Talk:Bodystocking

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Image removed

I have removed the bodystocking image as it is large and appears to exist more for the sake of turning on the editor rather than illustration. The garment pictured is hardly suited for cold weather. Stargate70 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few bodystockings are 'suited for cold weather'. Norvo (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini dress?

I have started discussion over at the Miniskirt talk page. Please discuss there before re-adding contested info. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? I fail to see what you are trying to convey. I'll try to assume given that you have started this talk that you believe you have a legitimate reason for the deletions though you have yet to state it.

Where there may be confusion about terminology, particularly in that a given term may be used in more than one way, it is entirely appropriate to provide disambiguation of the term. In particular it is often appropriate to do this in the lead and there is typically no reason to repeat this in the rest of the article, unless there is some more detailed discussion that is appropriate. You have not offered any explanation as to why you feel this situation is especially unique and why such clarification needs to be hidden. I even added extra references as a courtesy.

To put it more bluntly, this was a simple, non-controversial edit. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You have left the remaining text in a confusing state. You could at least clean up your mess. -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial, because it has been challenged. You have yet to provide reliable sources that the term "mini dress" is a valid - and commonly used - description for a bodystocking. Of the two sources you provided one was a scan of a 166 page catalogue - TLDR - and the other is unverifiable.

My reasons for removal are clear and simple, and I have to assume you're deliberately pretending not to understand - "mini dress" is not another commonly used name for a bodystocking. You have yet to show that it is. Until that happens, it doesn't belong in either article. Just because you call a bodystocking a mini dress does not make it a common description. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images on this page (including thumbnail) seem to be a lot less diverse then the history of bodystockings

The history heading talks about bodystockings being used to cover (i.e. be opaque), not to be seethrough. The only images on this page (including the thumbnail image) are from a single source and all the same bodystocking. There is a severe lack of diversity and focus on historical use in the images on this page. Four images of the same model and photographer seem more like self promotion than have an encyclopedic purpose. Wallby (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state of this page when I offered a replacement for the removed image of a fishnet bodystocking in public: [1] I have to assume your are either inexperienced with looking through a pages history or lying on purpose. I tolerated the later before. Considered it a waste of my time. As the lie would be obvious for an experienced user. Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]