![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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 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)
By the way, the red bikini picture clearly violates the Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 t 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[1] [2] 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)
Isn't that rather an intimate pasty than a bikini. -- Avril1975 ( talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
>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)
The Roman bikini girls should probably be mentioned somewhere. -- 93.106.49.15 ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I think this articles should also mention skirted bikinis. -- 79.238.171.198 ( talk) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussing your revert as counselled by you. Though I don't know what to say to this. What is your reason to repeated revert ( [4] and [5]) 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". Wikipedia has no prejudice against thinner body types, and neither of these two rationales are consistent with Wikipedia 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( talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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( talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A user was kind enough to add some info to the article re. cultural controversies (see below). I've marked it as requiring source citation(s), however, and hope they will return to provide documentation for the interesting points raised.
The text in question now reads:
"Considering the bikini was originally designed in the Western World primarily for Western women, it was also named after Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and it is noteworthy that the bikini's design violates the traditional female modesty customs of Marshallese culture in its exposure of bare thighs. citation needed Conversely, traditional Marshallese modesty does not apply the same social stigma to the exposure of bare breasts, which the bikini does cover. In modern Marshallese society, it is generally fashionable for women to wear Western World-influenced clothing that covers both parts of the body, but it not generally considered modest for a woman to be seen wearing a bikini for the reason that it exposes her bare thighs. citation needed"
Cheers! Az x2 18:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I can understand why it's tempting to add images to this article, as the subject matter has the potential for pleasurable viewing to many (though not all, of course), but it would be great if we could strive for consensus with regards to adding or deleting bikini images going forward. The picture at right, for example (which was recently added by one contributor but then deleted by another), is very nice, but I believe the current main bikini article picture to be more appropriate since by virtue of having captured two models walking in opposite directions, it presents the reader with both front and rear views of common bikini style. I honestly don't think it's frivolous, the question of the main image, and while I'm in no way wedded to the current image, I do hope to foster consensus if there's a move to change it in the near-term. So can we discuss any photo changes? (And as an aside, if there's a better "sport bikini" photo that could replace this one, please someone feel free to suggest it!) Cheers! Az x2 06:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a one-line gallery of images as a sub-section to the article today, to better represent the variety of bikini designs and styles discussed therein. I also included the mankini image, which had previously been in the main body of the article. Az x2 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Today I reverted the by User:Kentongreening in which they unilaterally made the decision to replace the main article image and asked that they participate in discussion here concerning adding and deleting images to the article and establish consensus before making such a profound change to the article in the future. While User:Kentongreening describes themselves as a "Specialist in Greek, Roman, and early Christian mosaics..." and that could've been motivation for making such a change (switching the main image to a picture of the bikini girls mosaic), I hope they'll come here and make their case for why the image should be changed before doing so again. Az x2 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
I'd like to see this article nominated for GA-status eventually, and inevitably one thing that will have to be done is to rationalize the formatting of dates (especially in the source citations) to ensure consistency. At present there are several different date formats. Can we agree on one and begin correcting all the dates (in text and references) to that format? And is there a "bot" that can do the process automatically? Thanks. Az x2 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to undertake a reassessment of the bikini article w/ an eye towards improving it to status of a Good Article? I've contributed so much to it that I'm disqualified from reviewing this for GA-status, so it's basically pointless for me to lead the reassessment imo. But I think the feedback would be valuable, b/c I very much so want to see this article nominated for the GA-designation, which it will merit eventually (especially once we standardize the date format!!). Az x2 23:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved some info that's in somewhat rough shape from History of the bikini a little while ago and need a bit of time to edit it into shape. A recent editor commented that the "history section is seriously flawed still." The same editor removed a couple of what I thought were judiciously chosen images, which is to say, images that are informative but don't titillate, a potential challenge with this kind of article. Since there's been no previous discussion of the history section, I wasn't aware it was in such awful condition. In fact, I thought it'd been well improved over the past month. If anything, there may be too much info in the history section, since there is an entire article devoted to the history. If there are problems with the history section or the choice of iamges that you can identify, please describe them here so they can be discussed and rectified. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose we set-up automatic archiving of this article's talk page, which can be done using any one of a variety of bots or manual processes, once consensus has been established. While I will wait some time to allow other editors to express their support for archiving the talk page, I do want to go ahead and propose that we use either MiszaBot or ClueBot III to automatically create cut-and-paste archives for the discussion page. They'll move sections to a subpage after they have received no comments for a specified period of time. If I don't hear any objections I'll go ahead and set this up. Az x2 17:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Gang, do you think we should throttle-back the archive speed (so to speak) for this talk page? Right now it will cull discussion threads older than 31d w/o response iirc - is that too little time? Should that be extended to 60 days, for example? Or fine as is at 31d? Az x2 05:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
— btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the bikini is an outfit to attract the opposite sex. The people of this age are obsessed with sex, just sex. The Bikini makes a bold age old sttaement: "SEX SELLS". Period. - 59.95.31.122 ( talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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 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)
By the way, the red bikini picture clearly violates the Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 t 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[1] [2] 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)
Isn't that rather an intimate pasty than a bikini. -- Avril1975 ( talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
>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)
The Roman bikini girls should probably be mentioned somewhere. -- 93.106.49.15 ( talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I think this articles should also mention skirted bikinis. -- 79.238.171.198 ( talk) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussing your revert as counselled by you. Though I don't know what to say to this. What is your reason to repeated revert ( [4] and [5]) 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". Wikipedia has no prejudice against thinner body types, and neither of these two rationales are consistent with Wikipedia 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( talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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( talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A user was kind enough to add some info to the article re. cultural controversies (see below). I've marked it as requiring source citation(s), however, and hope they will return to provide documentation for the interesting points raised.
The text in question now reads:
"Considering the bikini was originally designed in the Western World primarily for Western women, it was also named after Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and it is noteworthy that the bikini's design violates the traditional female modesty customs of Marshallese culture in its exposure of bare thighs. citation needed Conversely, traditional Marshallese modesty does not apply the same social stigma to the exposure of bare breasts, which the bikini does cover. In modern Marshallese society, it is generally fashionable for women to wear Western World-influenced clothing that covers both parts of the body, but it not generally considered modest for a woman to be seen wearing a bikini for the reason that it exposes her bare thighs. citation needed"
Cheers! Az x2 18:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I can understand why it's tempting to add images to this article, as the subject matter has the potential for pleasurable viewing to many (though not all, of course), but it would be great if we could strive for consensus with regards to adding or deleting bikini images going forward. The picture at right, for example (which was recently added by one contributor but then deleted by another), is very nice, but I believe the current main bikini article picture to be more appropriate since by virtue of having captured two models walking in opposite directions, it presents the reader with both front and rear views of common bikini style. I honestly don't think it's frivolous, the question of the main image, and while I'm in no way wedded to the current image, I do hope to foster consensus if there's a move to change it in the near-term. So can we discuss any photo changes? (And as an aside, if there's a better "sport bikini" photo that could replace this one, please someone feel free to suggest it!) Cheers! Az x2 06:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I added a one-line gallery of images as a sub-section to the article today, to better represent the variety of bikini designs and styles discussed therein. I also included the mankini image, which had previously been in the main body of the article. Az x2 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Today I reverted the by User:Kentongreening in which they unilaterally made the decision to replace the main article image and asked that they participate in discussion here concerning adding and deleting images to the article and establish consensus before making such a profound change to the article in the future. While User:Kentongreening describes themselves as a "Specialist in Greek, Roman, and early Christian mosaics..." and that could've been motivation for making such a change (switching the main image to a picture of the bikini girls mosaic), I hope they'll come here and make their case for why the image should be changed before doing so again. Az x2 20:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
I'd like to see this article nominated for GA-status eventually, and inevitably one thing that will have to be done is to rationalize the formatting of dates (especially in the source citations) to ensure consistency. At present there are several different date formats. Can we agree on one and begin correcting all the dates (in text and references) to that format? And is there a "bot" that can do the process automatically? Thanks. Az x2 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone be willing to undertake a reassessment of the bikini article w/ an eye towards improving it to status of a Good Article? I've contributed so much to it that I'm disqualified from reviewing this for GA-status, so it's basically pointless for me to lead the reassessment imo. But I think the feedback would be valuable, b/c I very much so want to see this article nominated for the GA-designation, which it will merit eventually (especially once we standardize the date format!!). Az x2 23:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved some info that's in somewhat rough shape from History of the bikini a little while ago and need a bit of time to edit it into shape. A recent editor commented that the "history section is seriously flawed still." The same editor removed a couple of what I thought were judiciously chosen images, which is to say, images that are informative but don't titillate, a potential challenge with this kind of article. Since there's been no previous discussion of the history section, I wasn't aware it was in such awful condition. In fact, I thought it'd been well improved over the past month. If anything, there may be too much info in the history section, since there is an entire article devoted to the history. If there are problems with the history section or the choice of iamges that you can identify, please describe them here so they can be discussed and rectified. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose we set-up automatic archiving of this article's talk page, which can be done using any one of a variety of bots or manual processes, once consensus has been established. While I will wait some time to allow other editors to express their support for archiving the talk page, I do want to go ahead and propose that we use either MiszaBot or ClueBot III to automatically create cut-and-paste archives for the discussion page. They'll move sections to a subpage after they have received no comments for a specified period of time. If I don't hear any objections I'll go ahead and set this up. Az x2 17:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Gang, do you think we should throttle-back the archive speed (so to speak) for this talk page? Right now it will cull discussion threads older than 31d w/o response iirc - is that too little time? Should that be extended to 60 days, for example? Or fine as is at 31d? Az x2 05:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
— btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the bikini is an outfit to attract the opposite sex. The people of this age are obsessed with sex, just sex. The Bikini makes a bold age old sttaement: "SEX SELLS". Period. - 59.95.31.122 ( talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)