Talk:Lingerie

Archives (Index)

2012 2015 2018 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request to add mention of historical evidence of 15th century lingerie.

It's not surprising that the article describes lingerie as dating back to the late 19th century and chiefly begun in the 20th century because it seems that's what many people believe.
But that is an inaccurate picture of its history.
In fact, the design and use of lingerie goes much further back than the 19th century and has been the subject of scholarly investigation. In July 2008, a team led by Innsbruck University began archaelogical research at Lengsberg Castle in the Austrian Tyrol. The team made discoveries that included a number of items of underwear which, by form and use, could only be called medieval lingeries. Some 5 items were obviously brassieres. The link below goes to a paper produced at the Innsbruck University which describes lingerie being dated to at least the 15th century and cites a supporting (no pun intended) contemporary account of the perceived use of what were essentially brassieres.
Could somebody add a section to the article please?

The paper is at https://web.archive.org/web/20160206041713/http://www.uibk.ac.at/urgeschichte/projekte_forschung/textilien-lengberg/medieval-lingerie-from-lengberg-castle-east-tyrol.html
2600:1700:EA01:1090:9839:3E2C:891F:A5F2 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Change from mood-lit low resolution image to high res natural light image?

Antique Rose can you give a rationale for why you reverted my change here as you didn't provide an edit summary for me to work with?

My reason for change was explained in my edit summary, but to reiterate - the old image has weird mood-lighting, and was fairly low resolution. The replaced image has natural light, is higher resolution, and still meets the same description of the old image. Can you clarify why you are against it? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No discussion after a week from reverting editor who has been active on the project, so reinstated new - and better - image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not insert copyrighted images. It seems that the image in question is taken from AliExpress. Antique Rose 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you rationale your claim that the image is both copyright and from AliExpress? The image has a valid license, having been checked by the FlickreviewR 2 bot, back in 2018 when the link was valid, and Tineye brings back no results at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

But Google Images does. Antique Rose 09:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you be a little more helpful? Just linking to Google images is not a rationale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If you upload the image in question to Google Images and initiate the search, you will see what I mean. I'm not going to do it for you. Antique Rose 16:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You should really, as you're the one trying to use it as a rationale. You've made a claim that an image currently tagged as being correctly licensed is in fact not correctly licensed. Please prove it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Antique Rose - please explain your reasoning for reinstating the white lingerie image. You're not being very forthcoming in this discussion, and making it hard for me to work with you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not especially difficult to use Google Images. You should make the search, as you want to insert a copyrighted image. Please, work with me! ~~

It's not especially easy to track down a single image though. I've spent some time with it, and all I can find are these two results:

1. Made-in-China[1] which is a photoshop removing the background, and the iamge doesn't even match the product description or product video. It's obviously not a genuine use of the image.
2. trendyTao[2] where the image is clearly just photoshopped text along the brand line of both bra & panties.

Neither of those examples seem to be genuine copyright owners of the image in question - in fact both seem to be highly dubious. If you have other examples that contradict this viewpoint - please demonstrate.

Also, I notice that in one edit summary you state that "previous image better" - could you elaborate on why you think this? I've made my opinion clear on both the original white mood-lit image, and the natural light image - note my original opening comment: "My reason for change was explained in my edit summary, but to reiterate - the old image has weird mood-lighting, and was fairly low resolution. The replaced image has natural light, is higher resolution, and still meets the same description of the old image. Can you clarify why you are against it?" Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Additional) Just to comment - I wouldn't be against the removal of both images, tbh or replacement with something else - my beef is with the original mood-lit image, although I would be interested in your rationale for re-instatement of the mood-lit image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Antique Rose - can you please discuss here, before making contested changes to the article? I see you snuck this change in, which is contentious given that the image in question is being discussed right here. I was giving you a week from your last edit after my response, but you jumped the gun (as is your right) so I'm back asking you to please clarify. You haven't yet shown that the original replacement image fails criteria, whereas I've done my best to show suitability. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, your image is a copyvio from Ali Express. Wikipedia does not allow copyvios. Please, upload the image in question to Google Images and you will se that I am right. The image that I inserted is perfectly suitable and free to use. Antique Rose 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You will have to explain how to upload and how you are getting your resutls, because they are different to those I showed above. Simply saying "it's a copyvio" is not sufficient - you need to actually prove it. I could just as equally say that I am the model in question, and I've released the image into the public domain - just google it, and you'll see I'm right. In the meantime, stop edit warring while we discuss this. Stop inserting contested images. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The image I inserted is in no way contested. Antique Rose 22:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Btw, I've revertee as your proposed image is not suitable because it's A: a poor representation of lingerie, and B: basically the same as another iamge on the page. I think it's better to have no image at all.

Ps: It is contested, because I've contested it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is way better than your copyvio. Antique Rose 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not really a valid excuse for inclusion though is it? How does it improve or contribute to the article in any way that the existing iamges don't? My proposed iamge shows lingerie being worn, as opposed to being strewn about - of which there is already an example image in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, your image is still a copyvio. It was uploaded by user (you?) who was blocked for multiple copyright violations. Antique Rose 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was uploaded by a blocked user, it's unlikely to have been me is it, unless you're accusing me of sock-puppetry, which is a serious accusation, much more so than this little spat.

Anyway, instead of trading insults, why not let's both try to find an image that we agree on - if we also agree that an image is to be used at all? Commons has many images, but admittedly not all are suitable. to my mind, a replacement image should meet the following criteria:

1. Be of a high resolution, or clear at least to show the subject
2. Contribute to the understanding of the article
3. be sufficiently dis-similar to existing images, to show variety

To that end, there are a few that may be suitable:

File:Panties styles - en.svg

File:Model in white lingerie at Western Canada Fashion Week 2016 Spring - Edmonton.jpg

Just two for starters - to get conversation going. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: Stop accusing me of inserting a copyrighted image. Notwithstanding that the status has yet to be determined, but I'm not displaying it - it hasn't been in the article since 29 December. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I've given it a month and there's been no input regarding this, so I'm replacing the File:LingerieGalore.jpg image with the File:Model in white lingerie at Western Canada Fashion Week 2016 Spring - Edmonton.jpg image, as proposed above.

My rationale is the same as above, but to reiterate - this image shows lingerie being worn, has better light and clarity than the original it replaces, and the Lingeriegalore image is essentially the same style as File:Knickers1.jpg already in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, if you claim that an image is taken from a certain website, then you should be able to link the page it was taken from. There's no reason to tell people to use Google Images if you have yourself already done so to check the image. There is no guarantee that they will get the same results as you.

Also do remember that just because an image is on another site is not proof it is a copyvio. Sometimes the image was copied from Wikipedia. You need to check if the site is older than the image upload date. Yes, that can be difficult, but that's why we have a dedicated system for that.

Finally, except in WP:BLP, there's no reason to delete an image from an article for being a copyvio. Simply open the image and mark it as a possibly copvio. Then, if it proven to be the case, the file itself will be removed. Only then does it make sense to a different image.

I hope this advice will help with these sorts of disputes in the future. — trlkly 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)