Jump to content

Talk:Thong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Established page

[edit]

A few notes about this new page:

Differentiate

[edit]

There is a difference between a Thong and a G-string. That is why they should have seperate articles. Many other pieces of clothing are very similar and yet have separate pages. There are distinct differences, and this article makes those abundantly clear. If anything, the g-string article needs to be slimmed down a little bit. VigilancePrime 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The g-string is a sub set of a thong. Original thongs were held on with a strip of leather, (a thong), that is where the name comes from. Original leather thong used to hold up the cloth was often only the diameter of a modern leather boot lace, a mere string. The attempt to make out that a garment that has thinner string sides is a 'g-string' rather than a thong thong is silly. The word 'g-string' is an English language difrentation for a subset of thongs where part of the garment is a string rather than a wider strip of cloth. This is a distinction not made in most languages of the world. Most languages consider the artificial distinction irrelevant. JM

References

[edit]

If anything, this page is over-referenced. I would appreciate help in reorganizing the references, but please do not remove references, as that is a huge part of what makes this article so strong on its own. At the same time, feel free to add more. VigilancePrime 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the good and authoritative references that were here before, and the text in which they were used was extensively deleted, as were many of the useful links. For example the link to the vary large and informative 'Thong Wearers Message Board', a resource for and about people who chose to wear thong swimsuits. With about 10,000 members and around 4,000 threads on various thong related subjects it was a useful link. It, with other useful or authoritative links have been replaced with week sources to support peoples personal views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.239.202 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone of any authority in real or virtual world have anything to say about over-referencing anywhere? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Thongs

[edit]

One thing i noticed is that there is no entry for mens thongs. We all know that mens thongs do exist and guys wear them. So why not our own entry for that. If nobody objects, i'll put it there myself.Guy113 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous extensive entry for men's thongs but it was vandalized, as was much of the more authoritative work and links. JM

[edit]

There are a lot of different styles of Thongs, and many different styles of wear. For this reason (and after researching gallery policies on Wiki), it got put in. Perhaps some other photos could be added and some of the captions could likely be improved, but the gallery is vital to the article because there is such a wide variety of thong cuts and styles. VigilancePrime 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is so importanto to have such a big gallery with all styles of thong. There exists also a wide variety of forks, and if you really find that a gallery of all styles of an object is vital for an article, than there should be also one for the forks! It's widely believed that men like to see womens bottom, I think that's why there are so many photos, please remove some photos!! If you would like to see some, click here Momet 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the gallery might be a little large, that dosen't mean it has to be cut out. There are many types of thong underwear for both men and women, and it can't be bad to have a gallery that depicts all diffrent styles. Maybe somebody hasn't found enough pictures to make a gallery on forks.Guy113 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Answers

[edit]

Some of the references here are from Yahoo! Answers. I know that. In this particular article, these references are not meant to show a single expert opinion, evaluation, or content, but to illustrate a point. As an example, if a statement such as "some heated debate surrounds the wear of thongs by teenagers" is referenced by - among other things - a Yahoo! Answers thread that demonstrates this, it has served its point. Most of these are designed to be supporting and not stand-alone. It's not OR - original research - either as the research is on Yahoo! Answers and we are only linking to it as a demonstration of the content (as opposed to evaluating it on Wiki, which would be OR). VigilancePrime 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Wiki, Yahoo Answers is like the Oxford English Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69.112.186.195

[edit]

The following text, inserted by 69.112.186.195, isn't necessarily improper, but the first line needs a source and the second needs rewording and sourcing to remove POV sounding-ness of it. It's not bad information if it can be shown in an external reference.

"Victorias Secret sells the most common thong worn today, the VS Signature Cotton V-String (as pictured at the top)
"The VS Cotton collection is the highest selling thong collection at 5 for $25 with the popular PINK thongs at the same price right behind it!"

VigilancePrime 15:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, it is no worse than advertising that you have a '71 Mach 1 for sale in the Ford Mustang article. This is Wiki after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a pic of myself in my girlfriend's thong when my camera recharges and upload it for ya. That should remove the confusion, as you can see how pretty I look in it (it's really nice) and see how it would be the best seller--24.29.234.88 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede image

[edit]

{{reqphoto}} The opening photo for this article is a poor illustration of a thong because it is overly complicated. Of the dozens of images on this page, there is not a single one of thong womens underwear from the rear without pants on. This should be easy to get or create. H Bruthzoo 05:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps not the best depiction, the photo shows well and counteracts a concern that was on the g-string page, that being a photo that was too racy. In the original lead photo the thong-ness was plainly apparent but without being overly nude, for lack of a better way to explain it. The new photo isn't even a particularly good depiction as it is borderline thong anyway, as was indicated in its original caption. Will revert that until and unless a truly good lead photo can be found/produced and/or a (good) justificaiton is given for the change. (This new one, either way, doesn't cut it.) VigilancePrime 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note that your "new" lead image is just as busy... it is cropped on the sides about the same as the other image was framed within the image, while you had complained that the bra and dress interfered with the image before, this new one has a bikini top, lower back tattoo, arms and bracelets all convoluting it as well. I didn't revert it back because I agree with you that this article needs a much better photo. Perhaps a composite of the original female lead photo and male conclusion photo, which you also removed because you seem to "just not like it." PLEASE contribute some rationale into this discussion as we need to discuss and determine together where this article should go. VigilancePrime 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in an article about thongs, you would need to show both male and female pictures, so a male conclusion photo could work. Or you could just show both male and female thongs in the beginning of the article.Guy113 (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fashion don'ts don't belong"

[edit]
I don't understand what you mean by this, and also many edits are odd. Why did "modern western" get changed to "modwern estern" in a paragraph by itself (no other changes in paragraph)? Why cut out references in the news? A huge number of WikiArticles give "in the news" examples. The overall chopping of the article made little sense. The lead image now shows swimwear that is even arguably not a thong at all, but could be (hard to tell in the photo) more along the lines of a rio or tanga with the back bunched in to the center (hence the original caption indicating that it was ambiguous). The whole point of the gallery was to illustrate the options, styles, usages, and reasons for use, which it did. Without something more substantial than "Fashion don'ts don't belong", I'm reverting the page to as it was. I agree that the page needs work, but this last edit went far beyond improving the article and went into (albeit in good faith, I think/hope) undeliberate hacking. A better explanation of edits would prove much more helpful. Thanks! VigilancePrime 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H Bruthzoo,
Continued edits mark some improvements, but a LOT of the changes are POV, a couple obviously so. The simple reference to "fashion don'ts" is a POV itself. The line I really don't understand is this one: "Delete. Each link is either dead, overtly commercial, or nonspecific." None of the links are dead, only one is commercial at all (and not without precedent on Wiki), and they are very specific in what they are and the descriptions given on the page. The only reason I can think that you delete them (since none of the reasons you gave hold weight) is that you personally don't like them. I don't understand that.
Then again, a couple of the headings need minor clean-up; nothing major, and mistakes that I once would make as well, and overall I like the slimmed-down headings.
Cutting out rows of gallery images, though, makes no sense as they show exactly what the gallery is meant to show. Also, in cutting out the text lead for the gallery, it moves the gallery out of policy compliance for galleries; there must be some sort of preceeding rationale for having a gallery. Again, this change didn't make any sense.
The lead photo still isn't great. There honestly isn't a good one available (go take one?) so we do what we can. I'll keep working on that issue because, when you put in the rationale against the original one, I tend to agree. Granted, I think the caption illustrated the point of it, that is, modeling the thong, I think that you are right inasmuch as a better image could be found.
And better explanation of changes would have been comments on the talk page, not a quick series of edits like you did. The ultimate effect was the same, but far more difficult to analyze and understand. Feel free to drop in here and discuss changes - especially before making major ones - anytime you feel changes needed! Finally, I hope we can count on you to ADD to the article as well rather than only for deletions! VigilancePrime 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


VPL

[edit]

If a 4 photo gallery of visible panty lines is truly necessary, it should be migrated to the already exhaustive article on that subject . This is already far too bulky for so brief a topic (pun intended). H Bruthzoo 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Wiki gives a size warning while editing, we can consider it to be "bulky." Right now it is thorough. Of course, that's before you enter in a scalpel out large sections that you personally dislike. A lot of your modifications are helpful, but they tend to be surrounded by personally-motivated changes and removals that don't make any sense other than that you just don't like the parts. That's what I see, be it accurate or not. I'm grasping to understand it better than that. VigilancePrime 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brief topic... cute. I missed the pun the first time...
I can see the gallery slimming some. The intent in originally being so thorough was to illustrate the very wide manners of wear out there, and also to create an exceptionally thorough, perhaps exhaustive, article. That's also why there tends to be one reference noted per sentence in much of it. In too many articles there are few direct references, so I intentionally referenced everything I could, multiple times when I could.
I would like to see this continue to expand. More research, more references, and keeping it very up-to-date. Better photos would be good also, and the original format (with a pro-ish lead and close photo) would be asthetically beneficial. It's designed carefully; I worked on it for weeks before actually bring it all online in the article space... formatting, research-adding, referencing, etc.
Anyway, HB, I would absolutely like to see your continued work on the article, but in additions especially. Any time I've undone an edit of yours, I have tried to incorporate them, especially (as a prime example) with the headings. Please don't think I'm not grateful for the attention and work on the article; I am. I also hope for additions and elaborations rather than subtractions more often than otherwise, ya know?
But "brief a topic" ... that was good.  ;-)
VigilancePrime 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

How can we add a section that goes into law and legal issues? There are a few references to them spattered here and there, but no dedicated section. This is, as the article grows, seemingly to become a larger and larger aspect of thongs. Construction ideas anyone? VigilancePrime 06:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Awesome gallery, guys. Hell yeah! 72.188.208.178 04:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a Google Images search for "thong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", or something; Wikipedia is not 4chan, Photobucket, Flickr, or any other image board. The gallery is completely unnecessary. 64.247.126.122 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for the gallery has already been established and it meets the Wikipedia guidelines for a gallery. (Make sure to log in too when you discuss so you don't show up as an IP-only user!)  :-) VigilancePrime 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, spare me with your Wiki-talk. Everyone knows the real reason such a gallery exists in this article: Horny people love staring at butts. The source where a large portion of the photos originate from have guys highlighting the ass cracks of these girls and making lewd comments such as "My favorite spot! Yum!" Other articles, which had smaller galleries of about eight images had their galleries removed with the reason: Too many images. If Wikipedia was actually consistent, why would it allow this article about thongs to hold a gallery with THIRTY-ONE images? "Shut up troll/vandal/Hitler! The reason for the gallery is to show the different styles and varieties of thongs." Then explain why the gallery is redundant? There are repeating styles and varieties scattered throughout, and some even side by side. There are many styles of pants, one of which is a pair of jeans, and there are also many styles of jeans. However, you do not see an unexplainably large gallery in either the pants or jeans articles. (If only jeans showed off some bare ass...) This goes even further. Many articles out there are given less attention to images and galleries, yet they have greater merit to hold a gallery that displays the subject's variety of styles, even more so than thong. The article describes in vivid detail what a thong is, alongside a handful of images inside the body of the article itself: Christ, we're talking about anal-floss here. Is it really that significant? Perhaps in a pervert's mind, it is. The sad fact is that articles on Wikipedia are claimed and owned by self-appointed editors. In this case, you own the Thong (clothing) article. In a sense, it is your baby. You take care of it. You watch over it, like a parent caring for its young. In a battle of persistence and stubborness, you will always win, because you are committed to this article more than anyone else wants to be. No one really cares enough to make sure an article remains encyclopedic, because article claimers, like yourself, will fight with all your energy to keep an article to your liking. Most reasonable people who could turn Wikipedia into a professional and reputable source of information have actual lives. They don't have the time to dive into petty back-and-forth fights with stubborn editors who refuse to compromise. So, my good man, wallow in your victory. Bare asses en masse prevail. You've won. Isn't that awesome? 70.121.162.197 (contributions) 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you bothered to, say, register, browse pages, or do any semblance of research, you'd probably take a look at my userpage and see that I've distanced myself from this page. At this point, I'm only replying to idiotic comments like yours or genuine inquiries, such as the one that follows (also from you... see, you can do it). But I'm sure you feel better ranting. Knock yourself out and have fun with that. Of course, you could Be Bold in a constructive way (which I haven't seen yet) and create those missing galleries if you wanted. You sould improve pages instead of whining about users. But hey, that would require work, thought, effort, and intellect of some sort. I would encourage you to look into pages where you can help instead of bashing other users. At least register on Wiki before you start bashing others who do work to improve vast arrays of articles.
(And me... I don't have a vast array! I'm just a humble, minor editor. I fight vandalism the old-fashioned way, I don't run bots, and my watchlist is probably less than 70 pages, with most of those stubs or redirects to other pages, each of my user pages, and a bunch of images. I sit down once or twice a day to look at recent changes, revert vandalism, add when inspired, and otherwise help where I can. I just type fast.)
(Oh yeah, this article isn't to my liking... It's been dramatically changed since I wrote it. It's been hacked, reformatted, and lots of stuff. Just wanted to make that apparent that your comment of keeping an article to one's liking absolutely does not apply here... and I've otherwise made that clearly known. Oh yeah, that would require you to have read about the article before spouting off at the fingers.) VigilancePrime 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, VigilancePrime, you claim that "Rationale for the gallery has already been established and it meets the Wikipedia guidelines for a gallery." I invite you to point me to this discussion. 70.121.162.197 (contributions) 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(from above) "There are a lot of different styles of Thongs, and many different styles of wear. For this reason (and after researching gallery policies on Wiki), it got put in. Perhaps some other photos could be added and some of the captions could likely be improved, but the gallery is vital to the article because there is such a wide variety of thong cuts and styles. VigilancePrime 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"
(from gallery guidelines) See the entire list. A sumary: 1. titled "Gallery", 2. needs more links, but what page doesn't? 3. Introduction is given. 4. These are not orphaned images and they all apply to the article. 5. Every image has a caption. 6. Few or none of these are poor image uality and none are mine. 7. This is not an excessively large gallery and its placement does not dicrupt the total page. 8. Does not apply as this is not a gallery page but a gallery on a mainspace page.
Any more questions? VigilancePrime 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said point me to the discussion, not a single person's interpretation. Ironically, the only person to even reply to your rationale for keeping such a large gallery (which you encourage other users to add more photos to) disagrees with your reasoning. Oops... 70.121.162.197 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There are a lot of different styles of Thongs, and many different styles of wear. For this reason (and after researching gallery policies on Wiki), it got put in. <--- You didn't bother to read my initial post, did you? Quote, "Then explain why the gallery is redundant? There are repeating styles and varieties scattered throughout, and some even side by side. There are many styles of pants, one of which is a pair of jeans, and there are also many styles of jeans. However, you do not see an unexplainably large gallery in either the pants or jeans articles. (If only jeans showed off some bare ass...) This goes even further. Many articles out there are given less attention to images and galleries, yet they have greater merit to hold a gallery that displays the subject's variety of styles, even more so than thong. The article describes in vivid detail what a thong is, alongside a handful of images inside the body of the article itself." End quote. 70.121.162.197 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and would also argue that this gallery does in fact fall under the category of "excessively large". You state that the gallery is "necessary" to illustrate the wide array of styles of thongs and thong wear, but is this truly the case? Rather than completely, purposefully misinterpreting my argument earlier (see below), you should instead listen to what I'm really saying: the precedent exists widely that a large image gallery is not necessary to show different styles of a thing, and therefore this gallery should be either trimmed down or removed. Rintaun 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rintaun, your original edits were a hair's distance from disruptive vandalism, so you can imagine that your credibility took a hit. Now with more rationale comment, I'm far more inclined to accept your tpying as legitimate discussion. Much better; thank you.
IP, if you think you have better ideas that are more effective, (register) and go for it.
Remember, Wiki (unfortunately) does not respect precedent, as I have oft been reminded (the "other stuff exists" paragigm). You can say "other pages do or do not" but the Wiki policies as they have always been quoted to me say that doesn't matter. Now, granted, I do respect precedent, but also realize that precedent had to be set at some point; perhaps we are doing that.
For all the typing and effort put into attacking me personally instead of the article, one might think that you two would be able to research, edit, improve, and upgrade. Is that too much to ask, or are you too hell-bent on focusing this on me instead of the article?
If you have more hate-mail or accusations for me, please take it to my user page. I'll be re-removing this from my watchlist. I let it drop awhile back, as I have mentioned, and have done little more than vandalism-protection to the main page since.
Have a great day, BTW. VigilancePrime 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will do well to note that I myself made no attacks or accusations against your person. I do admit that my original post was inappropriate, and I have already apologized for that. I am not attacking your person, but rather your argument, in the spirit of good intellectualism. Rintaun 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll be re-removing this from my watchlist." It's obvious that you didn't. 70.121.162.197 14:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a rationale for the existence of a gallery. Nevertheless, what we're missing is the criteria what we want into the gallery. Currently it's a random collection of what you can find from the available images. This is not well thought out. Every image increases the page load time and increases inconvenience, and also gives a haphazard, indiscriminate impression. I don't have a problem with 'explicit images', but there is a problem when there are no standards. To start, what is essential to show to illustrate what is mentioned in the article text:
  1. regular thong as underwear.
  2. regular thong as swimwear, highlight the difference (designers try to show that the garment is intended as outerwear, that is, it shouldn't look like someone left underpants on on the beach).
  3. g-string, to illustrate why it's different.
  4. v-string, same.
  5. non-bikini swim suit with thong back, another style.
  6. visible panty line, mentioned in the article.
  7. visible panty line with thong, to compare with previous.
  8. whale tail, again because this fashion is mentioned in the article.
  9. the infamous children's thongs (relevant to the text).
Pictures other than these should be unlinked. (Feel free to reply and suggest other images and good reasons to keep them.) As the Internet is not censored, the Internet is practically so full of free porn that there is no challenge in finding pictures of women in thongs, if one wishes to see them. Because of this, Wikipedia simply cannot compete with other sites for showing women in thongs, and that's why it should not try. Wikipedia is increasingly being used as a standard reference, and there is an important implication to this: people who may not know what a 'thong' is may visit the site because of a genuine lack of information. There is nothing bad about people's bottoms; there is a lot of 'bad' when they're shoved into your face as in the article now. --Vuo 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't disagree that it is somewhat disorganized, I'm not sure I really buy the load time rationale for trimming it. I have longer waits for many all-text pages (the really long ones) than for this page, which loads almost instantly. Now GRANTED, I am on Cable. Originally the gallery was somewhat organized, with each row being related (a female row, male row, VPL row, and a row with groups). It was at least a start. Perhaps that could be better indicated in text? I don't know how to do that, but I do agree that better organization would be better, but not a reduction in the number of images (rather the contrary, I think). After all, loading thumbnail images takes a minimal/negligable amount of time. As for the "infamous children's thongs," that is impossible because one admin unilaterally decided that the images should be deleted - contrary to consensus and policy explanations - and instead demands that "we" should FIND one of these items (virtually impossible) and then take pictures of a kid wearing them (yes, that was discussed in the image deletion discussion, and the image was deleted because of that reasoning, as best anyone can tell). VigilancePrime 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reply with a long, thought out argument which cited many examples of pages which have "need" of galleries because of the vast range of styles and forms, but rather do not, because it is entirely unnecessary for anything other than plain old voyeurism. However, since I have now, unfortunately, searched Wikipedia for examples to support my argument, I've become disillusioned and believe that Wikipedia is irretrievably tainted. Rintaun 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my previous post to remove the "intentional mis-linking". Instead, for reference to those pages which I sampled to base my argument above, please see also:
Please note that this is not vandalism, it is a list of pages from a sampling of wikipedia articles which is necessary to show the many various styles of pages which contributed to my thoughts above. The original post was not meant as vandalism, and I apologize that it was taken that way. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, while not a guideline or policy, does advise me that the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules means that I do not need to learn the rules before editing. I apologize for my lack of knowledge, and thank you for steering me in the right direction. I'll stay away from intentional mis-linking in the future. Rintaun 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disillusioned; instead, get photos going and Be Bold in editing and create galleries for those other pages! More information is almost always better than less information, as long as it is formatted correctly (and the whole point of the gallery function is to allow for additional images without skewing the formatting of the article main). I understand the original bit and appreciate your comments and your efforts to re-state them. Not a big deal and already fixed and forgotten. :-) VigilancePrime 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I think you're missing the point. Yusef Masushef 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't realize that my point is in deliberately bypassing his point. One can look at it in the manner of "these others don't have galleries and that proves this doesn't need one" or instead one can see "these others don't have one like this one and that proves that they need more work and expansion." Same thing, different perspective. (Geez, I sound like Obi-Wan... "from a certain point of view...") VigilancePrime 03:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're still missing the point... Yusef Masushef 11:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gallery is much too large. There are a couple of kinds of thongs that are worth illustrating, but this article goes overboard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ruin your fun, VigilancePrime, but as you can see, I've found a way to meet your criteria while keeping the porn off at the same time. You lose this round, unless you can use your Wiki-jargon to explain why we actually need to see people's asses. Wikipedia is for people to learn from, not for teenagers to masturbate to. 1337m4n 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everbody so upset about a bunch of ladies in thongs? Isn't that what the article is about?Guy113 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Hello. I have tagged this article with {{cleanup}}. After looking the article over, and making a few changes, I decided that cleaning the article up was more than I could do in one sitting. The main issues I have noticed have been:

  • There seems to be a fair amount of original research here.
  • The citations don't always back up the assertions they presented to support.
  • The citations have been done in a non-standard manner, not using WP:CITET.

If anyone would be so kind as to help in these areas, it would be greatly appreciated.-Seidenstud 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tanga (clothing)

[edit]

I'm not sure if I agree with Chameleon's decision to summarily erase the content of this entry and redirect to "main article" (sic) for being a "dictionary definition." First of all, it's not obvious that "thong" is the correct main article. The previous article gave three possible meanings for "tanga": a thong, a loincloth or a string bikini. Second, there was a bit of encyclopedic info there, regarding timeline, description of the loincloth, etc. MCBastos 15:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any such info, if it is valuable, can go into the English article on thongs/G-strings. We already have two words for the item; we don't need another. "Tanga" is a foreign language dictionary definition. In the English article, it is already mentioned that thongs came from native loincloths, and that they can now be worn as underwear or swimwear. The only special contribution this article could supply is the etymology of this Spanish word, which is useless because we don't say it in English. Foreign terms need only be used in an English encyclopaedia if they refer to something for which there is no English word, e.g. Horchata, but not Tanga. We may as well have articles on Braguitas, Pantalones, Calcetines, Zapatos... — Chameleon My page/My talk 15:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In this case (if "tanga" is not used in English), wouldn't it make more sense to remove the entry totally? This would also reduce some possible confusion as to ethymology, since "thong" comes from Middle English and "tanga" apparently comes from Tupi-Guarani.(By the way, I seem to remember seeing "zapatos" used in English to refer to a specific kind of footwear, apparently a kind of sandals...)MCBastos 15:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I thought about listing the page on Votes for Deletion, but then decided that that page is clogged-up enough as it is and that Tanga would be a harmless redirect. It's not inconceivable that someone, some day, might somehow come across the word and look it up on Wikipedia. The redirect will then be vaguely useful. It also discourages people from recreating the Tanga article by making it more difficult (one extra click).
As for confusion over etymology, there is no problem. We already use redirects to point to words with different etymology. There is no implication in "redirected from X" that the words share etymology. — Chameleon My page/My talk 15:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Incidently the OED not only has a definition that differentiates it from "thong", but lists uses in English from 1912 up to 1976, many using it as an ordinary word. (It also mentions "tanga" as a unit of money which I should have remembered, I have stamps denominated in tangas.) When in doubt, consult the authorities! Stan 17:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and "braguitas" is not in the OED, so apparently it hasn't migrated into English yet. Stan 17:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I've just found it on www.askoxford.com. It claims it's used in Britain. Perhaps one or two people do still, so I'm glad it redirects to the article on G-strings. If anything informative can be said about the word tanga, it can be put in the main article. — Chameleon My page/My talk 17:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nice to know that. Only... from the OED definition (briefs composed of small panels -- note plural, thongs only have one panel -- connected by string on the sides), we come back to my original argument: that "tanga" does not mean the same as "thong," so it should not redirect to "thong," but possibly to "bikini", or maybe "loincloth."MCBastos 22:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is useless without pictures.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.236.68 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tanga is not a word in common use for this garment. While thousands of them are sold in shops I have never ever seen one being sold as a Tanga, and if you were to approach a clerk and ask for a tanga they would probably give you a blank look. Seems to me that this foreign word is being introduced by someone with who has their linguistic nickers in a twist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.239.202 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo discussions

[edit]

I guess, this inordinate number of multiple citations of this extremely unreliable source needs to be moved out of the article immediately. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

men's thongs

[edit]

Why no pictures of men's thongs? I find that highly discriminatory towards men when it clearly needs to be displayed to reinforce the statement that men do where thongs. Of course unless you want to make wikipedia into some sort of porn site where there are only women in thongs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.48.183 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the history and discussion, there has been too much pressure to stuff the article with images. There was even a gallery earlier. The Commons link is there for that purpose. Two images are enough. --Vuo (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as of now, ther is only one image. What happened? and i sort of agree with him, there can't be too much harm in including one picture of mens thongs. What, are you guys ashamed that there are men out there who wear thongs?G1 JOE113 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find a decent one with permission I'll add it, there used to be one, but I see sexism had it removed, you'll see a lot of that on Wikipedia in regard to articles somehow deemed sexual. 98.209.192.125 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history the wiki was once more evenly gender balanced and their was extensive section on men's thongs, but it was extensively deleted and vandalized by people who think thongs are only 'nice' when worn by women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.239.202 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deffinetly think maybe one more image should be added to the men's thongs section, and the section should be worked on, its very small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.245.190 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many citations needed in man's thongs section

[edit]

Insert non-formatted text here

Picture

[edit]
Woman's thong swimwear.
from commons

This picture currently on the page actually shows a G-string. There was a picture of thong underwear earlier, but it has disappeared. There is also a picture with both G-strings and thongs. Should this replace it? Pictures with actual thongs can be found from the Commons, but they're worn by men and IMHO not of professional quality [1] [2]. --Vuo (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that the lead picture is technically a g string. i think that you should use the one on the bottom, of both thong and a g string, and have it say in the caption "thong on the right, g string on left", or you could just re-upload it with the g string cropped out. and perhaps we should include just one picture of men's thongsG1 JOE113 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thong versus G-string

[edit]

I see a bit of confusion on the difference between a thong and a G-string, which is more manifest in the area of their classification. I believe a thong is a panty-front and a G-string is a skimpy from of thong. But, apparently it may not be that simple. Therefore I started a discussion thread at WikiProject Fashion. Please, take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cheeky (undergarment)

[edit]

The Cheeky (undergarment) article does not present enough information to stand on its own. As a cheeky is simply a thong that covers a little more area, it seems reasonable to merge Cheeky (undergarment) into this article.

Neelix (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image policy still missing

[edit]

Hi all, we're still having constantly changing images in the article. There seems to be no criteria, people just add their favorite (or self-made) images unilaterally. This contributes to the article being unstable. What are the criteria? I'm not an admin or acting in any sort of an official capacity, but here are some ideas:

  • Keep the images at minimum. The subject doesn't really require a large amount of images. There's the Commons link.
  • G-strings have their own article, G-string. There's a good image also there. The Commons image that differentiates between the two is there to minimize the confusion.
  • A problem with the current version is that two of the images are actually that of G-strings. Thongs are used as underwear, as lingerie and as a swimsuit. These are the valid, and I might even opine, necessary subjects of the images for the article.
  • The image should show what the article is talking about. No "because it looks good there" images. No deleting images to censor the article. Keep only those images that synergistically add to the main body of text.
  • Only technically good images. Excluding subject in the shadow, poor color clarity, low resolution, bad camera flash, obviously amateurish, etc.
  • Technically good images of men's thongs are still missing.
  • Please also note that the unilateral actions taken by the undersigned are not directed against any specific contributor. I believe that a consensus can be reached on the policy, and consistently enforced.

--Vuo (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely endorse to the view put forward here. We just can't keep changing images indefinitely. But, I have reservations, too. G-strings are just a kind of thong, and a thong can be worn, depending on the design, either as a underwear or a swimwear. I have put together some stuff on that in the article. But, nobody has taken an interest in developing that part (I wonder why - a lack of academic interest or a dependence on hearsay or, may be, something else). I don't think it will be very wise to judge images on the basis of unfounded assumptions. Your attempt to build a consensus has encouraged me to discuss this. Would you take it forward now? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

None of the external links appeared to meet the guideline for external links - I have moved them here for discussion to gain consensus on which, if any, meet the criteria and should be returned. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

The relevant information out of these links could incorporated into the body of the article, making use of the links as sources, using appropriate format, of course. All of these contain useful information, though that doesn't necessarily warrant an existence in the external link section. Say what? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-string

[edit]

This article discusses something called a "C-string". This is (so far as I know) a very unusual garment, one that most readers are unlikely to have ever seen before. Not only that, but it's rather hard to imagine it exactly based only on a description. An editor has twice removed the image, saying " please, leave out that ugly and hardly encyclopedic picture, it's serving no purpose at all". Whether it's ugly or not is irrelevant. As for being encyclopedic, I believe it is because it is informative. If that is his main argument I'd ask "in what way are the other images more encyclopedic?" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a drawing of a C-string already on the table of thongs, which should suffice. Extreme variations of something are material of a Sunday tabloid, not an encyclopedia, which mostly deal in more regular stuff. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are drawing of regular thongs too, so that's not a reason to include some pictures but not others. The idea that Wikipedia doesn't cover "extreme variations" isn't borne out by evidence. WP has entire articles on many highly unusual topics. I don't know which of these pictures I'd expect to see in an "Sunday tabloid", but can you please point to a policy or guideline that explains why one of these pictures is unacceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is ugly - bad lighting, at an angle, etc. I'm not sure we need an actual picture to illustrate every variety, especially those with so little notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lighting is bad, and the angle is necessary to show the thing. The color balance is off, but we can fix that. Is there any harm in including the picture? (For the record, I'm not sure why this is covered here rather than in G-string, though it may be because it is included in the table.) I notice that the picture of a man wearing a thing has been deleted too, so I'm wondering why pictures are being deleted from this article. If the diagram is sufficient do we need any pictures? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some pictures may be necessary, because even a thong isn't an universally familiar object. But that doesn't necessarily include extreme varieties, not now, not yet. When there's ample encyclopedic necessity borne out of the text material, consider adding back that ugly picture. Currently it's serving no purpose.
I don't understand. Some pictures are necessary because readers could be unfamiliar with a garment that's unusual. But another picture should not be included becasue the garment is too unusual. Is that right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly do you think that ungainly image of hardly notable thingy should be incorporated? We haven't sorted out the rest of the images yet, but that can absolutely be no reason. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a very descriptive image of something pertaining to the article, a written description of which would not easily explain the way that it is shaped, and the drawing of which doesn't quite show how it is attached and stays on. This image does suit those needs. The lighting is perfectly fine. All details are visible; the lighting has therefore achieved its goal. Your original comment about Sunday tabloids leads me to believe that your prime motivation may be that it is vulgar and/or indecent. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not censored. -Seidenstud (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia were censored, this article wouldn't exist. I'll look into getting a better photo of one. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, dear Seidenstud, do not assume things about others that just aren't true. Take a look at Bikini waxing, if you really want to have suspicions about me, based on parts of a single comment. If you really think the C-string is that important, why not try and improve the text also, instead of fighting over just an image? My research (though far from complete) tells me the C-string itself is barely notable, not worthy enough to fight over at all. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you share your research? If it's not worth mentioning then maybe we should delete the text and the photo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image on Flickr, which IMO is better. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a nicer pic, but I think it's much more informative to show the item being worn. It is the way in which it is worn that makes a C-string interesting, and notable. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagefarm again

[edit]

The current revision [3] of the article is again an imagefarm. There are two pictures of a T-back, the first image has been replaced with a T-back G-string instead of the more helpful picture that includes both a thong and a G-string, there are four images of a G-string, and two of regular thongs. Again, I think that the article should contain one of each at maximum. There is already a link to the gallery, it's not necessary to make the article itself into one. It cannot remain stable. --Vuo (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That more helpful image had wrong depiction of both a thong and a g-string, and it clearly went against dozens of sources that tells that a g-string and a thong are overlapping concepts. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong. Both are thongs, but only the g-string is a g-string. --Vuo (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, what is not a thong is not a thong. Right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health concerns

[edit]

None of the information under "Health concerns" has a valid reference. The one reference there was is now an domain placeholder. Dreammaker182 (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can see two inline cites, and both leads to very reliable sources. And, these two cover all the information there is. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least currently it seems to be only quoting a forum (and not a legitimate one) in additional to not being written well. Some clean up needed, perhaps? 26 April 2011
Fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 606A3F (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture: V-String vs G-String

[edit]

What is called a V-String in this article is called a G-String in the G-Strin article....they use the same picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.47.24 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banners

[edit]

Thanks Toddst1. I am sure you understand that none of the banners are insults/punishments/rebuke or any such thing. all of them are appeals for help and participation, and all has a call to explain on the tag page. In fact, at Wikipedia, this excessive and redundant tagging is sometimes called tag bombing, and, as it stands against the spirit of the banners, can be seen as disruptive editing. I have not removed a single banner whose essential message isn't already there in another banners. Moreover, it's not my article, and whatever improvement I can do, you can do too. Taking this as a misunderstanding, I am cutting down on the disruptive amount of redundant banners once again. But, that action is definitely up for discussion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

112.118.170.107 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) additional meaning: flip-flops

[edit]

In Australia, thongs can also be referred as flip-flops. This information should be included.

Go ahead. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thong 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Thong 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thong 2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thong 3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Thong 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thong 3.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delicious bikini-girl silvia (cropped).jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Delicious bikini-girl silvia (cropped).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Delicious bikini-girl silvia (cropped).jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake picture warning

[edit]

File:Sling_Microkini.jpg has to be removed from the article, as it ist a faked graphic work on the picture of an originally nude woman. Just look close and compare with File:6644-2Ab-orb.jpg by the same uploader. --Trofobi (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tanga (clothing)

[edit]

This article should be merged with "Tanga (clothing)". 77.114.88.237 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. The article Tanga (clothing) even explains why. --vuo (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Thong (clothing) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.cityofmyrtlebeach.com/misclaws.html
    Triggered by [a-z]myrtlebeach.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thong (clothing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

[edit]

There is a factual accuracy banner on top of the article, but there is no discussion. There are a couple of in-line tags for sources, but for the rest of the article I see a number of sources used. Maybe the big banner is not needed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's still been no discussion regarding this - and there are 40+ references to support the article in its current state. I'm removing the template. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (free the website from pornography) --Baddu676 10:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddu676 (talk • contribs)

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The reason given for speedy deletion is "free from pornography". This reason is not included in WP:CSD and is not in accord with WP:NOTCENSORED) --Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maebari

[edit]

I removed the section about "maebari", because the referenced links never mention "maebari" and the referenced part reads much like an ad for a certain designer's clothes.The unreferenced section is also wrong: Maebari in Japan is not a type of underwear, and it is worn by performers to hide their genitals when they do nude scenes, as the article of Branded to Kill explains. Furthermore, it is not a type of women's thongs, and worn by both men and women. I also doubt that "maebari" can be classified as a type of thong, for it means "what is attached to the front" in Japanese, and as the meaning of the word suggests, "maebari" refers to anything covering the wearer's genital area. If we classify "maebari" as a type of thong, we will need proper references. --saebou (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man wearing a thong as main/lede image

[edit]

Thongs are predominately worn by women, thus it's inappropriate to have one worn by a man as the first image seen on the page.

This survey shows that only 9% of men in the US (in 2017) have eever worn a thong - that's pretty damning, even for a statistic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the Tanga (clothing) article into this article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please consider the possibility of merging Tanga (clothing) here? That article is too short to stand on its own, and it has a very small chance of growth. 172.56.30.99 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to be raising any objections to this proposal. I can perform the merge myself if no-one else wants to do it, but as I've given my opinion on it I'd prefer it if a third party were to close the discussion. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 November 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed, per consensus. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Far and away the primary topic by pageviews and importance. Nothing else comes close. The disambiguation should not be in the main namespace. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Engvar usage

[edit]

I know that the two templates discussed are different, but the one infers usage of the other. If we specify date format to be dd-mm-yy, which is the UK variant, it is also logical to follow that the inherent text in the article will also follow the UK Engvar. It also follows thus that if there is no DMY preference then there is no preferred language usage, and whichever has dominance comes first. But in instances when people have taken the time and effort to specify a geographical date preference, that geographical preference should also apply to the article.

To that end I've added an Engvar template to the article, based on the DMY prefernce, and the source of the name - The origin of the word thong in the English language is from Old English þwong, a flexible leather cord.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Merriam-Webster online dictionary". M-w.com. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  • @Chaheel Riens: For the record, I have no quarrel with that, but rather was trying to go with the state of the article and the fact the "English variation" template was not present. But now that you say this, I wonder if this may be consistent across the oars with English variations and date formats, and wonder if there may be a proposal somewhere to merge the templates... Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed in July 2021 with the conclusion: Keep. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Thong(clothing)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thong(clothing) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Thong(clothing) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image caption edit war

[edit]

@Maya765

If you would like to discuss the recent edits you have made which have been reverted several times, please use this talk page to build consensus instead of redoing them. Yutah123 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that you are assisting people with "low level English". No matter how poor their language they can see exactly what the image shows without being told.Moons of Io (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, perhaps @Maya765 could do such detailed descriptions about that of any other image in their Wikimedia Commons respective file page. There, people can be as detailed as they wish. I’m always against censorship in Wikipedia but in this case it is more about common sense in a caption. After all, an image speaks for itself and captions are necessary just to establish a place, material, person, creator, etc. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems to only edit image captions of articles relating to sexual topics, such as this edit to Fingering. CanonNi (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thong&oldid=1234231201"