't know was a Canadialand invention until reading the article just now..... 86.137.136.166 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the other inventions gives context and brings some humour to the ranking. I mean, come on, Wonderbra is #5?  It says a lot more about how Canadians see their contributions than anything else.  If people have a beef with the ranking, they should take it up with the show's producers ;-). Mattnad 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic

message: This section read oddly.  The Wonderbra got going in the UK before in the US, and not included (until I just put it in) was the fact that the US campaign was based on the UK one.  Logic and chronology therefore suggests that the UK campaign should be dealt with before the US one, so I've moved it. Also, that way the text isn't split UK - US - UK - US like it was before, which also read badly 86.137.136.166 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK/US advertising campaign

message: Sorry all, but I strongly disagree that this article has reached FA standard. It is not amazingly written by any means —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.209.232.100 (talk • contribs).
:Care to point out any examples of sloppy prose? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: Is there a picture gallery of wonderbra ?. --193.145.201.52 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article does not give a clear explanation of the mechanics of the push-up bra and ow it differs from an ordinary bra. It also conttains an apparent error when it says elastic products were rationed before the outbreak of the Second World War. Rationing was introduced because of the war, not before it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.10.238 (talk • contribs) 
:Explanation of "mechanics" not really needed, given the photograph and name - bra pushes up breasts. Mattnad 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics of the Wonderbra 

message: Can someone get two pictures one of w woman with no bra in a top, with an ordinary bra in the same top, and one with a wonder bra in the the same top again? Wolfmankurd 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison picture

message: I was actually surprised by how few edits this article is getting. For such a well known topic, after almost 16 hours on the main page, it has than 140 edits. That's surprising. The only explanation I can come up with is that the article is sufficiently comprehensive that nobody really has anything to add. Raul654 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surprise

message: Reading the article, I was struck by how much it read like a MBA case study on marketing... then I discovered the references to Henry Mintzberg (the Godfather of the McGill University MBA) and then it all made sense...
: Or maybe it's because one of the main authors has an MBA ;-) Mattnad 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content and Style

message: :In the late 1950s "The Motorboat" started traveling to Europe find new styles to bring to the Canadian market.
Is this a reference to Moe Nadler?  If so, it's quite unclear to introduce a nickname this way.
Zaq 42 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a persistent vandal.  Anyone who can block him/her would be appreciated.Mattnad 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Motorboat"? 

message: from earlier on toady - the section about the UK and US advertising programmes with Eva Herzigova and the Hello Boys campaign in the UK.  86.153.216.204 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry. Standard procedure for an article featured on the main page is to take a diff from just before and just after and work through the changes, keeping any beneficial ones and discarding the dross. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh bloody hellers, that reads like double dutch.  I'll leave it to you experienced types. 86.153.216.204 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, all it means is looking at this and figuring out what changes made today are worth keeping. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There's a huge chunk missing

message: The Wonderbra as a featured article? Will wonders never cease? Sca 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I just wonder if mostly men wrote this. Brutannica 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing

message: If this article is an important part of the Canada portal, why is the article using US spelling, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wonderbra. 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/20131210021241/http://www.wonderbra.ca/ to http://www.wonderbra.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210021241/http://www.wonderbra.ca/ to http://www.wonderbra.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603142835/http://www.wonderbra.com/ to http://www.wonderbra.com/
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) 20:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wonderbra. 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://archive.is/20120629140927/http://www.papierdoll.net/themag/2008/03/21/wonderbra-hailed-as-greatest-fashion-invention-ever/ to http://www.papierdoll.net/themag/2008/03/21/wonderbra-hailed-as-greatest-fashion-invention-ever/
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) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reading through this there looks to be information about the Wonderbra that is unsourced, as well as the history stops at 2006. There had to have been some things happen in the last 14 years at least. It just looks incomplete to me. GamerPro64 21:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR concerns