Talk:Miniskirt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Need more 1980s info[edit]

After rah-rah skirts there was a big phase of denim miniskirts with a pencil style. These were everywhere in 1983 in high school in the US. They were pretty conservative at first, in dark blues, and longer than what re-emerged in the 2000s. Then they started being in red or pinstriped then acid wash. Much of the later 80s were dominated by cotton/spandex miniskirts. Not crazy club style spandex, but usually black cotton with a bit of spandex to give it shape. References are hard to come by. The blue denim pencil miniskirt is clearly visible in one scene of the U2 "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" video (the Las Vegas one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8100:E2AC:E9E9:635:3F22:C6DD (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree - need to get back to expanding this article, but had other things going on. Post-1970 does need a lot of expansion and work. Mabalu (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Microskirt back into this article[edit]

At this point in time I don't think that there is sufficient coverage on microskirts to justify a separation from Miniskirt. At the end of the day, a microskirt is simply another variation on the miniskirt, rather than a distinctive garment in its own right. However, given that these articles are popular with a certain type of (usually anonymous) editor, a bold merge has potential to be controversial, so I am proposing it here. The current Microskirt article could easily be moved as a whole under the 21st-century section of Miniskirt, references, images and all.

  • Comment - In 2006, the original Micro skirt article was merged into this article, so there is precedent. Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - simply a somewhat shorter miniskirt, and the line of distinction is rather blurry.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede pic[edit]

The point of an image in the lede is to summarise by image the crux of the article. The image you're taking offence to meets that criteria and removing it on the grounds of it being posed by a "thin model", are absolutely groundless. There is no reason at all why a posed image is of less value than a candid image, and many reasons why one is better. For example, the one you chose doesn't show the skirt properly - it's rucked up so the length cannot be accurately ascertained - or more to the point there are images available (such as the one already in place) that show the style of a miniskirt much better.

You may think that an encyclopaedia should be full of candid "real-life" images, but just because you think such a thing does not make it so. Wikipedia is full of posed images, mostly because they're better - in this case the very act of posing brings prominence to the miniskirt, which is the article subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

OK - let's sort this out. Pinging User:Chaheel Riens; User:Shreyoshidasgupta; any other interested parties. I had a scan through the Miniskirt gallery on Commons and picked out a couple of images that leaped out at me and weren't obviously porny/sleazy/dubious, alongside the three that have recently been proposed:

  1. - This is the current image. I don't really care for it - I find it difficult to focus on the miniskirt as I find the picture has a lot of visual distractions. It's not BAD, it's just OK. Just seems to be more about how skinny the girl is than what she's wearing.
  2. - Shreyoshidasgupta suggested this one but I don't think it's a good example at all - the seated pose distorts the shortness of the skirt.
  3. - Shreyoshidasgupta also suggested this one, which I liked. (although Chaheel Riens disagreed) Although they are posing, they are just standing there relatively naturally, and you can see at a glance that the skirts are miniskirts and how they sit in relation to the body and where the mini length hits on the thigh when the wearer is standing normally, rather than splaying her legs, sitting, or otherwise striking an exaggerated pose which affects the hang of the garment.
  4. - I LOVE this image, but unfortunately, I suspect not enough leg is visible to really show how mini the skirt is. Otherwise it would be ideal - great depiction of miniskirt, worn in 1970 context (around the time it was originally most fashionable), from London (where the miniskirt originated).
  5. - Candid shot of a sign-language interpreter in a denim miniskirt. The skirt is immediately visible, and not lost in the background colours.

If anyone else can come up with better images please do propose here. While I would vote for 4 (with my fashion historian eye), I think the most visually effective all-round is number 5, because the blue denim skirt really stands out against the black background and pink blouse, and in relation to the wearer's body. It also shows the miniskirt as worn by an average woman, in an everyday context, and looks effective as a thumbnail and as a slightly larger image. Mabalu (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I think the best pic is no. 5 (of the sign language girl). -Shreyoshidasgupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyoshidasgupta (talkcontribs) 19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: What are the "visual distractions" with image #1? (Especially given that it's already been cropped to focus exclusively on the model, not the background.)
Also, I didn't say I disliked the two girls in the image, just that it's not as good as the current one, and Shreyoshidasgupta's rationale for removal - posing model - was even more applicable to this image. And what is this obsession with "an everyday context"? The everyday context is completely irrelevant and unimportant. All that is to be considered is "does the image accurately portray the article subject, and if not, can a better image be found"? (With obvious caveats such as free Vs non-free, etc)
In this "context" while I prefer image #1, image #5 is the only other viable alternative, but the resolution is not that great and it's not a particularly flattering image of her expression - whereas the posed images - being done by pro models - are properly composed Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
Flickr - Carine06 - Maria Sharapova (1).jpg

hi. This is Shreyoshidasgupta. How about having the photo of a tennis player? Like this one of Maria Sharapova? And as for my stand that I didnt like "posing model" in image 1 but then put up image 3 which also has models.. well in the pic 3, they are models indeed but r not skinny.. so look more like normal women. Also they r not "posing for a photo-shoot" on the road like in pic 1.. in pic 3 the surrounding seems better. I'm not going to change the main pic again now... let u guys decide on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyoshidasgupta (talkcontribs) 23:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternative view of #1
No to tennis players. The lead image should be the miniskirt in a widely worn format, rather than in a specific context such as sportswear. My objection to pic 1 is that it is more about the model than the outfit - I don't notice the miniskirt straightaway because I'm so distracted by the angles of her body, the strong pose/statement she is making, the composition of the picture. This is an effect of the reduction - when you see the photograph at a larger size, it is more obvious, but it doesn't really work so well when reduced to fit in an article. Actually, while investigating further, I found an alternative shot of the same model and outfit which I think is much more effective - it is over on the left side. I think this is much more effective and because she has her legs together, you can really see the true length of the skirt in relation to the body. The wearer is also less distracting in this image. So I would like to propose that this alternative view would be an ideal solution. Mabalu (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mabalu's choice seems fine to me. By the way, I found one more pic.. if its not vulgar, this one (of a woman on the beach) can also be considered.-Shreyoshidasgupta

Young woman walking along Memorial Union terrace-19Sept2007.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyoshidasgupta (talkcontribs) 04:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Still no, as the actual mini is a very small part of the overall image, and it is a little blurry. There's something a bit dubious about photographs of people (not models) who appear to have been snapped solely because they're scantily clad, I'm not sure that the girl in the photograph would appreciate being the poster child for miniskirts on Wikipedia and a certain percentage of viewers wouldn't really be looking at her skirt anyway. In my last suggestion the model has released the rights to use her image, and it is a very good quality, clear shot. It also looks better when scaled down than the other image. Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I would support the alternative suggested posed model shot by Mabalu. I also sort of agree with Mabalu about the use of candid images in the lede: With a few rare exceptions any image taken in a public place is fair game, and there is nothing to stop them being used - if you don't to be photographed in a public place, don't go to one. However, when tehre are other (and better) alternatives available, I'd rather go for them. The issue with iamges being used that were taken in a public place is not with the person in the image, but the rights that the photographer themselves have released the image with.
That doesn't mean I think candid images are ripe for removal on those grounds, and have vigorously defended their use in the past, but here I think there are better ones instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I noted as part of a general tidy up of this article that using the above model in the lead image has been questioned, and I agree that the image is rather provocative as the focus is more on the model than the mini skirt, so replaced it with a neutral image in which the mini skirt itself is the focus. That edit has been reverted. I have restored the neutral image. If people wish to continue discussing the matter, please do so. But please do so without reverting or starting an edit war. Formulate an agreement first. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss applies here. You were Bold, I reverted - now we discuss - you don't revert again. That's the very definition of the edit war you with to avoid. The original image - which is not the controversial one - should stay in situ while changes are discussed. As an aside, the term "neutral" is inapplicable here - one of the factors that was considered in replacing the image was the model's awareness of her picture being taken - as your suggested image is a rear-view, it's highly unlikely she is aware that she was being photographed, and so not the best image for the lede. Suitable for elsewhere, but not the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You might want to read up and understand the entire discussion here. That image is only "inappropriate and controversial" to you, and is in fact a replacement to a different one, albeit featuring the same model. If you wish to change it, discuss by all means, but not with your preferred image in place while we do so. Copied from my talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Woman in miniskirt with big purple bag
Hmm. I really do appreciate SilkTork's viewpoint. The image they propose is okay, but far from ideal - I am with Chaheel Riens on feeling uneasy about the subject probably not realising she was being photographed - there are altogether too many candid shots on Commons of seemingly unaware women in short or skimpy clothes focusing on their legs and bottoms, which paints a rather depressing picture of the average Wikimedia contributor. It's worth noting that this image is exactly the kind of thing that would have really turned on the (obviously male) sockpuppeteer whose IDs included Shreyoshidasgupta above. He had a penchant for leggy girls and revealing clothing, usually photographed from behind or while the sitter was unaware that she was being snapped, and would often claim not to be a voyeur/pervert while adding in images that contradicted this claim. So that is another reason I would be uneasy about using this image as a lede. Personally, while I don't 100% like the current lede image overmuch, it does at least have all the clearances possible (both photographer and model have released rights), it is a high quality image, and it is an effective illustration. Mabalu (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought I'd found a possible Flickr candidate, Model Carla Ossa in a black miniskirt, but despite being unable to find anything that pre-dated the stated Flickr date of February 2013, I noticed that the Flickr account has also uploaded obvious magazine scans and other images, which is definitely not a good sign, so we shouldn't risk it. There is a depressing amount of sleaze on Flickr for free-use miniskirt/mini/short skirt searches. The bottom line is that we have a rock-solid lede image currently listed, with every possible clearance required, and any replacement needs to be as good as that. Mabalu (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
What about promoting the Mary Quant picture to the lede? John M Baker (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I personally have zero objection to that, although Quant is wearing a minidress rather than a miniskirt, and pedants have complained about this distinction, objecting that the article title is about skirts, not dresses (which I think is pure nit-picking) If a dress would be OK, then there are probably lots of good images we could use.... Mabalu (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
For example, this fun image pops up as a Good Image on Commons for minidresses, showing a variety of styles and lengths from mini to micro-mini and is a very nice, public-domain-released image. Mabalu (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I like that one. And minidress is right in the first paragraph, so this image isn't going too far afield. John M Baker (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I just experimented with the Girls' Generation group shot as a lede image, at 300px wide due to its formatting - I think it looked very nice, and effectively illustrated a wide variety of minidress styles, ranging from the very simple pink shift in the middle, to really short micro-minis whose length is clearly defined by comparison to adjacent minidresses, to fussier, draped and bunched-up styles - making it clear that the style is defined simply by length, rather than specifics of cut or overall garment style. It could certainly be used in the 21st century section if not accepted for the lede. 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Click to see how the lede would look with the Korean group image. Mabalu (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
South Korean pop group Girls' Generation wearing mini- and micro-minidresses. 2012.

A miniskirt (sometimes hyphenated as "mini-skirt") is a skirt with a hemline well above the knees, generally at mid-thigh level, normally no longer than 10 cm (4 in) below the buttocks; and a minidress is a dress with such a hemline. A micro-miniskirt or microskirt is a miniskirt with its hemline at the upper thigh.

Short skirts have existed for a long time, though they were generally not called "mini" until after the 1960s. Instances of clothing resembling miniskirts have been identified by archaeologists and historians as far back as c.1390–1370 BCE. In the early 20th century, the dancer Josephine Baker's banana skirt that she wore for her mid-1920s performances in the Folies Bergère was subsequently likened to a miniskirt. Extremely short skirts became a staple of 20th-century science fiction, particularly in 1940s pulp artwork such as that by Earle K. Bergey who depicted futuristic women in a "stereotyped combination" of metallic miniskirt, bra and boots. Hemlines were just above the knee in 1961, and gradually climbed upward over the next few years. By 1966, some designs had the hem at the upper thigh. Stockings with suspenders were not considered practical with miniskirts and were replaced with coloured tights. The popular acceptance of miniskirts peaked in the "Swinging London" of the 1960s, and has continued to be commonplace among many women, especially teenagers, pre-teens, and young adults. Before that time, short skirts were only seen in sport and dance clothing, such as skirts worn by female tennis players, figure skaters, cheerleaders, and dancers.

I think that looks great. It's so much better a picture than the one we have now. John M Baker (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that image looks great, but I'm totally against it being in the lede. the article title is "miniskirt" and those are minidresses. It's not pedantic to point this out - the lede image should be about the definitive article - pun intended. Whether the two are discussed in the article together or not, they are different articles of clothing and one should not be used to show an example of the other. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
However, a skirt is part of a dress, so it's semantics. Without skirts, dresses are simply blouses or tops... So it's like saying you can't show a broom because the top part is a handle, not a broom. Mabalu (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it's nothing at all like that. A dress contains a skirt, but a skirt does not contain a dress - so a dress is not applicable for the lede image. This article is about the miniskirt, and so we should choose the best image available to show one - which is how this whole chapter came about - and the best example of a miniskirt is not something that is not inherently a skirt, but a different item of clothing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but a skirt is an intrinsic part of a dress. Even when a dress is all in one piece, the lower part that extends below the waist area, whether or not there is a waist seam, belt, or other defining break between top and bottom, is still considered the skirt. If we are saying that a minidress cannot have a miniskirt, then that does not make sense, particularly as the article deals with both the minidress and the miniskirt as if they are pretty much the same thing, which they are. To me, it's more important to clearly show mini-length garments, than whether or not the garment is a skirt or a dress. It makes no sense to separate miniskirt and minidress into separate articles, as they would end up more or less carbon copies of each other. Unless we were to rename the article Mini (clothing)? Mabalu (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A miniskirt is a short skirt, and a "skirt," according to the OED, is "The lower part of a woman's dress or gown, covering the person from the waist downwards; also, esp. in modern use, a separate outer garment serving this purpose." So "miniskirt," by definition, includes minidress.
Suppose we look instead at the term's use, especially during the heyday of miniskirts. Here is a clipping from 1966 that clearly shows miniskirts to include dresses as well as separate skirts. Here is a clipping from 1967 that does the same. The 1966 article explains that designers are also turning out mini-skirt dresses.
We probably should also revise the article that a miniskirt in dress form may be called either a minidress or a miniskirt dress. John M Baker (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Mabalu, I'm not disputing your facts and agree that a minidress includes a miniskirt - not sure where you think I'm disagreeing with you there. It's just that the use of such an image is not the best representation of a miniskirt. I've agreed that it's a good image (the group shot) and that it would suit the article in general - just not as the lede image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies,Chaheel Riens, no offence taken, was just being a bit argumentative. I think this (or a cropped section of it) would be a good image for 21st century section. Did we find any more suitable candidates for the lede? Mabalu (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Alternative added instead of File:Minirock (Lack) Photo Model 1.jpg (see above, "Alternative view of #1")
Sorry for being bold, but I replaced the image of the young woman in a plastic miniskirt. It's a pretty rare material and the image is uncomfortably focused on fairly contrived posing. The fact that it's not even made of fabric makes it a non-starter in my book, no matter what other qualities it might have.
Peter Isotalo 19:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There have been plenty of suggestions in the past, what do you propose - suggesting them here, rather than disrupting the article itself? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wild about Peter Isotalo's new image, but it's better than the old one. Let's leave it in place for a day or two, while this is discussed. John M Baker (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not how it works. I am up for discussion, but while that happens the existing image stays in place. That is a cornerstone of WP:BRD, and whether you consider me to be a primary antagonist in this discussion there has never been a better image suggested and - universally accepted by the other involved editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Chaheel, from what I can tell, you're the one who has argued to keep the image with several other users opposing you for a lot of reasons. I presented a clear and succinct argument for replacing the image of the plastic miniskirt. You need to explain why you consider the switch a problem. Just reverting to the status quo isn't the same thing as defending consensus.
Other arguments against the image of the plastic miniskirt is that the setting is really strange (a countryside road?), the outfit is more reminiscent of clothing you'd wear to a party or a night club and the posing puts the focus mostly on the model, not the clothing. In contrast, the alternative[1] looks like something that could actually be worn in everyday situations or to work.
Peter Isotalo 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I am fully aware that consensus can change, however as per WP:BRD a change has been made, then reverted - now we discuss. I am not sure why I need to reiterate my reasoning, given that it's all clearly available above if you bother to read it - but to refute your own arguments:
  • The location of the model is immaterial, and not relevant. Wht is it strange? It's acknowledged that this is a posed model shot, so why is the setting strange?
  • Again - why is the material so important? Why does it matter that in your opinion it is party or club wear? I'm pretty sure miniskirts are worn to nightclubs, so that's appropriate right there
  • Your preferred choice is just as outlandish. IMO, of course. Bright purple skirt with over knee socks - I suppose you could call that "work wear" if you worked in a natural food shop, or a trendy retro coffee shop.
There have been other suggestions - and I was amenable to some of them, however discussion surrounding them died out before a new option was chosen - put forward your own suggestions again and let's see what happens. In short - I am against your two suggested images because one of them is not a miniskirt, but a dress, and the other to me is just as unrealistic as you find the current image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As per your edit summary of "you're the only one opposing it right now" - that's correct, but nevertheless, I am opposing it, and so as you are the one who made the initial change it's your responsibility to understand that while you put forward your own arguments we keep the existing version in place.
Please clarify why you believe that Bold Revert & Discuss does not apply to you, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You are not a neutral party here and you lack consensus support from other editors. If you're actively involved in this type of dispute, you should focus on the content arguments.
The photo with the plastic miniskirt clearly has more focus on the model than the article topic. I'm not the first to point this out but you seem to disregarding the views of other editors on this. Since you bring up purely aesthetic issues about the purple miniskirt image, then I should point out that the image you're arguing for looks like amateur glamour photography and the plastic miniskirt is more reminiscent of fetish clubwear. It represents a very specific type of miniskirt that is associated with skimpy outfits. I'm not against including this image in the article further down, but in the lead, it's a very non-neutral choice.
Peter Isotalo 21:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
OK.... Well, the new image is nice, but to me, I notice a lot of things - particularly the eye-catching blouse, hair, and lovely smile before I even register that she is wearing a miniskirt. For that reason I don't think it's a good illustration of a miniskirt, but I'm not saying it is not a nice picture- in fact it's REALLY nice. It's just not a great lede image for the article, because the dark-coloured miniskirt is rather overshadowed by a lot of the other eye-catching content in the picture. Mabalu (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Peter, I have focussed on the content as I outlined above - I do not have to be a neutral editor to point out that you are ignoring BRD, and that the way Wikipedia has worked since before 2005 is that you do not edit war and insist on your preferred version stays in place while we discuss changes
I fully agree that the best example should be used for the lede, and have always argued this as is clear above, and I used that argument for reverting your use of a minidress - if a better example than the "plastic" skirt can be found then please give it here - Mabalu has also expressed dissatisfaction with your image as the lede, and I agree with his sentiment hat it has place in the article, but it is not the best example we can find - and while that discussion goes on, please have the courtesy to follow wikipedia guidelines and revert your edit. I will not revert you because I have no desire to transgress 3RR - but for you self-reverting as a show of good faith does not count against 3RR.
Be the decent man. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Close-up of same skirt as above
I noticed that there is also this photograph of the same skirt. It's a very clear depiction of a miniskirt, and although it does focus on the wearer's legs, it's in a matter-of-fact way rather than a pervy way. The only problem is that it cuts off the very top of the skirt, which is a real shame, because if it were just a tiny bit higher to show the waist of the skirt, then it would be a perfect illustration. Mabalu (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Petitepanoply, who is the model in the photograph, is utterly adorable and has lots of great photos on her Flickr. Unfortunately, a lot of the ones I looked at so far are uploaded with a license that specifies non-profit use, so we can't use them. I have found at least one valid option though, so will keep looking. Mabalu (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ideally we'd have a picture that focuses on the skirt. The "close up" version is an improvement, maybe this gray with red top's even better.
D.Creish's suggestion
D.Creish (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The linked external image is definitely something I would support. Overall, I think it's important to keep the lead image in an article about a fairly common garment from focusing on clubwear and the male gaze.
Peter Isotalo 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree about avoiding the male gaze. I think I've found the perfect image: this one - the red miniskirt "pops" out of the picture, but you can also see how it relates to the body proportion wise. With a judicious crop, this would be an excellent lede picture. Mabalu (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Woman in a red miniskirt and green cardigan - Mabalu's suggestion

I have uploaded that picture to Commons, I think it looks pretty great. If it is cropped down to centre the figure more, it will be even better. Mabalu (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mabalu, that's the best miniskirt image that anyone has suggested so far. I say we go with this one. John M Baker (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've boldly swapped the file for the cropped version, which I think is even more of an improvement. Mabalu (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree in full. The red dress image is really good, and with a miniskirt, I think it's better to show the entire outfit than just the skirt.
Peter Isotalo 22:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
My support would go to D.Creish's suggestion, for a fairly simple reason that it focuses completely on the skirt and nothing else. People here seem to have issues with the backgrounds and the person wearing the skirt, so the best option seems to be to remove those distractions. the only disadvantage is that it's fairly low resolution, so another possibility would be to find one of the other acceptable hi-res images and crop it to only the skirt - such as Mabalu's image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
As a key part of the miniskirt is how it relates to the rest of the body, I think it is important to show this - a full length shot shows just how the hemline relates to the legs/knees, the length of the arms, and generally. A crop that focuses solely on the skirt does not achieve this. I would note that D.Creish's suggestion does seem borderline "male gaze" like, as we are looking at very shiny thigh boots and tanned thighs, not just at the skirt. I know it is my suggestion, but I believe that the current image is pretty much perfect - the bright red skirt is the focus of the image, the secondary focus is the woman wearing it. She is standing quite naturally, showing the length of the skirt and its fit, and is clearly silhouetted against a predominantly green background. I really don't see how it could be any better as an illustration - perhaps if someone were to greyscale the rest of the photograph except for the skirt, just to punch the point home? Mabalu (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough and well put, I'm amused that those concerned with the male gaze think that it's better to have the whole woman to lech over rather than just focussing on the subject of the article, but hey ho. I'm also disappointed with Peter Isotalo's behaviour, but I'll assume good faith and put it down to stubbornness rather than arrogance or intentional flouting of process and procedure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Mabalu, I wouldn't greyscale the photo. The red miniskirt really pops just as it is, and we don't need further alterations. I would actually be tempted to go back to the uncropped photo, or a less cropped version, although the difference is not very significant. I agree that it's better to have a full-length photo, rather than just showing the skirt.
I also spent some time looking for photos, and it's amazing how much better this one is. A Wikimedia Commons search for "miniskirt" produces a dismayingly large proportion of highly sexualized images. This image emphasizes the miniskirt and is attractive without being sexualized. It presents a miniskirt as a contemporary everyday item of apparel, which after all is how most women wear them. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn impressive that you were able to find it. John M Baker (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
John, you have no idea how right you are. Images of women's clothing are dominated by oversexualized images. Pretty much all garment categories tend to be grossly overrepresented by sexualized images. Just look at categories for underwear (brassiere, panties, pantyhose), the majority of the images are either objectifications or overtly sexual. And the uncritical attitude towards inclusion of all those clearly inappropriate images is quite common.
Many thanks for finding the red dress pic, Mabalu. Looking up the source was a great idea.
Peter Isotalo 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Does someone want to let the owner of the Flickr account know that we used her photo? I don't think there's an obligation to do so, but it would be a nice courtesy, and if she has a problem with the use it would be better to find out earlier than later. She might also be interested in seeing this discussion. I would do it, but I don't have a Flickr account and don't want to sign up for one. John M Baker (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
She has a blog at http://www.petitepanoply.com/ with links to accounts on various social media. She seems to be currently active on at least Twitter and Instagram. I thought about sending a private message on Twitter, but she turned off that option.
Peter Isotalo 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter, I sent a short email to the contact address listed on her blog. John M Baker (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's been a bit quiet on this front lately, but I'd just like to point out that we can't actually use the images in question, because they don't meet our fair-use criteria. Petite-Panoply licences the images under the CC BY-SA 4.0 which is clarified right at the bottom of the blog page: "Petite Panoply by Jamie Donaldson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License", and according to the Wiki copyright FAQ we cannot use 4.0. Although the uploads claim to be CC BY-SA 2.0, the source - ie the blog - states that they are 4.0.

I asked the question over at the helpdesk - Is wikipedia a commercial venture?, where it was clarified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the source is a Flickr account that uses a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, so it seems that we are okay. John M Baker (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Which takes precedence if the same image is under two different licenses? 2.0. or 4.0? Note that in her Flickr account she does say "Please link back to my blog, not this flickr page if you share my images. Thanks!" Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me that if a picture (or other document) has been separately released under two different licenses, recipients of both releases can rely on either license. I wouldn't think that a request to link back to her blog would change that. However, although I am a lawyer, I have not considered this in any depth and would welcome the thoughts of others. John M Baker (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd point out that the Flickr account is separate from the blog website, although maintained by the same person. Files on the Flickr account are uploaded under either non-free licenses, or with licenses that indicate that they are free to use. If you were looking at the Flickr account, you would not necessarily know or be aware that there was a completely separate website making copyright/reuse requests and claims. The file was uploaded to Flickr under a license that is appropriate for re-upload to Wikipedia, something that the Flickr uploader has not applied to all their files - showing that she knows what she is doing, and for whatever reason, has made the decision NOT to retrospectively apply restrictions to her previous uploads. Mabalu (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
While it is by no means dispositive, I should also mention that I did reach out to the owner of the Flickr account, and she replied that she has no problem with her photo being used on Wikipedia. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The first line of Miniskirt article says "A miniskirt ... is a skirt with a hemline well above the knees ... normally no longer than 10 cm (4 in) below the buttocks". I'm just curious- does the hemline of the lady in the lead image really look like 4 inches below her buttocks? To me the skirt seems to end 12 inch below her butt. Without sounding creepy, I would like to ask, is it an appropriate representation of a mini-skirt? 223.176.202.198 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the furore over the changes to lede images I'd agree and suggest we revert back to the original lede image which matches the description.
Actually, no, I won't. I really can't be bothered to dispute it at the moment (although of course I may feel differently later) but instead I'll point out that the lede says "...generally at mid-thigh level..." which doesn't mean "always"
I think this is a fine example of a miniskirt. Not my preferred image perhaps, but a fine lede image which represents the subject of an article nevertheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miniskirt. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mini dress[edit]

I have removed this disambig - again. The claim that "mini dress" is also a type of bodystocking is not supported by the actual bodystocking article, apart from a passing mention in the lede which was also added by the same editor who added the disambig.

The lede is to summarise the article proper, not a dumping ground for misc information - especially when it isn't sourced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)