Wonderbra is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 28, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please put it back, or at least tell me her name!
This page is considered featured content, and today it is on the main page. Wikipedia is used by school children of all ages. In my opinion having this pornography of a woman wearing a Wonderbra on a featured page destroys Wikipedia's respect and prestige. This picture must be taken down. biblefreak123 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not particularly clear. It says in 1994 blah blah blah. But the Wonderbra had been around for a while, 1994 was only when it was introduced in the US. The article seems to suggest this was somesort of worldwide historic event but I don't see any evidence for that. Sure it may have had a big effect in the US but there is nothing in the article to demonstrate that the US introduction was in any way that significant worldwide. The original introduction in the UK (or was it Canada?) would surely better be called the "one of the most heralded episodes in underwear history.". The later introduction in the US was simply a continuation of the phenomena... Also the bit about the 1980's and 1990's seems a bit of out of place. It may have helped make the wonderbra more popular and may be even changed the design of the wonderbra but the wonderbra already existed... Nil Einne 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't direct copying from the Wonderbra site not allowed? *shrugs*
Michas pi 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Failed for the following reasons, consider fixing and resubmitting:
1. multiple external jumps, [1], need converted to standard web refs
2. The 1975 TV screen shot is tagged GFDL, but I find that hard to believe, it more likely should have the same tag as the 1974 screen shot.
3. double check other image tags
4. Refs should never have external jumps, see fn 22 and 23 for what not to do
5. Web refs should have retrieval dates
6. Wikilink dates in refs please
7. Brassiere should not be in See Also, it's wikilinked in the first sentence
8. Lead does not summarize the article
9. decades should not have a ' and can be wikilinked, your format is not even consistent
10. Only boldface the title once
12. Many terms can be wikilinked
13. give it a good copyedit
14. Don't use both & and "and", be consistent
15. There should be no space btwn punctuation and a footnote
16. This: "only 10.3 million women and girls older than 13." should not link to a web site, make it a footnote.
Sumoeagle179 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this section has been mentioned to me in a couple of discussions, I thought I might offer a point of view on the external links to vintage Wonderbra commercials hosted on youtube (and I recognize this may be opening a can of worms). These links were brought up and discussed at length during the FAC process. SandyGeorgia and I also had a nice long discussion about it off stage on her talk page. For some members of the Wikipedia community, links to Youtube are frowned upon because they could be in violation of existing copyrights. This however is a controversial stance, as demonstrated by this extensive discussion on the topic. Out of curiosity, I had a media lawyer friend look into the the status of those commercials. They are probably public domain in the US due to the years when they were aired, that they were foreign (Canadian) and there was no copyright filing or notification at the time (see this example for Night of the Living Dead with technicalities on how parts of US copyright law worked in the past). At any rate, WP:EL guidelines only require us to avoid knowingly linking to a copyright violation. An expectation for anyone to proactively prove content on other sites is used with permission, fair use, or public domain goes beyond the guidelines. Given that these external links add a lot to the article, I would expect that anyone calling for the removal should demonstrate actual, rather than assumed copyvio. Mattnad 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
On topic, I've added some links for the infamous UK 'Hello Boys' campaign. Don't know where the information about outdoor models came from but it wan't in the source quoted, and besides, all anyone remembers about that campaign in the UK is Eva Herzigova looking at her boobs while men (apocryphally) crashed their cars ...
Off topic, do the other 'Greatest Canadian inventions' need mentioning? I only ask as including the telephone is to call down a shitstorm. OK, that's what the poll voted for, but that's not to say that it's correct. Alexander Graham Bell was a Scotsman who lived in Canada for a bit, but invented the telephone in the US, where he then took citizenship. So it's either a Scottish invention by dint of his nationality when he invented it, or an American one by dint of his location when he invented it and by his later assumed nationality/citizenship. The Canadian claim is highly dubious and having it in an FA is going to bring all sorts of crap your way. Better just to leave it out, eh, as it doesn't directly relate to the WOnderbra (which I didn't know was a Canadialand invention until reading the article just now..... 86.137.136.166 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section read oddly. The Wonderbra got going in the UK before in the US, and not included (until I just put it in) was the fact that the US campaign was based on the UK one. Logic and chronology therefore suggests that the UK campaign should be dealt with before the US one, so I've moved it. Also, that way the text isn't split UK - US - UK - US like it was before, which also read badly 86.137.136.166 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry all, but I strongly disagree that this article has reached FA standard. It is not amazingly written by any means —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.209.232.100 ( talk • contribs) 03:42, June 28, 2007 (UTC).
Is there a picture gallery of wonderbra ?. -- 193.145.201.52 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This article does not give a clear explanation of the mechanics of the push-up bra and ow it differs from an ordinary bra. It also conttains an apparent error when it says elastic products were rationed before the outbreak of the Second World War. Rationing was introduced because of the war, not before it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.10.238 ( talk • contribs)
Can someone get two pictures one of w woman with no bra in a top, with an ordinary bra in the same top, and one with a wonder bra in the the same top again? Wolfmankurd 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrats for making the front page, though the picture at the top was a bit too revealing. Exozero 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I was actually surprised by how few edits this article is getting. For such a well known topic, after almost 16 hours on the main page, it has than 140 edits. That's surprising. The only explanation I can come up with is that the article is sufficiently comprehensive that nobody really has anything to add. Raul654 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article, I was struck by how much it read like a MBA case study on marketing... then I discovered the references to Henry Mintzberg (the Godfather of the McGill University MBA) and then it all made sense...
Either way, from one MBA to another: well done! ;-) BroMonque 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this a reference to Moe Nadler? If so, it's quite unclear to introduce a nickname this way. Zaq 42 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two pictures of a penis: one flaccid and one erect. Please remove ASAP. -- Bdj95 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically I believe that's one picture containing two different views of the same penis. -- Cyde Weys 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Get that Thing off now!
You know, this isn't the least likely page I can think of that would get vandalized with sexual material. Brutannica 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
from earlier on toady - the section about the UK and US advertising programmes with Eva Herzigova and the Hello Boys campaign in the UK. 86.153.216.204 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wonderbra as a featured article? Will wonders never cease? Sca 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If this article is an important part of the Canada portal, why is the article using US spelling, eh?
Varlaam (
talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a separate article listing the various worldwide advertising slogans and spokesmodels used. This information can be pared down and summarized in a short paragraph at the end of the "Worldwide reintroduction" section. I think these articles should be merged. I'm throwing the tag on both articles now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmccabe ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we compromise? Something like:
I'm just spitballing here. If this can be summarized more eloquently, feel free. Brendanmccabe ( talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Throw in Eva Herzegova and maybe Dita Von Teese as examples and I think you've got it nailed. Brendanmccabe ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have remerged this content with this article. Although it is a featured article, I can see no inherant reason that this content should be kept seperate or affect the FA designation. If this decision is in doubt, please revert, remove the merge tag from the Wonderbra Women article, and determine the validity of the content. If it is deemed unsuitable for this article, then it should be taken to AfD as it is likely not notable as a standalone article. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wonderbra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wonderbra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Reading through this there looks to be information about the Wonderbra that is unsourced, as well as the history stops at 2006. There had to have been some things happen in the last 14 years at least. It just looks incomplete to me. GamerPro64 21:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Wonderbra is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 28, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please put it back, or at least tell me her name!
This page is considered featured content, and today it is on the main page. Wikipedia is used by school children of all ages. In my opinion having this pornography of a woman wearing a Wonderbra on a featured page destroys Wikipedia's respect and prestige. This picture must be taken down. biblefreak123 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not particularly clear. It says in 1994 blah blah blah. But the Wonderbra had been around for a while, 1994 was only when it was introduced in the US. The article seems to suggest this was somesort of worldwide historic event but I don't see any evidence for that. Sure it may have had a big effect in the US but there is nothing in the article to demonstrate that the US introduction was in any way that significant worldwide. The original introduction in the UK (or was it Canada?) would surely better be called the "one of the most heralded episodes in underwear history.". The later introduction in the US was simply a continuation of the phenomena... Also the bit about the 1980's and 1990's seems a bit of out of place. It may have helped make the wonderbra more popular and may be even changed the design of the wonderbra but the wonderbra already existed... Nil Einne 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't direct copying from the Wonderbra site not allowed? *shrugs*
Michas pi 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Failed for the following reasons, consider fixing and resubmitting:
1. multiple external jumps, [1], need converted to standard web refs
2. The 1975 TV screen shot is tagged GFDL, but I find that hard to believe, it more likely should have the same tag as the 1974 screen shot.
3. double check other image tags
4. Refs should never have external jumps, see fn 22 and 23 for what not to do
5. Web refs should have retrieval dates
6. Wikilink dates in refs please
7. Brassiere should not be in See Also, it's wikilinked in the first sentence
8. Lead does not summarize the article
9. decades should not have a ' and can be wikilinked, your format is not even consistent
10. Only boldface the title once
12. Many terms can be wikilinked
13. give it a good copyedit
14. Don't use both & and "and", be consistent
15. There should be no space btwn punctuation and a footnote
16. This: "only 10.3 million women and girls older than 13." should not link to a web site, make it a footnote.
Sumoeagle179 00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this section has been mentioned to me in a couple of discussions, I thought I might offer a point of view on the external links to vintage Wonderbra commercials hosted on youtube (and I recognize this may be opening a can of worms). These links were brought up and discussed at length during the FAC process. SandyGeorgia and I also had a nice long discussion about it off stage on her talk page. For some members of the Wikipedia community, links to Youtube are frowned upon because they could be in violation of existing copyrights. This however is a controversial stance, as demonstrated by this extensive discussion on the topic. Out of curiosity, I had a media lawyer friend look into the the status of those commercials. They are probably public domain in the US due to the years when they were aired, that they were foreign (Canadian) and there was no copyright filing or notification at the time (see this example for Night of the Living Dead with technicalities on how parts of US copyright law worked in the past). At any rate, WP:EL guidelines only require us to avoid knowingly linking to a copyright violation. An expectation for anyone to proactively prove content on other sites is used with permission, fair use, or public domain goes beyond the guidelines. Given that these external links add a lot to the article, I would expect that anyone calling for the removal should demonstrate actual, rather than assumed copyvio. Mattnad 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
On topic, I've added some links for the infamous UK 'Hello Boys' campaign. Don't know where the information about outdoor models came from but it wan't in the source quoted, and besides, all anyone remembers about that campaign in the UK is Eva Herzigova looking at her boobs while men (apocryphally) crashed their cars ...
Off topic, do the other 'Greatest Canadian inventions' need mentioning? I only ask as including the telephone is to call down a shitstorm. OK, that's what the poll voted for, but that's not to say that it's correct. Alexander Graham Bell was a Scotsman who lived in Canada for a bit, but invented the telephone in the US, where he then took citizenship. So it's either a Scottish invention by dint of his nationality when he invented it, or an American one by dint of his location when he invented it and by his later assumed nationality/citizenship. The Canadian claim is highly dubious and having it in an FA is going to bring all sorts of crap your way. Better just to leave it out, eh, as it doesn't directly relate to the WOnderbra (which I didn't know was a Canadialand invention until reading the article just now..... 86.137.136.166 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section read oddly. The Wonderbra got going in the UK before in the US, and not included (until I just put it in) was the fact that the US campaign was based on the UK one. Logic and chronology therefore suggests that the UK campaign should be dealt with before the US one, so I've moved it. Also, that way the text isn't split UK - US - UK - US like it was before, which also read badly 86.137.136.166 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry all, but I strongly disagree that this article has reached FA standard. It is not amazingly written by any means —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.209.232.100 ( talk • contribs) 03:42, June 28, 2007 (UTC).
Is there a picture gallery of wonderbra ?. -- 193.145.201.52 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This article does not give a clear explanation of the mechanics of the push-up bra and ow it differs from an ordinary bra. It also conttains an apparent error when it says elastic products were rationed before the outbreak of the Second World War. Rationing was introduced because of the war, not before it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.10.238 ( talk • contribs)
Can someone get two pictures one of w woman with no bra in a top, with an ordinary bra in the same top, and one with a wonder bra in the the same top again? Wolfmankurd 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Congrats for making the front page, though the picture at the top was a bit too revealing. Exozero 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I was actually surprised by how few edits this article is getting. For such a well known topic, after almost 16 hours on the main page, it has than 140 edits. That's surprising. The only explanation I can come up with is that the article is sufficiently comprehensive that nobody really has anything to add. Raul654 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading the article, I was struck by how much it read like a MBA case study on marketing... then I discovered the references to Henry Mintzberg (the Godfather of the McGill University MBA) and then it all made sense...
Either way, from one MBA to another: well done! ;-) BroMonque 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this a reference to Moe Nadler? If so, it's quite unclear to introduce a nickname this way. Zaq 42 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two pictures of a penis: one flaccid and one erect. Please remove ASAP. -- Bdj95 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically I believe that's one picture containing two different views of the same penis. -- Cyde Weys 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Get that Thing off now!
You know, this isn't the least likely page I can think of that would get vandalized with sexual material. Brutannica 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
from earlier on toady - the section about the UK and US advertising programmes with Eva Herzigova and the Hello Boys campaign in the UK. 86.153.216.204 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Wonderbra as a featured article? Will wonders never cease? Sca 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If this article is an important part of the Canada portal, why is the article using US spelling, eh?
Varlaam (
talk) 01:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a separate article listing the various worldwide advertising slogans and spokesmodels used. This information can be pared down and summarized in a short paragraph at the end of the "Worldwide reintroduction" section. I think these articles should be merged. I'm throwing the tag on both articles now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmccabe ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we compromise? Something like:
I'm just spitballing here. If this can be summarized more eloquently, feel free. Brendanmccabe ( talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Throw in Eva Herzegova and maybe Dita Von Teese as examples and I think you've got it nailed. Brendanmccabe ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have remerged this content with this article. Although it is a featured article, I can see no inherant reason that this content should be kept seperate or affect the FA designation. If this decision is in doubt, please revert, remove the merge tag from the Wonderbra Women article, and determine the validity of the content. If it is deemed unsuitable for this article, then it should be taken to AfD as it is likely not notable as a standalone article. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wonderbra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wonderbra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Reading through this there looks to be information about the Wonderbra that is unsourced, as well as the history stops at 2006. There had to have been some things happen in the last 14 years at least. It just looks incomplete to me. GamerPro64 21:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)