Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:24, 28 December 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Swimming Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Nudity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 5, 2008, July 5, 2009, and July 5, 2011.

Girl in the red flowered bikini

I'm afraid that the woman in the current picture at the top right corner of this article is, to put it flatly, emaciated. Perhaps, a healthier looking person might be better for this article? 70.144.214.140 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. She looks like she spent a great deal of time in a concentration camp. To keep eating disorders to a minimum, the image should be changed to one of a much healthier person. 99.246.143.181 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic isn't the person, it's the cloth. And, that part is illustrated quite alright in the image. In short, it's quite encyclopedic, and the person wearing it is really not a matter we should discuss here. Aditya 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look in any medical textbook, clothing catalogue, or whathaveyou, the people in them are always modest and in good health. It seems odd to me that of the millions of bikini pictures out there, this article contains one of a woman who CLEARLY is not in good health. Anyone with a ribcage that is entirely visible other than beneath the breasts is significantly underweight, especially a woman. If the image is just about the cloth, why not just use an image of JUST the cloth? Women and girls are evidently sensitive to how they look and are quite prone to eating disorders and other personal abuse. It seems reasonable that a webpage which is supposed to be encyclopedic and is viewed by millions of people should contain an image of someone who is in good health, or an image of no one at all. And as for her feelings, I don't see that being a relevant issue; it is not my responsibility nor anyone else's to ensure that the woman in the picture is kept happy by being on Misplaced Pages. 99.246.143.181 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... let's not go off-topic, like guessing a stranger's feelings. But, how do you propose that the person wearing it is clearly not in good health, and it somehow would promote eating disorders? Is it the use of images of women with over-spilling flesh (often enhanced by silicone etc.) in bikini catalogues that lies behind this perception? Please, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything. It's the lead image we're discussing, and if it REALLY needs to change, we shall do so. Right? But, as I understand, none of the other images in the bikini category on the commons come close in aesthetic values, and an encyclopedia doesn't necessarily require ugliness. Do you have any image to suggest that can replace the lead image? Aditya 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I took matters into my own hands. I removed the girl in the red bikini, especially since that photo was no longer under a Creative Commons license. I suggest that the bikini picture should be of a model, because ordinary people might feel upset if their picture is the main picture for "bikini", typically associated with a sexy image. And it should include a beach, because bikinis are beachwear. I hope that the new picture is good, but there are many other good pictures on Flickr. I should know, because I just spent an hour to get a good one. Twocs (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change for 2 reasons. 1)The image you uploaded and put in the article, while showing on Flickr that it's free to use, is actually owned by BetUS and is in their calendar and DVD, which are both copyrighted. 2) The image you removed was originally free and verified as such by an admin. License can not be revoked. Therefore, regardless of the Flickr user having changed the copyright on Flickr, the original license still stands and is valid. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that photograph is not in their calendar. Secondly videos are on DVDs, not photos, so how can a photo be on a DVD as claimed? Just because a photo is taken during a photoshoot does not mean that it cannot be licensed Creative Commons by the photographer. Twocs (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the red bikini picture clearly violates the Misplaced Pages image policy, which says that pictures of people in swimsuits cannot be used without their explicit permission. Twocs (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly which policy are you referring to? Aditya 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy of Misplaced Pages about photos shown in commons:COM:PEOPLE#Normally_not_OK suggests that this young girl, who is clearly identifiable, and is in some body of water that may be a private space, has legal rights for her photo in a revealing bikini. Twocs (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Images of people in public places, which this clearly is.. I see an ocean/lake/pond/river and not a private swimming pool.. are allowed as long as they are free. Additionally, to further cement that the image is fine and free to use, I've added the Personality rights template to it. If you still feel the image is unacceptable, nominate it for deletion at Commons where it is hosted. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 06:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

An "ocean/lake/pond/river" is not always a public space--the photo is from Italy and most beaches in Italy are private. It's good to add the Personality Rights template. Also, Italy has some of the strictest privacy laws on the planet. I will nominate this picture for deletion, but because there are a number of steps that should be done to nominate a picture in the proper way, I will do that when I have more time. Twocs (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the photo is from Italy? I see nothing on its Commons page or on the original Flickr page that says it's in/from Italy. Even if it were, remember that Italy's privacy laws do not apply to the United States where the Wiki Foundation is based and under which laws the Foundation are governed. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here} 08:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong--Italy's privacy laws apply to Wikimedia "if there are any local laws which control the taking of photographs, or the use that may be made of them without the subject's consent, those will take precedence" (COM:PEOPLE). The photographer is from Italy and he works in Italy. Furthermore, he has pictures of the same girl from the same photoshoot on his commercial website, which was the same reason you (Allstarecho) used speedy deletion on the other bikini picture. This picture was obviously taken on a private beach, because most beaches in Italy are private. Twocs (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a little question - if the pictures have already been used commercially, shouldn't that mean that the person featured has provided formal consent? This line of reasoning looks like way less speculative than the "it has to be a private beach" line of speculation. If the image was released as CC2.0, it is perfectly alright to use it on Misplaced Pages. I read through the "Law" quoted here, and I sincerely believe that there's some Wikilawyering in action here. It is important to understand the principle behind a Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia "Law", rather than using the words of the "Law" to achieve some kind of personal goal. I am sorry if I am wrong, but it seems the discussion started getting hotter since Twocs's image addition was removed, till then it was mostly about appropriateness of the image, and since then it became an exercise of quoting and strategically interpreting a "Law". Let's not game the system, please. Aditya 03:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not true that if pictures have been used commercially, the person featured has provided formal consent for use in Misplaced Pages. Twocs (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The red bikini image is fine for illustrating this article. The girl looks plenty healthy to me. The shot was obviously taken with her knowledge, hence the pose. Finally, the image has already been through wikimedia review for use on Misplaced Pages. If any of you are copyright lawyers, please produce your credentials. In the meantime, I vote that the red bikini image stays where it is and that we debate something more productive.Jarhed (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If a red bikini is not worthy of debate, then what use is Misplaced Pages? (attempt at humor) Twocs (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

HEY. Women in red bikinis are NOT funny.Jarhed (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Only women in yellow bikinis are funny. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

However, wikipedia is NOT a porno website. It is an encyclopedia and the article is about Bikinis and the image clearly illustrates the appearance and use of one. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are women in black bikinis funny too? Please, advise. Aditya 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

She's underweight. These images have an impact. It's a real shame that other issues got in the way of this discussion. Oli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Way to promote an incredibly unhealthy body image, Misplaced Pages. Not like there's thousands of pictures available of girls in bikinis who DON'T starve themselves. Nice that it's at the top of the page, too: hey girls, don't miss it! This is what you're expected to look like! This makes me sick. 74.178.160.184 (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion would be important to have if there were absolutely anything wrong with the healthier picture, or anything preferable about the emaciated picture. If the alternative to the flowered bikini picture was no picture at all, maybe we could have this discussion. But there are thousands of pictures of women in bikinis, and the one that is currently on the article is perfectly fine. There is no reason whatsoever to insist on constantly returning to the flowered bikini picture. That woman is *not* healthy. Her poor health distracts from the point of the picture (to display clothing). We would not put a picture of a 400 pound woman, an armless woman, or a woman who has any sort of condition which distracts from the purpose of the picture. We want a nondescript picture which focuses on the clothing, and the flowered bikini is anything but that. Enigmocracy (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahahahahhaa... that was the nicest argument I've read on the Misplaced Pages in a long time. Yes, it makes perfect sense, and was also a wonderful read. (BTW, talking of distractions, I think it can be claimed that any deviation from the average would make some distraction or other. Shall I venture to propose that we use a young Chinese woman to make it really no stand out? Just kidding.) Aditya 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Men's bikinis

I found it really baffling that this article flat-out says "women's swim suit," when the word "bikini" is in common usage to describe a similar style of men's bathing suit. The word clearly seems to have been applied to the women's style first, but it seems bizarre to act as though men's bikinis don't exist, especially when they're referred to as such in the Speedo (suit style) article. I'd make the changes myself, but (a) I don't know the history of men's bikinis and (b) it would require a heck of a lot of editing of the article to change all the references that ignore men's bikinis. I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages, so I don't know what the most preferable solution would be. --Grvsmth 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. And the overall article is too focused on swimwear. I have worn men's bikini underwear since I was 12, and was surprised there is no mention of boy's or men's undergarments here. They are sometimes referred to as "European style underwear". Teamgoon 05:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, balance for all such swimwear (be it for males or females) and details on the other clothing called "bikini" would be very helpful -Harmil 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard men's trunks being called bikinis (in England). Maybe that's an American thing? I've always just called them speedos. I've added a line linking to speedos, anyway. Fishies Plaice 11:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard anyone refer to a piece of men's swimwear as a bikini. Speedo, yes. And I'm American, so I don't think it's an American thing. Doctormatt 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, and I'm also an american. It's definitely far rarer in colloquial speech, but when you go into a store and need to disambiguiate what style of stuit you are looking for, I would ask for the "Bikini style" men's bathing suit, not "speedo style". Speedo is a brand... it's kind of like saying that people only ever call tissues "kleenex".Lemon-lime 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are swimming trunks. The clue here is bi, as in two parts. Speedo is a brand name which has become genericised, though, like hoover or kleenex. We have had many many attempts to add nonsense about "male bikini wearing" so you're going to ened some really solid sources if you want anything about men in this article. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not "nonsense." "Bikini" has nothing to do with "bi" meaning two. How do you explain the term "bikini" when referring to a women's undergarment, which is one piece? Or "bikini briefs" when referring to men's underwear? I'm for adding the info. PacificBoy 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Men's bikini's do exist so yeah, there should be a refrence to it. And i agree with Pacific Boy. There are men who wear bikinis, and leaving them out of an article on bikinis is absurd. I've worn men's thongs since i was twelve, and over in the thong article, there are sections on male thong wear.Guy113 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the section on men's bikini's? it just dissapeared. I don't really wear bikini's (g strings have been my choice of underwear since third grade) but come on guys. a whole section doesn't just dissapear. Men's bikini's exist and are sold, and people buy them. i'll add it myself too, and i'm open to suggestions.Speedo113 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't vanish, really. It merged with the intro. As bikini is primarily women's swimwear, it didn't really fit well into the variants section. But, it apparently is a phenomenon big enough to prominent a good position in the article (i.e. not a footnote or fine-print). There were two ways to deal with that — either a section on its own, or a merge into the lead. Since there was not enough content for an independent section, I went for the second option. Aditya 05:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I made this edit to the lead, to at least have a bit about the term applying to men's swimwear situated there as well. It was there before, but was removed. And, frankly, if this article is going to cover both sexes' swimwear, then the lead shouldn't only describe it as women's clothing. Thus, I made that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tankini

Can someone please remove the misleading "tankini" pic with the girl on the right merely covering up a bikini top with a tied up t-shirt?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.54.160 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:String bikini

you couldnt find a hotter chick for the pic?? Indeed, string bikinis are indicative of a permissive western society that has hit the pits when it comes to morals and values is not NPOV. Come on, get a better picture. If you want to look at porn, go look it up, this is an encylopedia. Get a clue. Those pics weren't of a string bikini, but of a woman wearing a thong. There are plenty of photos out there that are not BSDM related, could we try to find one of those? 129.100.217.198 09:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say - "this is porn". This is not, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. You are also wrong in deciding it's not a string bikini. It is, very much. But, you are very right when you say - "could we find another picture?" The current picture doesn't portray the bikini too well, and focuses more on the person wearing it. I already have replaced one image for exactly that reason - the garment, not the person, is the subject here. If you can help replacing the image with a better one, please go ahead and do so. Aditya 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

rephrase "now"

I think that the statement

Participants in the Miss Teen USA pageant are now required to wear bikinis.

should be

As of XXXX, participants in the Miss Teen USA pageant are required to wear bikinis.

I think this arrangement provides more information. What do you think? Kushal 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's trivia of no obvious relevance. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree it is trivia. It's more encyclopedic to note it more generally: "Participants in some beauty contests, such as the Miss Teen USA pageant, are required to wear bikinis as part of the competition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twocs (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaced two images.

In these two edits, I replaced two pictures because I think they illustrate the paragraphs better. The original images gave the idea that a regular bikini reveals a lot of skin, which it doesn't. The other image implied that a string bikini is the same as a thong or g-string which is not necessarily the case. Just thought I'd mention this here since there appears to be some disagreement. : ) 156.34.232.216 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasons, but couldn't the images replaced by you somehow stay in the article? --Catgut (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead and add them if you wish. : ) It might "crowd" the article, though. 156.34.212.170 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the string bikini image. This one shows the "strings" more appropriately, both for the top and the bottom. Aditya 06:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All righty. 156.34.225.28 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick-on Microkini

Isn't that rather an intimate pasty than a bikini. --Avril1975 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. It may be a pasty alright. But, it may be a microkini at the same time. So, what do you suggest we do? Aditya 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Outrage

THIS IS SICK!!!!!!

I AM OUTRAGED AT THE CONTENT OF THIS FOTOGRAF!!! THAT WOMAN IS (AND 95 PERCENT SHE IS WOMAN IN WHITE SLAVERY!) SHE IS WEARING NEXT TO NOTHING. SHE IS SIX QUARTERS NAKED and SINCE KIDS MIGHT BE WATCHING, DIALING IN THIS PICTURE in a SCHOOL LIBRARY and possiblely masturbating with this. this is wikipedia, not playboy. i am a major funder and will withdraw payments unless all pornographic, child porn, and likewise obscene material withdrawn. at the very least, could this picture show a more covering bikini (most women's bikini's do not show stomach area AT ALL just go to the beach sometime YOU IDIOT! S Or just show a bikini sitting on the ground without any girls in it. THESE ARE MY OFFICIAL SUGGESTIONS.

I DEMAND REASBONSIBLITY IN THIS SITE. PROTECTRING CHILDREN IN OUR MAIN RESPONSIBILITY. WHOSE WITH ME? 67.160.174.24 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the stick-on microkini image has been removed (I think I deleted it as a copyright violation actually), I will assume you are talking about Image:Microkini.jpg, or possibly more generally. Let me address your concerns as best I can. First off, Misplaced Pages is not censored - now, this does not mean we gratuitously add nude or risqué images to every page, but where it illustrates the subject we will. On this page, the images illustrate the subject quite clearly. I am sure you understand that it is impossible to really tell what a piece of clothing looks like until someone wears it, and that is the case with a bikini. You say that most women's bikini's do not show stomach area AT ALL - I'm afraid that these are not bikinis, merely swimming costumes. If you will read the first sentence of the article, the bikini is characterized by two separate parts — one covering the breasts... the other the groin... leaving an uncovered area between the two garments.

Now, you say that protecting children should be our main concern - I can understand that viewpoint, and I agree that children should be protected. However, Misplaced Pages is not a site designed for children - it is an encyclopaedia for people in general. If you wish to protect your children, especially while at school, contact your school's IT department and ask whether a content filter is in place. Such software would block access to pages such as bikini, penis, sex, etc. I'm afraid that simply because some content is unacceptable to some parts of the population is not a reason to remove it, as otherwise we would have to remove all coverage of subjects such as evolution, God, war, Pokemon and of course the washing machine in case the Amish get offended. I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer.

I hope this has answered your questions. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Mattbuck's completely right about the censoring stuff and I agree with him about almost everything, but the image in question blatantly is more porn than informational - let's face facts, it's not just to "illustrate the subject quite clearly", you'd never ever find that sort of image in an encyclopaedia, you would find (if anything) a picture of a mannequin wearing one. This image is a woman posing sexually for a photo, perhaps to try and sell the bikini or simply to arouse I don't know, but it's NOT an informational image. I don't think it should be removed because it's dangerous to kids or outrageous, I think it should be replaced because it's cheap and not what I'd associate with an informational site. The same goes for the main picture, why does it need to be a gorgeous woman coming out the sea with her hands on her head? A mannequin would be so much more appropriate. I came to wikipedia because I was wanting to find out the exact difference between underwear and bikinis, I'm off to google images now for my sexual needs - and these should be kept very separate. Right now I don't feel they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.77.254 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, bro. The images on this article are cool. That's what I feel. AdjustShift (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Check his user contributions. This was a joke. Just a vandal/griefer.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"i am a major funder and will withdraw payments unless all pornographic, child porn, and likewise obscene material withdrawn."

Now seriously, given the nature of Misplaced Pages, I think threatening the page with payment withdrawal is ridiculous. Besides, there is no child porn on wikipedia and if somebody does upload any, it gets removed before anyone would actually get to see it. --87.188.64.26 (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

conversion from square inches to centimeters

>That bikini, a string bikini with a g-string back made out of 30 inches (76 cm) of clothes with newspaper type printed across, was "officially" introduced on July 5 at a fashion event at Piscine Molitor, a popular public pool in Paris.

30 square inches is not 76 square centimeters. You can't just multiple square inches by 2.54 to get square centimeters. 30 square inches = about 180 square centimeters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.104.12 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After using the Template:Convert, it should be alright now, like 194cm². Aditya 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Villa Romana del Casale

The Roman bikini girls should probably be mentioned somewhere. -- 93.106.49.15 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough material yet to warrant a splitting. Aditya 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the monokini?

I've noticed a few shopping sites on the Internet indicate that a "monokini" is more than just a bikini bottom or similar, but rather a swimsuit that is a single piece, but still resembles a bikini, particularly in the back. For instance: http://www.charlotterusse.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3190629]. Seriously, put "monokini" into Google Shopping, and that's the style you come up with, and the article says nothing about this style whatsoever. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be counted as WP:SPAM, a serious policy breach. Aditya 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously. The only pictures I can find to illustrate the design I'm discussing are commercial sites, and so please don't take my for-instance as spam. And you've not addressed my argument - is this kind of "monokini" design worth discussing in the encyclopedia? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The one you demonstrated is not even a monokini as such, it's just a regular one-piece suit. If we are discussing monokinis, we may also illustrate them fine. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Aditya 05:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting censoring Misplaced Pages. I'm saying discuss both. But these appear to be one-piece suits being marketed as "monokini" because while they are one-piece, the back is designed to resemble a bikini. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And found a reliable source for it. I'm adding it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Use it as an add-on, because a monokini primarily is what has been described already, not what you're suggesting. Aditya 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In the modern age the bikini had to go through a checkered history, unlike the Greco-Romans!

Kudos to all you editors who have provided so much great work and academic detail for this article. I know nothing about this subject other than what I have seen at the pool. However, I know a little bit about writing, and while this article is good, there are lots of typos and misspellings. Worse, some of the syntax is so twisted it makes my eyeballs itch to read it. Finally, there are some data that should not be in this article, such as the reason for the 'coronation' title of the bikini girl mural.

I would be glad to spend some time working on this article. However, I think that the changes it needs are pretty extensive, so I want to check with you guys first. If this is someone's pet article and you are going to flame me for changing it, I would prefer to do something else.

Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I know. Sorry that my English is atrocious. Someone else tried to lend a hand in copyediting, but unfortunately that person had a very simple solution to problems - kill the problem by removing it, don't try to cure by rewriting. If you can lend a hand there it would be so nice. Good copywriting support is getting rarer and rarer by the day. All the copyeditors I know here and can rely on are on long Wikibreaks, and therefore... here I am, pleading for help. I only hope you are more into discussions than some abrupt editors. Cheers. Aditya 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Brother thank you for your cordial reply, and I will be delighted to contribute as I can. Please be patient, and please feel free to change or revert anything I do, I completely do not mind. As for your post on my homepage, if you believe that the History section needs an expanded lede, I will be delighted to edit it to your specifications. Are you the editor that put in the history? If so, that is amazing. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy. Also hope to see expand a bit more as work progresses. Aditya 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Variant - trikini

While trying to find images of tankinis, I came across quite a few references to trikinis, which appear to be one-piece with material connecting the crotch to the top, but with more coverage than a sling but less than a normal one-piece. Don't know if it's notable or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A trikini is basically a bikini that connects the two pieces of a bikini with a small piece of fabric. Because there is a redirect for the word trikini to the page bikini, I think one sentence about trikini on the bikini page would be enough. But on the other hand, it is not a common swimsuit, so it shouldn't have its own article. An image of a trikini appear in the article Bikini_variants. Twocs (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember?

Does no one else remember from the late 1940s that the bikini was talked about as signifying "wearing next to nothing" because that's what was left of the atoll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.226.187 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get the question. Would you explain it a bit more? Aditya 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to a joke about Bikini Atoll. In fact, a similar pun appears on the page in the second paragraph of this section: Bikini_Atoll#History. Twocs (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

general comment

This is an article that could have been subsumed into the broader category of swimwear/beachwear. The article 'feels' titillating in content ie less scholarly than it could have been. Certain of thse images have a sexually stimulating overlay to them rather than being purely illustrative - although, given the 'fact' that a bikini, in that strangely contradictory way with minimal clothing, is both concealing yet designed to be sexually attractive to the onlooker - this duality is difficult to avoid. The first pic. is so obvioulsy posed and therefore again draws the viewer away from an informational position. The pic. of a beach volleyball player is (to me) objectifying - her face is not visible and her buttocks are the point of focus. In contrast the pole-vaulter is an objective image. Use of a mannequin would defeat the whole idea of what impression the use of a bikini on a human conveys. The person who ranted about the 'sick' nature of the images etc. should restrain themselves from further comment until they have examined the apparent psychological dissonances he/she is experiencing. These outbursts are also unscholarly and unsettling esp on an ostensibly knowledge oriented aite. I have never heard of a male bikini - one would assume a covering of the pubic area and also a separate piece of material covering the 'costal' area and this is patently what is not meant here (or perhaps someone might elucidate me). Such an piece of clothing is as risible as Sacha Baron-Cohen's 'Mankini' - yet someone is bound to see the item as valid (non-ironical) clothing. In Britain 'Speedos' are bathing trunks or 'bathers' (colloqiual to some parts of Britain). The American product promotion method of pushing a brand name into generic terminology is evidential of a particular national mind-set - again not scholarly. Gr1bble8s (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For User:Enigmocracy

Discussing your revert as counselled by you. Though I don't know what to say to this. What is your reason to repeated revert ( and ) to the current image from a long standing image which amply illustrated the subject of the article? Apparently your first reason was - "why does anorexic flower girl keep getting edited back? that picture is more appropriate for an article on emaciation, not clothing.", which was followed by "please stop re-adding this picture, especially without contributing to the discussion about it on the talk page". Misplaced Pages has no prejudice against thinner body types, and neither of these two rationales are consistent with Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, custom or culture, as far as I can see. Therefore, without a stronger argument, the long-standing image may stand instead of the current image, or a number of other images that briefly replaced it (some of them were even clearly copyvio and was deleted as such). Aditya 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the ambiguity - my comment regarding this matter is in the section regarding the red flower bikini girl, where I provide a more detailed argument.Enigmocracy (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the point

This is regarding this and this edits. While I understand that you are trying to make the image layout better, and you are doing something that is not explicitly prohibited, I really can't see the point. For one, putting images in relevant places in the article is advised in the guidelines, and all these years and all across Misplaced Pages most of the editors used the method of putting them after the relevant sub-header. And, also consider that putting images that way unnecessarily carry the image across the line of second-level headers, messing up the standard layout of articles. All that stepped over because one editor believes it looks better, especially when it actually makes no improvement! Really, how is it better? Aditya 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class swimming articles
• Mid-importance swimming articles
• B-Class fashion articles
• High-importance fashion articles
• B-Class nudity articles
• Low-importance nudity articles
• WikiProject Nudity articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Selected anniversaries (July 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2011)