Talk:List of bra designs

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

Pictures[edit]

Where are the pictures?? If they give examples of different bras, they need give pictures as examples! Sonofdurza34896

You mean pictures for each and every kind of bra? Now that would be informative but difficult to obtain. The "Training Bra" article should be moved here, otherwise it should be expanded. Gentlelife (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the less commonly known bras could use pictures. The picture in the allegedly copied article is helpful for the U-Plunge. Other helpful pics would be adhesive bra, bullet bra, racerback bra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanmccabe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture on the page (File:Brassiere-white.jpg) has the the caption "A balconette bra". This is wrong according to the wikipedia page Types of bras. This is an example of a Plunge bra. Wilro (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training bra article[edit]

The "Training Bra" section is the copy-pasted text of the "Training bra" article. It really shouldn't be there, as this is just a list of bra types. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.105.168 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

Blatant plagiarism. Nearly everything on this page is copy/pasted from this site http://odyb.net/discoveries/29-common-types-of-bra-designs-and-their-functions/ I don't know enough about Wiki's policies to fix it without just deleting the article, so hopefully someone can take care of this. 98.232.104.222 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems resolved[edit]

This article was quite rightly listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 27 for its similarity to Common types of bra designs and their functions. Investigation suggests that the infringement is reversed. First, the suspected source indicates it was "Published April 15th, 2009". Our article was fully developed on April 14, 2009; see [1].

Second,there is clear evidence of natural evolution. Take for example the section on "nursing bras". At the external site, the language reads:

Designed to help make breastfeeding simpler by allowing the baby easy access to the nipple. Traditionally, the cups of nursing bras are covered with flaps of fabric that can be unclasped at the top and pulled down to expose the breast.

The text in our article as of today reads:

Nursing bras are designed to help make breastfeeding simpler by allowing the baby easy access to the nipple. Traditionally, the cups of nursing bras are covered with flaps of fabric that can be unclasped at the top and pulled down to expose the breast.

However, when the material was introduced into the article, here, in November of 2006, it read:

Nursing bras are designed to help make breastfeeding simpler by allowing for easy access to the nipple. Traditionally, nursing bras are made with flaps of fabric over the cup which can be unclasped and pulled down to access the breast. Even with the flap pulled down, the cup of the bra supports the breast. There are also no-flap versions made of stretchable fabric which can pulled to the side at feeding time. Though readily available, underwire versions of nursing bras are discouraged because they can constrict the breast and can cause either blocked ducts or mastitis.

In 4 December 2007, more than a year later, an IP contributor tremendously cut down that material, and on 7 March 2009 a different IP contributor rewrote it into the form used at the external site, in the most dramatic change altering "Traditionally, nursing bras are made with flaps of fabric over the cup which can be unclasped and pulled down to access the breast." to read "Traditionally, the cups of nursing bras are covered with flaps of fabric that can be unclasped at the top and pulled down to expose the breast."

Also, tellingly, the section on "Male bra" was not present in the article at all when the Nursing bras section was added, but introduced in that same 4 December 2007 series of edits. The "Adhesive" bra was added in 18 February 2008. This seems clearly to be a reverse infringement. Contributors to this article interested in objecting to the licensing violation at that website may wish to view Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. While Wikipedia encourages reuse of its material, license compliance is required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Removals[edit]

  • Built in Bra - Does this count as a bra? It's really a section of another article of clothing (swimsuit, t-shirt, etc)
  • Handbra - The definition flat out says "is not a bra."
  • Sheer Bra - not really a type of bra. It's a type of material, out of which any bra can be made.

Brendanmccabe (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Built-in bra is a bra type. I added some description to clarify.Kenno Bew (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tmbox[edit]

Since the copyright issue was resolved long ago, I removed the tmbox template from this talk page. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balconnette bra merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Balconette bra has existed since March 2010 but has never exceeded a paragraph in size. It was merged once before by another editor but immediately recreated by its original author. At least 50% of its content is replicated on List of brassiere designs. I sincerely doubt that there is sufficient content that will justify a separate article about this specific bra design. I believe it should be merged into this article. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The proposed redirect page already includes most of the information here, and the article is unlikely to expand beyond current length. Haruth (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has objected and plenty of time has lapsed, I will complete the merge. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Cupless bra merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into List of brassiere designs. -- AltSkitMan (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stub article cupless bra has existed since September 2007 and has never exceeded 3 paragraphs and in all that time has never been supported by a single reliable source. I don't believe the article is going to grow. The information in the article that is not already present in "List of brassiere designs" can easily be summarized within the current description of the Shelf bra. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"shelf bra" gets 681,000 ghits while "cupless bra" gets 15,500. MilesAgain (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blacklisted Links Found on List of brassiere designs[edit]

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

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

  • http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8210685_first-bras.html#ixzz1e0cXq6uO
    Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bra designs. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for reference removal[edit]

I would like to flag the source http://www.biggerbras.com/advice/glossary/ as low accuracy and validity. I'm new to editing so I don't know how to do it and I don't want to ruin anything. The content in the wiki article that uses this source reference is "shallow" at best but I'd want to call it repeatedly half-true. Upon inspection neither the link or anything else on www.biggerbras.com is accessible and there is only one page indexed by Google, which suggests that they have been offline for a long time. Kenno Bew (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

belly dance[edit]

The reference that goes w/ belly dance doesn't mention belly dance bras. --Evope (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article's references are one big WP:VENDOR violation, if I'm not mistaken[edit]

Going through this article's references, there are a lot, and I mean probably most all, of them that are WP:VENDOR links. I'm going to remove them and put a big ol' more citations needed tag in the lead, because as unfortunate as it is that a lot of bra advice comes from bra companies themselves, it isn't something I think we can have as the majority of references. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a question of geometry[edit]

Bullet: A full-support bra with cups in the shape of a paraboloid with its axis perpendicular to the breast.

What is perpendicular to a round thing? Suggest changing to "perpendicular to the chest", or "horizontally forward", or .. I invite other suggestions. —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bra_designs&oldid=1203626063"