Talk:Whale tail

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whale tail article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Whale tail has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept
February 23, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

The whale picture

It's not clear if the picture of a whale at sea was added as a joke or to illustrate the shape for comparative purposes. If it's the latter, then a better picture is needed. In this one, the tail is dark against a dark background and doesn't stand out clearly. Rodparkes 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until a better image can be sourced, the one we have will probably do. It does serve as a good comparative illustration. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does this term define the rear spoiler of a car or a visible thong? Why do we need that picture to illustrate this? What is the significance of this word and where are the sources that say it's used how this article claims it is? This one's on life support and if it doesn't improve rapidly I'll nominate for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used to mean both, as the sources verify. Sure the article is a stub, but it does have sources which is a lot more than many articles that have survived AfD. While we don't NEED the picture, it is USEFUL to illustrate the first definition. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which term is this article about? Is there a documented source that says this is actually a commonly used word and this article isn't trying to promote the spread of a protologism? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cam we please get a less discusting picture......please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.80.180 (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice that the thong in the picture is misworn, as in her waist is through a leg hole? Just curious. Hooya27 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cleavage (anatomy)

This term is not notable on its own and will likely fail another AfD. It should be merged into Cleavage (anatomy) if this information is to be retained. If there's no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise I'll file another AfD. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Winner of the American Dialect Society's Most Creative Word of the Year and other sources establish notability. I look forward to the much-threatened AfD. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Dialect Society isn't a notable organization and the award means next to nothing in terms of notability. I'm trying to avoid process here and I would really appreciate some flexibility that doesn't involve you opposing this merger in all its forms. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term was given their "most creative" award, not Word of the Year. So it's notability here is in great doubt. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found 48 references to the American Dialect Society since 1981 in The New York Times. The several hundred found elsewhere in Google News / Archive would establish notability. If you see the article and my statement above, I agree 100% that the word won the organization's "most creative" award, which is a strong claim of notability. 20 sources exist in Google News Archive for the search of "American Dialect Society" "whale tail". Can I suggest that you submit the AfD for American Dialect Society first and then this article, so that your claim that the organization is not notable can be confirmed. I have shown tremendous flexibility on toe cleavage. You have proposed merger for every single one of these articles, including one that has passed three separate AfDs. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're not opposing the Toe cleavage merger. I don't intend to remove any significant amount of information from these articles in the merger, I only think they would be better together under one header. In addition, if we merged them we could avoid any prolonged debate about the deletion or inclusion of the material itself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pull Me Thongs

Some voyeur sites on the Internet call these "Pull Me Thongs" or PMTs. Is this usage widespread enough to be mentioned in the article? Rodparkes 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

Urban Dictionary may not be a reliable source but it's obviously better than adding a thousand links to all kinds of retailing sites and porn sites that refer to the term. Please, run a google test before you remove the word. Language develops bottom up, i.e. a coinage starts in the streets, creeping up to quasi-academia (like the Urban Dictionary) and eventually is recognized by the academia (like the ADS). While citing the coinage off the streets would amount to original research, it may very well be cited off sources like the Urban Legend. The coinage is notable, and, at that, should not be removed. If the source looks like unacceptable, replace the source. that obviously requires more initiative than simply pressing the undo button, but, I guess, it's worth it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that is prone to vandalism and as such any new addition really needs a reliable source which Urban Dictionary blatantly isn't. If you're saying that a Google test will find suitable sources, why not add them in the first place? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dear, I "never" said a google test will find a suitable source. That's not the task of a google test. What it would do for you wonderfully is that a google test will prove that the coinage is pretty widely used. This is something we do to establish notability. Wikipedia is a growing project, and articles and improvements are not supposed to be borne perfect. Not here. If there's clear notability, the addition may stay. ~~What you are doing is destructive and reductive, and is a deterrent in developing the project.~~ Insisting on academic standards for every single thing is not something we do here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you can't include unsourced statements on the "prenumbra" of notability as given by a Google search. That's a roundabout way of inserting original research on the basis of prior original research. JediLofty is right to want to remove the text, since it fails WP:RS. The reason we insist on having sources for statements, Aditya, is to prevent original research. Claiming that this requirement is somehow damaging to the project is absolutely baffling. And yes, we can and do insist on having sources for every single statement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article just survived a deletion attempt that rested on the basis of not recognizing its potential. I guess the same is happening here. Explain a reliable source, please. And, also explain why a quote should not be supported by primary source, when it's perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standard. Please, also cite a policy or guideline or, at least, an essay that warrants the removal. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your insinuation that I lack foresight, Aditya. I also object to your immediate revert, since now two people have complained about the statement and you've yet to offer any valid reason for including it. As for your request for protocol: WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day specifically notes that "Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead." The "Pull Me Thongs" reference is pointless and honestly isn't worth fighting for. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduced indent) I am really sorry if you feel that way. At the same time I object to your insinuation that you have perfect foresight, and pointing to one or two mistakes is unacceptable. I am not perfect, and neither are you. Repeating "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not reason enough to remove alternative coinage for a concept. Many things, including whole countries and people, have different names, and if those names are notable by Wikipedia standards they can be incorporated into articles perfectly. And, you may haven't noticed, but "that one person or a small group of people" (i.e. Urban Dictionary) is not a school-boy website. It has been covered and acknowledged by Time Magazine, the Guardian and other mainstream authority (it also is a mainstream publication). And, finally, if you're looking for a fight worth fighting, please, remember Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that Urban Dictionary is a wiki - a wiki, I might add, that requires NO sources and is full of original research (and blatant slander in some cases - look at the second definition for Fred Astaire). Wikis and blogs are not acceptable as sources (see WP:SPS). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys real? Are you saying that I can't say X said this and provide a link to X saying that, because I didn't said Y said that X said that? What part of a direct quotation is unclear here? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the only sources you've provided for the phrase "pull me thong" are Urban Dictionary. It doesn't matter that The Guardian and other papers have used UD as a source; it is not allowable as a source on Wikipedia. If you can find a source for the phrase that is not an open wiki or blog, feel free to cite it. As it is the only sources you're providing are not suitable, per WP:SPS. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to know that Cumulus Clouds has left us to meet the great omniscience in heaven. I feel so bad that the only few exchanges I had with this great editor was not congenial, and we belonged to opposite ends of an opinion spectrum. This is for you CC, no matter what was said and what action was taken, I believed and still do that you're a great editor, and you'll always remain in my memories as so. Thank you for your patience and efforts. I wish I could a fraction of a good editor as you were. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.whale-tail.com

Various users seem intent on adding a link to www.whale-tail.com - is such a link really necesary in the article? Does it provide any useful information, other than access to a gallery of whaletail pictures? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site, dedicated to the phenomenon, has been quoted by mainstream media like the NY Times, ~~and is suspected as a catalyst to make the term popular (though, I haven't been able to find a reliable verification for that fact, yet)~~. It is notable, and is significant enough to be included. I have put the link in piped form into the article where is it mentioned. There shouldn't be much confusion anymore. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a verifiable citation is found, feel free to re-add the link. As it is the link adds nothing to the article. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is already verifiably cited. The citation is the 13th one of the references, and is linked at the end of the sentence. And, what exactly are you referring to in WP:LINKS#Important points to remember? "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"? If so, then explain how the diligence in removing the link, where edit summaries like [1] and [2], and talk page discussions failed to show the point, represents a normal situation. If it is something else, then please, say what it is. I piped the link to make life easier for people who failed to see why the link is there, not remotely to ignite a bout of lawyering. I have also crossed out the part of my explanation that leads to misquoting arguments like "find a verifiable source". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In referring to WP:LINKS#Important points to remember I did, indeed mean the part that states that External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. However I think this misses the point. What purpose does linking to the site serve? WP:LINKS has a section headed What should be linked. www.whale-tail.com meets NONE of those guidelines and I am yet to be persuaded that there is ANY reason to link to it. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.whale-tail.com was the website that created the term, without it this page would not exist. A history of the term and the creation of the website was listed here http://www.whale-tail.com/index-history.html as well as documentation of the fight for getting www.whaletail.com can be seen here: http://www.greenguyandjim.com/board/showthread.php?t=13478 I will try and get Garv over here to discus this as last I heard he's been trying to get it Trade Marked for the past 3 years.

Maybe have a section saying, "The creator started it on October 19th 2003 when he released the website www.whale-tail.com to the world" google listing has "Google began in January 1996, as a research project by Larry Page, who was soon joined by Sergey Brin" so why does a creation by another person in the online community not get credit? Maybe just have a page for Garv as he also created Fripples http://www.fripples.net/

It's redundant not to have it as part of the history! ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:51, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

Thanks. But, it'd require stronger cites. Forums, promotional sites, self published sources or user contributed content sites are generally not accepted as reliable sites, like the IMDb citation on Radiator (band), the modeling agency citation for one of representations on Athelston Williams or the company website used as a source on Serverware Group plc.

In the meantime it may be noted that there can't be a relevant policy for every possible situation on the Wikiepdia (otherwise there would be more policy pages here than actual content) and that is why polcies and guidelines are painted with a broad-brush. They are supposed to be used in conjunction with spirit of increasing knowledge, not petty lawyering. And, that is why the link, which actually leads directly from a NYT quote, putting it in perspective should stay. If someone is interested in the policies, there is the WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which has nothing against this link. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any third party links that say that created the phrase? If we can find that, then a section on Origin of the term would be an excellent addition to the article. As it is a couple of forum posts and a comment on the guy's own website aren't really enough. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the second website to list it was http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whale tail but that was written by garv. This is listed here as reference 1: http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/whale_tail/ which takes it's reference that it was taken from a blog by garv. That was the 3rd listing by date after the original site. ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary can't be used as a source. WP:SOURCE clearly states that "open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". I think the jury is still out on Double-Tongued Dictionary! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do we have here?

Quoting policy after policy (Connective trivia, WP:EL, synthesis etc.) and eroding stuff from the article by the people who tried to get it deleted, declaring it would never have any value, and who never contributed a single typed-in character to develop the article - that's what we have here. Please, discuss before you remove, particularly if it's a direct quote with direct relevance from a highly reliable source. Also, use rationality. "Wearing pants below waist and thereby exposing skin or intimate clothing" is indeed a law that concerns whale-tails, unless you are totally bent on lawyering. And, stop removing stuff that contextualize the subject, like the rise of the g-string and low-rise pants, especially when the context has been adequately explained through sourced information. Eroding stuff little by little may eventually get the article minimized to a level when it's ready for another deletion proposal, but that may not be a very desirable situation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an external link to a site showing pictures of female back side surrounded by explicit advertisements for pornography sites being re-added to this page? The site clearly fails two items of WP:LINKSTOAVOID by not being a unique resource beyond what is already in the article and by large amounts of the site's displayed content being dedicating advertisements. Even if it is argued that a mention of this site is appropriate as part of a trash comment aimed at a celebrity (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Basic human dignity for the problem with this), that does no necessitate adding a link to the site when the site clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines and policies on external links. I have no objection to adding an explanation that a whale tail can be considered a fashion faux-pas, but using that explanation as an excuse to linkspam an advertisement heavy site and spread negative celebrity gossip is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Allen3 ^talk 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, our moral diction stops us from using the link to the only cite dedicated to whale tails, which has been quoted by mainstream media and which has been around for quite a long time by web standards. Even if we can live with that, what really warrants removing a direct quote used without prejudice, synthesis or commentary? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is that no one has shown the comment adds any encyclopedic value while it is at odds with the spirit of a core content policy (WP:BLP) and a widely accepted guideline (Wikipedia:External links). --Allen3 ^talk 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whale_tail_display.jpg

The woman is obviously wearing a G-string incorrectly. I noticed before I even enlarged it, any woman who wears thongs and the like should be able to tell. One of the thigh bands is passing between her legs; she's wearing it sideways. Maybe I'm a little obsessive for being annoyed by that, but shouldn't there be a better picture? 207.172.186.128 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no better picture available at the commons. If you find one, please, feel free to add it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got a perfectly good image (Image:Whaletail oc.jpg), I don't see how having a picture of a girl who doesn't know how to dress properly (Image:Whale_tail_display.jpg) adds anything to the article! ;-) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L0b0t (talk · contribs) is trying to censor the Image:Whale tail display.jpg. I have added it back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to assume good faith, also pick up a dictionary and brush up on the definition of "censor". No one is censoring the image, it is just not needed when there is already a better picture in the article. Also, the image is tagged for privacy concerns. Since the image is redundant (with a better image already in the article), tagged for problems, and, as pointed out above, is an inaccurate image as the woman is wearing her britches incorrectly, there is no reason to have it in the article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

A free image of the person described as the major proponent of popularizing a fashion trend isn't necessarily irrelevant. I have rewritten the caption to make the situation simpler. It would have been lot better if the image showed her flashing a whale tail, but that can't be an absolute necessity (it would have been so for a non-free image alright). I find no problem with pertinence or encyclopedicity in portraying a catalyst of a phenomenon, especially when contextualized and clarified by the accompanying caption, as well as the body of the text (I also intend to add to the cultural depiction stuff already in the caption). May be you'd like to explain your stand with little more clarity instead of simply removing content. I may be completely mistaken here, but so far that isn't looking like the case. Please, help clear the situation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it best.

"A free image of the person described as the major proponent of popularizing a fashion trend isn't necessarily irrelevant"

In this instance, it is.

What was the point of the image other than to gratuitiously put up a photo of Britney Spears?

Nothing.

If anyone 1. doesn't know who she is and 2. cares who she is, they click the link.

Kinda the whole point of linking.

Not only that, but the caption took up more screenspace than the image.

You had also stated when restoring the image, "you also have undone the information".

Information thusly retained.

This whole article is {{cleanup}} and {{tone}}

Please spare us... for instance: "Whale tails were a common vista in the mid 2000s".

How about, simply and un-editorialized: "Whale tails were common in the mid-2000s".

This is an encyclopædia, not a (poor) fashion show, and not a weekly tabloid paper.

Let's not even start about how the page is over-imaged (and those ones a mostly poor, too).

Yeah. Put Britney Spears (the picture) out of her misery.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{00:45, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Ah! You didn't have to post this poem-like thing to respond, and you didn't have to start an alround attack because I wanted to have the matter discussed before actioned. An elegant show of "I don't like it" done in style, with an edit war to go with it, supported by an incivil attitude. Is this how you plan to build an encyclopedia? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

The article is well-written and well-referenced. Anyone wish to nominate it for GA? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article needs a thorough copy-edit, the first half of the article reads like it was written by someone for whom English is a second language. The title should be changed to reflect the fact that "whale tail" as a fashion term is very recent and that "whale tail" has a much longer pedigree in the automotive, bicycle, and masonry industries. There is too much weight given to the underwear-related use of the term. Also the tone used throughout is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, much of the prose would be better suited in a tabloid or Sunday supplement. This article has a long way to go before GA status is considered. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I'd said that.

Or did I?

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{14:44, 9 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Well, it's a good article now. With love and care it may even grow into an FA someday. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Whale tail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have now completed by review, which is below in three parts:

"an "apparent intersections" - an is singular, and intersections is plural. This should be fixed.
Reference 11 seems like it would work better as part of the prose of the article.
"Cartner-Morley" - is this the full name or just the last name?
"muffin top" - what is this?

GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed, but the 2nd one. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further review:

"The whale tail went mainstream" - "went mainstream" doesn't sem encyclopedic. Perhaps "became a mainstream fashion trend"?

Copy fixed.

"the high streets" - again, this seems more like slang than encyclopedic prose

Wikified the fashion term "high street" to serve encyclopedic purpose, along with the other fashion term "street level".

The "In the mainstream" section seems strangely organized, as if it is a group of statements thrown together rather than a section written as a cohesive and organized unit. For example, Britney Spears is discussed in paragraphs one, three, and four. This seems disjointed.

Not disjointed anymore. The three paragraphs describe (a) general happenings; (b) celebrities; (c) conjectures.

"The word was selected" - "whale tail" is two words, although I don't dispute that it was named "most creative word". I'm not quite sure how best to deal with this, though.

I'd go by the experts' decision here, which is represented by American Dialect Society here.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's awkward introducing the sentence with "the word". Perhaps just ""Whale tail" was selected..."

"winning by 44 votes" - it won with, not by 44 votes, although it should also be noted that there was a run-off with "muffin top" in which "whale tail" received 56 votes.

Copy fixed.

In the Word of the Year article, it mentions that an alternate term is "longhorn", which is not mentioned in this article.

Couldn't find "longhorn". It's not on that article. Therefore, I'm letting it pass.

It's definitely there. "WINNER whale tail: the appearance of thong or g-string underwear above the waistband of pants, shorts, or a skirt. Also known as a longhorn."

Nope. Not on the word of the year article, though I did manage to find it finally at an external webpage, and have incorporated the information. Cheers.

"two Louisiana towns, Delcambre (a fine of $615 or up to six months in jail) and Opelousas, wearing low slung pants that reveal buttock cleavage or undergarments is considered a misdemeanor and carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and up to 6 months in prison" - this seems contradictory - is the $500 fine just in Opelousas? This sentence needs to be rewritten.

Copy fixed.

This article is very focused on the United States. Is information available about anywhere else in the world? Currently, I'm not convinced that it meets the GA requirement for breadth of coverage.

The whale tail is largely a US phenomenon, if judged by the sources available. Therefore, it would remain largely US-centric, no matter how broad a coverage is attempted.

I'd also like to mention that the coverage, with consideration given to notability and sourcing, includes UK very well. India has been covered, too. But, I take your point. If there are significant coverage available, it shouldn't take more than a day or two to incorporate some coverage of other parts of the world as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention a couple of other countries, but most of it (and all of the legal disputes section) are focused on the United States. It may not have spread to many other countries. Canada's fashion tends to be heavily influced by the United States, though. Was there any mention of it there (regarding popularity or legal issues)?

The legal dispute is all about the US. So far no mainstream media has been found to quote a legal controversy anywhere else on earth. I probably wouldn't be able to incorporate the material that doesn't exist. I am searching for other stuff. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final sections:

The caption for the image of the whale's tail (100B2051.jpg) has a long caption that would work better as part of the article's prose. Perhaps this could go in the "Other whale tails" section.

Information shifted to the body of section.

"the E-program" - what is this?

E-programa nd H-program wikified to provide context.

"80% of the Carrera was rehashed" - this is confusing, which might be due to the odd word choice of "rehashed"

Copy fixed.

The information about whaletail.com might work better in one of the sections that describes the fashion trend rather than the other uses section.

Wanted to underplay it a bit. Because it may constitute somewhat sensitive material (the same reasoning for keeping the other website in the footnote).

Many of the references need some work. I believe that they should be formatted using Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book. Currently, the references are missing a lot of important information.
References 52 and 53 (The Situation Room and Newsroom are identical and should be combined.
A few of the urls in the references have changed and should be updated. This can be done by clicking on the current link, copying the address that it takes you to, and pasting that url over the old one. This applies to #24 (Hang up your hipsters), #20 (So long to the thong as women reject the chav look for big pants), #34 (One-piece in our time), #27 (Backless underwear?), and #69 (Armed with high ideals, Joseph Pawlick enforces a mandate for change at Salinas High--whether teachers, students and parents want it or not).

Identical refs have been combined. Changed urls have been updated. Citation templates for news, journal and web have been used. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the online references are still missing access dates. Some of them are also still missing information. Each needs to have at least a title, url, publisher/work, and accessdate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will place this nomination on hold to allow for these changes to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have plced this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

After almost five days of intense search, there seems to be no citably credible information on Whale Tails in other countries, not even Canada. I believe that scores for the "broad coverage" required for GAs, though probably not for "comprehensiveness" required for FAs. Am I correct in that assumption?
I have fixed all the citations according to the convention, though the GA criteria doesn't require so. I am afraid that a few may have slipped out. Would you help by pointing those refs out, and stating what needs to be done?

I am liking it much better now. Please, let me know what more needs to be done. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking much better. The only thing remaining is the reference formatting. Because so many of them are not formatted with a template, information is missing. For example, #1 is good, #2 is awkwardly formatted because it isn't using the cite book template, #3 isn't formatted and it is missing a page number, #4 isn't formatted and doesn't have a year of publication or a page number, #5 is good, #6 isn't formatted, #7 isn't formatted, #8 is good, #9 is good, and #10 is missing an access date. I did a quick look through and fixed a few, but there were still quite a few that needed work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the citation format, and using the templates. Hopefully it will be resolved quickly. But, one thing got me just a bit curious (hope you don't mind). I have gone through Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Only the last one recommends a typical format, while the rest doesn't even mention it. Is it really a requirement? Or it should be a requirement, and thus probably should also be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Wikipedia:Citing sources mentions this. It states that "Each article should use the same method throughout" and repeats this with a requirement of being "internally consistent". Since the majority of the references in this article are formatted with templates, the rest should be as well. Part of this is also so that information is not omitted, as some of the sources are missing information (such as the access date, which is important because information on the internet can change rapidly). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more questions:

Can you keep it on hold till Thursday? I am confident that I can get all the citatiosn formatted to a satisfactory level.
Not all the online sources, no matter how mainstream, provides the same type of information for their reports and commentary. Therefore, it is an absolute fact that not all the citations can possibly have the same kind of information (accessdate definitely isn't one of them, though). What do you suggest I do to handle that?

The best would be to have the remaining serious problems (minor formatting details are to be ignored in case of a GA, but not for an FA, I presume) listed out. I can't decide, and therefore I have to do all of them, and go baffled when websites and printers' pages of books don't conform to Wikipedia formats. There probably aren't too many serious problems that remain. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finished up the work on the references, so that is all good. The only other thing left is the picture of the whale with the large caption. I was fairly sure that information was moved into the prose of the article. Was it moved back again? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. I don't think I can ever repay this debt. The large caption about the sculpture was moved into the body of the text. Check the first sentence of the very last paragraph of the article to find it. I hope I did it right. Advice? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had discussed moving some of the text about the whale ("Tail of a whale, the inspiration behind the coinage..." into the prose). According to the MOS, image captions are supposed to be succinct. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned that into an infobox-type item, a style of layout which seems to be okay for many FAs. Check and tell me if it's alright. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. With that said, the article is comprehensive, well-written, properly sourced, neutral, stable, and illustrated with appropriate free-use images. It meets all of the GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations! Thank you for your patience, hard work, and quick responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations got boldfaced

Is there a reason why some of the refs at the end of the article are appearing in boldface types? I couldn't locate the formatting error. Can someone help identify, or better fix, the problem? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image war?

Is there any particular reason for the edit war over images? As far as I understand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines have nothing to say against images that are in alignment with article context, especially when it involves free images. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant images

There are enough images in the article already. The more images you add the more you stymie a legion of users who access the encyclopedia via mobile device or even older computers. The allure of the image is far outweighed by the slowdown of the page load when there are already several images in the article that illustrate the subject quite nicely. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice intention. But, you have reduced the page size by about 44,011 bytes, which counts for almost nothing. Intentions and technology don't always match. Please, also read the post above. Writing before reading not be very conducive of discussion. And, please, understand that edit warring over trivial matters outside a valid reason isn't very constructive either. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lolz. Another editor came forward to revert without any care for a discussion. And, I can only watch helplessly, for today, as I don't want to get into the 3RR trap. But, incivility and reasonlessness are exactly that - incivility and reasonlessness. I don't think the other editor is going to discuss anything here. So much for consensus loving Wikipedians. *sigh* Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't trapped, you made [3] [4] [5] three edits within three hours, as did Lobot, so you both need to step back from this article, but if you're looking for a consensus then you have found it, 2:1 to have one image on the page. This page got to GA without the March image, it can get to FA without it as well. I would also recommend removing one of the car images, pick the best, lose the other one. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Copy-pasted from User talk:Aditya Kabir and the deleted stuff from User talk:Darrenhusted

"You can't have both"

Good rule. Who introduced it, and when? Would you explain, please. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Are meant to illustrate a point, so it is accepted (and I suggest you look as any FA for use of photos) that is two pictures essentially portray the same thing then only one needs to be kept, hence one of those pictures is redundant. By all means put the other picture back in, but you would have to remove the other. Also you are on your third revert on that page so I would step back from it for a while and you may want to read WP:OWN, I understand you have done a lot of work to that page, kudos, but you don't own it and wikipedia policies and guidelines trump everything. I would suggest you give them a quick read, if you were un-aware that articles are not meant to be overload with pictures then it suggests you are not fully versed in the finer points of WP. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I don't own the article. But, I definitely own the Wikipedia, as much as you do. Trapping into 3RR was good move, and that proves you're pretty well versed in the Wiki-ways. But, where it really says that five images in a pretty long article is overload? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

You weren't trapped in to 3RR, you made three reverts, you could have stopped after the first, or the second however you didn't. The other editor said "superfluous" and "redundant", you reverted saying to build a consensus on the talk page but you didn't make a case for keeping the image. Instead you attacked those who had reverted you and implied a 3RR trap. If you want consensus then you have it, at the moment, 2:1 to keep the image out as it is redundant. The two images show the same thing, so if you want, pick which one is the best, then keep that but there is no point in having two images showing the exact same thing. And on the talk page the other editor did already establish a consensus, in August, when the picture was changed. You stated in November that you wanted to get it up to FA, that's not going to happen with two pictures. You need to show a whale tail (on a whale) a whale tail (on a car) and a whale tail (on a woman). The article has these, duplicate pictures would be the first thing that an FA reviewer would ask to be changed. You got the article to GA, but fighting over something that goes against policy is never going to improve an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy?

Which policy exactly was violated? Can you, please, lead me to it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing unfavorable posts repeatedly ([6], [7], [8]) didn't get erased from history

Perhaps you should check Wiki policies a bit more. The first edit you quote restored more than the image, and isn't the same thing as reverting for the image. BTW< you mention on my talk page that L0b0t violated 3RR, but didn't mention that here. Any reason for that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right on the fashion images. You're completely wrong about the car images. One whos a duck-tail, the other a whale tail. If you took time to read the captions (even if you let the body copy rest) you would have seen that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy about image use like you describe? If there is, can you, please, lead me to it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aditya, there is not much reason to remove this image. This article is only ~47 KB in size, there are only 6 images, including the lead one, which is not much at all comparatively, and the images are well-spaced throughout the article. "Whale tail" referring to a thong is the main topic of this article and having two images of different types of thongs is not that redundant. Lastly, you are wrong about there not being a lead image when this article was promoted to good article. Click on the link at the top of this talk page, the image was in the now-deleted infobox that was on that page, that's why you can't see it (File:Whaletail oc.jpg was the image). For all these reasons I'm adding the lead image back in, however, since File:Whale tail, thong.jpg currently has a deletion tag on it I'm going to add back in the image that was there previously. If the other image is not deleted and is actually in the public domain then it can be added back in then if you think it's a better lead image. LonelyMarble (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think L0b0t is going to discuss this on the talk page, not with his elaborate background of reverts and removals and rudeness on this article without any participation on the talk page (see: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]... for example). L0b0t seem to own this article in a negative way, which also deters L0b0t from making any constructive edit to this article. I wonder what the problem is. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wow, you need to assume good faith and confine your comments to content, not contributors. My participation on the talk page is evident from my postings to this very talk page. This is merely an editing disagreement, there is no need whatsoever to have such a burr under your blanket. Your accusations are unfounded and I ask that you please retract them. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Retracted. Though it's not always a necessity to assume good faith when evidences point to something else. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now you can retract the accusation that I violated 3rr. A quick glance at the history of the article will show that I have only made 5 edits to this article in all of 2009. 1 edit on 25 February, 1 edit on 4 April, 2 edits on 9 April (this is the day you claim I violated 3rr), and 1 edit on 11 April. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, refrain from making false acquisitions? And, also from making rude commands? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the editor's superior participation on talk pages I, regrettably, am retracting my retraction. Respect has to be mutual in a community. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the whole "to help users with older computers or on mobile devices" is a smokescreen. Don't get me wrong, it's a quite terrible image, and I much prefer the one with the white thong (though that could do with cropping), but as was mentioned, the image is about 50kb, which is pretty small. Unless you're on a 28k modem it's not an issue, and if you are then you probably disabled images anyway. If you don't like the image, just say so, let's find a better one. But as the article is primarily about thongs, having two pictures is not unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image in the history section should be cropped because it shows that "whale tails" were/are often visible in public, which is the main intent of the image I think. The lead image could be better since it doesn't show the top part of the "tail" but I think it's a pretty good image for the lead since it's a close up of a whale tail, the main subject of the article, without anything else in the image. The two images are serving different functions so I don't really think they are redundant. The lead image also contains a lower-back tattoo, which isn't that important, but it's another reason it fits with the content of the text. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the context of availability of free images at the moment, I think, LonelyMarble is right. But, the lead image isn't good looking (it's good to look good, even for an encyclopedia, right?) and, if and when available, it could and should be replaced with a better picture that fits equally (like Mattbuck suggested). Therefore, I guess both of you are right. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dictionary

Not sure how this passed good article review with the article covering more than one entirely separate topic, but hey. I've split the section on the spoiler out to Spoiler (automotive)#Whale tail, I've added that definition to wikt:whale tail, and I've added the definition of "wikt:whale's tail" for a bifurcation of an artery. I have removed the lengthy caption about the tails of whales (anyone interested in this can visit whale) and I have removed all the other poorly sourced and obscure meanings of "whale tail" as this is an encyclopedia article about the visible underwear, not a dictionary. Fences&Windows 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aditya Kabir reverted my move, telling me to discuss it here - I already did make this note, to which they have given no response. I think the onus is on Aditya Kabir to justify why irrelevant material that has nothing to do with visible underwear belongs in this article. Fences&Windows 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Carried over from my talk page]

You restored all the irrelevant material about "Other whale tails", which is disappointing to see. Wikipedia articles are about single topics (in this case a type of visible underwear), not topics that happen to share a name. That is not an article on the phrase "whale tail". Surely you understand this?

I merged the material on the spoiler to Spoiler (automotive)#Whale tail, and added entries to wiktionary:whale tail and wiktionary:whale's tail (where they could be supported). I've restored the material about the car spoiler to the Spoiler (automotive) article - please don't revert. Removing it from that article and adding it back to an article on visible underwear was a poor editing decision, because the content is about spoilers, not visible underwear. The cobbled together section remaining on various obscure uses of the term "whale tail" that uses some fairly unreliable sources definitely detracts from this article, and I don't see why you're defending its inclusion. Fences&Windows 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Carried over text ends]

This looks like a difference of opinion. I personally think other variations and usage of the word needs to be included here (it's alright to have it at automotive spoilers). But, a word that has been awarded the the Word of Year Title, and has meaning beyond it's major use needs to be put in context. You remove this part and you remove the context. Probably you have noticed that almost all historical articles carry some geographical context and almost all geographical articles carry some historical context, even when there are separate and more detailed articles on the geography or the history.

Why put out the context of forerunners, connotations and legacy and make the article more limited than it should be? Being comprehensive is important, and that requires the context very much. This is nothing personal. If I have missed you earlier post here, I apologize. Please, be assured that I'm fine with a discussion, and ready to accept better judgment when it's put forward through proper arguments. You removed a large chunk of information from a good article without discussion to begin with, and that was probably not too appropriate.

I'm sorry that I'm restoring the article to it's good article state. I hope nothing will be removed before an appropriate discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Well another look at the summary convinced me that yours is a better way. Keeping the summary style, though I kept the etymological part and social impact of the coinage there. I also have tweaked the copy to keep the etymology and the impact in distinct chunks of text. I hope this serves the purpose. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sorry that I'm restoring the article to it's good article state." Now, that's not a good argument. Nobody owns the article, having a good article tag on it doesn't mean it is anywhere near perfect. To emphasise my point, articles are about *one topic* and one topic only. Topics that happen to be related by name/title do not belong on the same page - that is what disambiguation pages are for. Brief mentions of related terms that are connected are OK, but a mishmash of various things that have been coincidentally called "whale tail" is not the way to write an encyclopedia article about this type of visible underwear - they have nothing to do with each other. Look at Sun. It doesn't mention the newspapers etc., does it? That's what Sun (disambiguation) is for. Fences&Windows 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved unrelated material to Whale tail (disambiguation), and some of it was deleted because whale tail was not mentioned in the linked article [15]. Please note that the Word of the Year title was given to the fashion meaning, and only cetaceans are related to it, not spoilers or arteries. Turesable (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Other meanings" section altogether since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fashion but similarities to the dorsal fins of large whales.

The article is clearly being coatracked. The article is about the definition of "whale tail" in relation to underwear fashion. Anything that isn't directly related to that belongs in the Wiktionary entry (if it's properly attested). I'd like to stress that if the irrelevancies about car parts, flash diffusers, sculptures and other trivia is put back, the article will be put up for reassessment per criteria 3b, ie article focus.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image and a full whale tail

While exposure of the waistband is a whale tail, it is never the case that the exposure needs to be full. In fact, most of the cases of whale tails noted by media and academia did not represent full exposure. Therefore, changing the lead image to signify that would be putting a wrong implication forward. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The definition of a whaletail, as shown by the image in the article of an actual whale's tail, is a stylized "Y" (for want of a better term) - this makes necessary the full exposure of the waistband to define the top of the tail.

Additionally, there is no way of knowing that the other images are actually thongs - which are a requirement of the whale tail. It's entirely possible that they are some other type of underwear which has simply ridden up to show some material. None of the other images show this distinctive Y shape, and are at best triangles of exposed underwear.

I also disagree on your comment that the exposure doesn't need to be "full". To give the best definition possible we should use the best image possible - and that means a full exposure. I have nothing against use of the second image including the tattoo, but not as a primary example - especially when better images are available. a_man_alone (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to validate the statement that it needs to be full with some kind of reliable sourcing. It's really not evident anywhere. But, I can definitely agree to the concern that the other garment may not be a thong. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to validate the statement that something which looks like a triangle can be correctly defined as a "whale tail". Also, do you deny that the image I am putting in the lede is a whale tail? If so, please qualify why it is not a whale tail. If you agree that it is a whale tail, please describe why it is a worse image to use as an example of a whale tail than the image you prefer? If you also agree that the image you prefer may not even be a thong, why then can it be used as an example of a whale tail at all?

A quick look through the already plentiful sources on the page shows that the following three whcih contain images all show the "full" whale tail, and not the partial look which you advocate.

a_man_alone (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never made a statement that something which looks like a triangle can be correctly defined as a "whale tail". I don't understand why I need to validate that. And, I am not advocating anything. Where did you find that idea? And, I never said the other image is not a whale tail. Where did that supposition come from? And, why are you challenging my agreement with you about the slight possibility that it may not be a thong? I thought reaching an agreement is a good thing.

Anyways, I hope we can close this now. I have made some changes to the article, though the sample images are no definitive validation. I have moved the the image you put in the lead back to the lead, though the sample images showing in the linked pages are no definitive validation. I also have kept the other image on the basis of your statement - "I have nothing against use of the second image including the tattoo". Please check if you find the changes suitable.Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly happy now. As stated I felt that the best example should be used int he lede - which is a full "Y" shaped whale tail. Nothing against any of the other images, apart from the fact that better were available, and so should be used in preference. I'm still not convinced that the tattoo image is a "true" whale tail, but that's a minor issue. The request for you to validate your stance was merely a response based on your own statement that I also needed to validate my position. However, as we are both now happy, I don't see that it's necessary. a_man_alone (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Whale tail. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image inclusion

I'd just like to comment on this edit by Montana and express my support. This is not a topic that really requires more than clear illustration of what it is. These types of images can easily be construed as personality rights violations, and there's the obvious potential for sexual objectification. The images removed by Montana were of very low quality and it's quite unclear how they actually improved a reader's understanding of the topic. If they are merely decorative, they don't belong in the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lede image - full whale tail, or a delta

As the lede image has been recently changed from a full whale-tail to a delta (ie just a triangle of underwear) and back again, in the spirit of BRD, I'll discuss my reasons for keeping the original whale-tail image:

Well, essentially the argument has already been covered here, and is still valid - the lede image is supposed to show the best representation of the topic, and for that a full whale-tail is really required. I've nothing against the other image being included as well (even though I don't think it's actually a whale-tail, I'll agree that it is a variation on a theme)
This is further reinforced by the lede paragraph itself - "Whale tail is the Y-shaped waistband of a thong or G-string when visible" - the replaced image doesn't show a "Y-shaped waistband" so is inapplicable.

Let's clarify that I'm not insisting on that particular image being kept, and would be amenable to a change - so long as that change personified the whale-tail, and the "Y-shaped waistband".

I invite the IP editor (and anybody else, of course) to comment here rather than to blindly revert - especially reverting without using edit summaries. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I've just looked and I see that the copyright is under dispute for the replaced image File:Whaletail oc.jpg, so it's probably not a good idea to use that image for that reason as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Whale tail. 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).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whale picture

Merge to Cleavage (anatomy)

Pull Me Thongs

Reliable source

www.whale-tail.com

What do we have here?

Whale_tail_display.jpg

Britney Spears

tags

Good article

GA Review

Further review:

Final sections:

Queries

Citations got boldfaced

Image war?

Redundant images

Not a dictionary

The image and a full whale tail

External links modified

Image inclusion

lede image - full whale tail, or a delta

External links modified (January 2018)