Talk:Whale tail

message: It's not clear if the picture of a whale at sea was added as a joke or to illustrate the shape for comparative purposes.  If it's the latter, then a better picture is needed.  In this one, the tail is dark against a dark background and doesn't stand out clearly.  
Rodparkes 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until a better image can be sourced, the one we have will probably do.  It does serve as a good comparative illustration. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *So does this term define the rear spoiler of a car or a visible thong? Why do we need that picture to illustrate this? What is the significance of this word and where are the sources that say it's used how this article claims it is? This one's on life support and if it doesn't improve rapidly I'll nominate for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be used to mean both, as the sources verify.  Sure the article is a stub, but it does have sources which is a lot more than many articles that have survived AfD.  While we don't NEED the picture, it is USEFUL to illustrate the first definition. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, which term is this article about? Is there a documented source that says this is actually a commonly used word and this article isn't trying to promote the spread of a protologism? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The whale picture

message: This term is not notable on its own and will likely fail another AfD. It should be merged into Cleavage (anatomy) if this information is to be retained. If there's no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise I'll file another AfD. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The American Dialect Society isn't a notable organization and the award means next to nothing in terms of notability. I'm trying to avoid process here and I would really appreciate some flexibility that doesn't involve you opposing this merger in all its forms. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, the term was given their "most creative" award, not Word of the Year. So it's notability here is in great doubt. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I found 48 references to the American Dialect Society since 1981 in The New York Times. The several hundred found elsewhere in Google News / Archive would establish notability. If you see the article and my statement above, I agree 100% that the word won the organization's "most creative" award, which is a strong claim of notability. 20 sources exist in Google News Archive for the search of "American Dialect Society" "whale tail". Can I suggest that you submit the AfD for American Dialect Society first and then this article, so that your claim that the organization is not notable can be confirmed. I have shown tremendous flexibility on toe cleavage. You have proposed merger for every single one of these articles, including one that has passed three separate AfDs. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I appreciate that you're not opposing the Toe cleavage merger. I don't intend to remove any significant amount of information from these articles in the merger, I only think they would be better together under one header. In addition, if we merged them we could avoid any prolonged debate about the deletion or inclusion of the material itself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[Cleavage (anatomy)]]

message: Some voyeur sites on the Internet call these "Pull Me Thongs" or PMTs.  Is this usage widespread enough to be mentioned in the article?
Rodparkes 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pull Me Thongs

message: Urban Dictionary may not be a reliable source but it's obviously better than adding a thousand links to all kinds of retailing sites and porn sites that refer to the term. Please, run a google test before you remove the word. Language develops bottom up, i.e. a coinage starts in the streets, creeping up to quasi-academia (like the Urban Dictionary) and eventually is recognized by the academia (like the ADS). While citing the coinage off the streets would amount to original research, it may very well be cited off sources like the Urban Legend. The coinage is notable, and, at that, should not be removed. If the source looks like unacceptable, replace the source. that obviously requires more initiative than simply pressing the undo button, but, I guess, it's worth it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article that is prone to vandalism and as such any new addition really needs a reliable source which Urban Dictionary blatantly isn't.  If you're saying that a Google test will find suitable sources, why not add them in the first place? --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No dear, I "never" said a google test will find a suitable source. That's not the task of a google test. What it would do for you wonderfully is that a google test will prove that the coinage is pretty widely used. This is something we do to establish notability. Wikipedia is a growing project, and articles and improvements are not supposed to be borne perfect. Not here. If there's clear notability, the addition may stay. What you are doing is destructive and reductive, and is a deterrent in developing the project. Insisting on academic standards for every single thing is not something we do here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, but you can't include unsourced statements on the "prenumbra" of notability as given by a Google search. That's a roundabout way of inserting original research on the basis of prior original research. JediLofty is right to want to remove the text, since it fails WP:RS. The reason we insist on having sources for statements, Aditya, is to prevent original research. Claiming that this requirement is somehow damaging to the project is absolutely baffling. And yes, we can and do insist on having sources for every single statement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article just survived a deletion attempt that rested on the basis of not recognizing its potential. I guess the same is happening here. Explain a reliable source, please. And, also explain why a quote should not be supported by primary source, when it's perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standard. Please, also cite a policy or guideline or, at least, an essay that warrants the removal. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I object to your insinuation that I lack foresight, Aditya. I also object to your immediate revert, since now two people have complained about the statement and you've yet to offer any valid reason for including it. As for your request for protocol: WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day specifically notes that "Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead." The "Pull Me Thongs" reference is pointless and honestly isn't worth fighting for. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (reduced indent) I am really sorry if you feel that way. At the same time I object to your insinuation that you have perfect foresight, and pointing to one or two mistakes is unacceptable. I am not perfect, and neither are you. Repeating "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not reason enough to remove alternative coinage for a concept. Many things, including whole countries and people, have different names, and if those names are notable by Wikipedia standards they can be incorporated into articles perfectly. And, you may haven't noticed, but "that one person or a small group of people" (i.e. Urban Dictionary) is not a school-boy website. It has been covered and acknowledged by Time Magazine, the Guardian and other mainstream authority (it also is a mainstream publication). And, finally, if you're looking for a fight worth fighting, please, remember Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that Urban Dictionary is a wiki - a wiki, I might add, that requires NO sources and is full of original research (and blatant slander in some cases - look at the second definition for Fred Astaire).  Wikis and blogs are not acceptable as sources (see WP:SPS). --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you guys real? Are you saying that I can't say X said this and provide a link to X saying that, because I didn't said Y said that X said that? What part of a direct quotation is unclear here? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that the only sources you've provided for the phrase "pull me thong" are Urban Dictionary.  It doesn't matter that The Guardian and other papers have used UD as a source; it is not allowable as a source on Wikipedia.  If you can find a source for the phrase that is not an open wiki or blog, feel free to cite it.  As it is the only sources you're providing are not suitable, per WP:SPS. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source 

message: Quoting policy after policy (Connective trivia, WP:EL, synthesis etc.) and eroding stuff from the article by the people who tried to get it deleted, declaring it would never have any value, and who never contributed a single typed-in character to develop the article - that's what we have here. Please, discuss before you remove, particularly if it's a direct quote with direct relevance from a highly reliable source. Also, use rationality. "Wearing pants below waist and thereby exposing skin or intimate clothing" is indeed a law that concerns whale-tails, unless you are totally bent on lawyering. And, stop removing stuff that contextualize the subject, like the rise of the g-string and low-rise pants, especially when the context has been adequately explained through sourced information. Eroding stuff little by little may eventually get the article minimized to a level when it's ready for another deletion proposal, but that may not be a very desirable situation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is an external link to a site showing pictures of female back side surrounded by explicit advertisements for pornography sites being re-added to this page?  The site clearly fails two items of WP:LINKSTOAVOID by not being a unique resource beyond what is already in the article and by large amounts of the site's displayed content being dedicating advertisements.   Even if it is argued that a mention of this site is appropriate as part of a trash comment aimed at a celebrity (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity for the problem with this), that does no necessitate adding a link to the site when the site clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines and policies on external links.  I have no objection to adding an explanation that a whale tail can be considered a fashion faux-pas, but using that explanation as an excuse to linkspam an advertisement heavy site and spread negative celebrity gossip is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Allen3 talk 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, our moral diction stops us from using the link to the only cite dedicated to whale tails, which has been quoted by mainstream media and which has been around for quite a long time by web standards. Even if we can live with that, what really warrants removing a direct quote used without prejudice, synthesis or commentary? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to your question is that no one has shown the comment adds any encyclopedic value while it is at odds with the spirit of a core content policy (WP:BLP) and a widely accepted guideline (Wikipedia:External links).  --Allen3 talk 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we have here? 

message: The woman is obviously wearing a G-string incorrectly.  I noticed before I even enlarged it, any woman who wears thongs and the like should be able to tell.  One of the thigh bands is passing between her legs; she's wearing it sideways.  Maybe I'm a little obsessive for being annoyed by that, but shouldn't there be a better picture? 207.172.186.128 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no better picture available at the commons. If you find one, please, feel free to add it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already got a perfectly good image (:Image:Whaletail oc.jpg), I don't see how having a picture of a girl who doesn't know how to dress properly (:Image:Whale_tail_display.jpg) adds anything to the article! ;-)  --  JediLofty UserTalk 12:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Remember to assume good faith, also pick up a dictionary and brush up on the definition of "censor".  No one is censoring the image, it is just not needed when there is already a better picture in the article.  Also, the image is tagged for privacy concerns.  Since the image is redundant (with a better image already in the article), tagged for problems, and, as pointed out above, is an inaccurate image as the woman is wearing her britches incorrectly, there is no reason to have it in the article.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Whale_tail_display.jpg

message: Is there a reason why some of the refs at the end of the article are appearing in boldface types? I couldn't locate the formatting error. Can someone help identify, or better fix, the problem? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations got boldfaced 

message: Is there any particular reason for the edit war over images? As far as I understand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines have nothing to say against images that are in alignment with article context, especially when it involves free images. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image war? 

message: There are enough images in the article already.  The more images you add the more you stymie a legion of users who access the encyclopedia via mobile device or even older computers.  The allure of the image is far outweighed by the slowdown of the page load when there are already several images in the article that illustrate the subject quite nicely. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice intention. But, you have reduced the page size by about 44,011 bytes, which counts for almost nothing. Intentions and technology don't always match. Please, also read the post above. Writing before reading not be very conducive of discussion. And, please, understand that edit warring over trivial matters outside a valid reason isn't very constructive either. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolz. Another editor came forward to revert without any care for a discussion. And, I can only watch helplessly, for today, as I don't want to get into the 3RR trap. But, incivility and reasonlessness are exactly that - incivility and reasonlessness. I don't think the other editor is going to discuss anything here. So much for consensus loving Wikipedians. *sigh* Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You weren't trapped, you made    three edits within three hours, as did Lobot, so you both need to step back from this article, but if you're looking for a consensus then you have found it, 2:1 to have one image on the page. This page got to GA without the March image, it can get to FA without it as well. I would also recommend removing one of the car images, pick the best, lose the other one. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should check Wiki policies a bit more. The first edit you quote restored more than the image, and isn't the same thing as reverting for the image. BTW< you mention on my talk page that L0b0t violated 3RR, but didn't mention that here. Any reason for that? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Even if you're right on the fashion images. You're completely wrong about the car images. One whos a duck-tail, the other a whale tail. If you took time to read the captions (even if you let the body copy rest) you would have seen that. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any policy about image use like you describe? If there is, can you, please, lead me to it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think L0b0t is going to discuss this on the talk page, not with his elaborate background of reverts and removals and rudeness on this article without any participation on the talk page (see: , , , , , ... for example). L0b0t seem to own this article in a negative way, which also deters L0b0t from making any constructive edit to this article. I wonder what the problem is. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay. Retracted. Though it's not always a necessity to assume good faith when evidences point to something else. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, now you can retract the accusation that I violated 3rr.  A quick glance at the history of the article will show that I have only made 5 edits to this article in all of 2009.  1 edit on 25 February, 1 edit on 4 April, 2 edits on 9 April (this is the day you claim I violated 3rr), and 1 edit on 11 April.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you, please, refrain from making false acquisitions? And, also from making rude commands? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the editor's superior participation on talk pages I, regrettably, am retracting my retraction. Respect has to be mutual in a community. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I personally think that the whole "to help users with older computers or on mobile devices" is a smokescreen. Don't get me wrong, it's a quite terrible image, and I much prefer the one with the white thong (though that could do with cropping), but as was mentioned, the image is about 50kb, which is pretty small. Unless you're on a 28k modem it's not an issue, and if you are then you probably disabled images anyway. If you don't like the image, just say so, let's find a better one. But as the article is primarily about thongs, having two pictures is not unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the image in the history section should be cropped because it shows that "whale tails" were/are often visible in public, which is the main intent of the image I think. The lead image could be better since it doesn't show the top part of the "tail" but I think it's a pretty good image for the lead since it's a close up of a whale tail, the main subject of the article, without anything else in the image. The two images are serving different functions so I don't really think they are redundant. The lead image also contains a lower-back tattoo, which isn't that important, but it's another reason it fits with the content of the text. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With the context of availability of free images at the moment, I think, LonelyMarble is right. But, the lead image isn't good looking (it's good to look good, even for an encyclopedia, right?) and, if and when available, it could and should be replaced with a better picture that fits equally (like Mattbuck suggested). Therefore, I guess both of you are right. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Whale tail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120418230031/http://television.aol.com/show/whale-tail-thong-dreams/10219721/main to http://television.aol.com/show/whale-tail-thong-dreams/10219721/main
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150106060121/http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015YZU8M to http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015YZU8M
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd just like to comment on this edit by Montana and express my support. This is not a topic that really requires more than clear illustration of what it is. These types of images can easily be construed as personality rights violations, and there's the obvious potential for sexual objectification. The images removed by Montana were of very low quality and it's quite unclear how they actually improved a reader's understanding of the topic. If they are merely decorative, they don't belong in the article.
Peter Isotalo 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image inclusion 

message: As the lede image has been recently changed from a full whale-tail to a delta (ie just a triangle of underwear) and back again, in the spirit of BRD, I'll discuss my reasons for keeping the original whale-tail image:
*Well, essentially the argument has already been covered here, and is still valid - the lede image is supposed to show the best representation of the topic, and for that a full whale-tail is really required.  I've nothing against the other image being included as well (even though I don't think it's actually a whale-tail, I'll agree that it is a variation on a theme)
*This is further reinforced by the lede paragraph itself - "Whale tail is the Y-shaped waistband of a thong or G-string when visible" - the replaced image doesn't show a "Y-shaped waistband" so is inapplicable.
Let's clarify that I'm not insisting on that particular image being kept, and would be amenable to a change - so long as that change personified the whale-tail, and the "Y-shaped waistband".
I invite the IP editor (and anybody else, of course) to comment here rather than to blindly revert - especially reverting without using edit summaries.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional - I've just looked and I see that the copyright is under dispute for the replaced image :File:Whaletail oc.jpg, so it's probably not a good idea to use that image for that reason as well.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede image - full whale tail, or a delta 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Whale tail. 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/20110706100638/http://www.adultawards.com.au/shownominee.pl?nominee_id=1403 to http://www.adultawards.com.au/shownominee.pl?nominee_id=1403
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116180323/http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/world/20070830-US-Alexandria-pants-baggy-banned-Louisana.php to http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/world/20070830-US-Alexandria-pants-baggy-banned-Louisana.php
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130201152918/http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-18334 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-18334
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070628153120/http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/articles/7128 to http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/articles/7128
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009234404/http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/11464496.html to http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/11464496.html
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) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)