Talk:Going commando

message: * I'd be all in favor of one of these types of photos if I was shown that reliable sources consistently tell us that people typically forgo underwear with the intent of exhibitionism or participating in upskirt displays. Or that the typical result of anyone not wearing underwear is that people will see their genitals. On the contrary, our sources say the motives can be health, or comfort, or cultural tradition, but not because they want to or expect to expose themselves.<P>It is generally considered indecent, and usually illegal, to peek under skirts, and whether or not they wore underwear isn't a mitigating factor -- that is, even with underwear, it's still and invasion of privacy, and without underwear, the victim was in no way asking for it or should have expected it. We have plenty of examples of people lifting their pants or skirts or whatever clothing, and the underwear they have on, and exposing themselves, showing again that wearing or not wearing undergarments is orthogonal to flashing or exhibitionism. One does not imply the other. Kilt says that this drapery is traditionally worn without underwear, yet an upskirt photo  of a kilted man's exposed genitals (yes, we do have them on Commons) is not considered a good illustration of the topic of kilts. MOS:IMAGE says not to feel compelled to stick any old image, even a poor match or an inappropriate one, on an article just for the sake of having an image.<P>If we don't have any good illustrations of what going commando looks like, that's fine. Maybe it's because people going commando look like anyone else. Show me sources saying "this is what someone going commando looks like" and I'll support using that as an illustration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you yourself added a sourced section about "skivvie check", so maybe an image of a man with no underwear and dropped pants, because that fits the sourced description? (From your cited source: "the girls delighted in screaming 'skivvie check!,' which meant every man jack and mate in the bar would have to drop his pants") UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire point of the literal and metaphorical "skivvie check" is a test of UDT/SEAL impersonators. So you have a photo of an actual frogman with his pants down?<P>What's really wrong here is the refusal to accept the fact that not every article has to have a photo. If you have time to spend finding photos, why not find them for articles that actually need illustrations? We have lists and lists of such requests. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same thing as I was writing this. There's a number of these that could be merged into a Glossary of fashion or Glossary of fashion slang, such as muffin top, wedgie, desnuda, male bra, men's underwear index, and many other related stubs found in :Category:Undergarments, :Category:Slang, and so on. Redirecting to a list of terms doesn't preclude expansion if signficant encyclopedic content turns up later. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Me too, NickCT. But sorry, I'm not going to launch it: I'm too distracted these days with WP-unrelated stuff to be confident of doing a good job -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Ok. I'll AfD it. Standby. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Why is this being discussed given the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not moot at all.. The AFD close was for a merge, not a deletion. The issue of whether or not to use an image of someone exhibiting bare genitals in this material just gets transferred to the article this is merged to if we don't close this first. Meters (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Was this in reference to the Jennifer Lopez question? Meters (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Also having an established consensus on a question like this sets a useful precedent for other similar articles. There's a note at the top pointing out the AfD merge outcome, so anyone who thinks it's moot can stop reading and not invest more time in it if they wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moot 

message: I have merged the content, and trimmed out some trivial and all of the insufficiently sourced health claims.  I don't know whether it makes more sense to redirect this talk page there, or to leave it here (for now, at least).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge done