Talk:Wardrobe malfunction

Merge

No need to do the merge. Details about the phrase, separate from the incident, go here. Details about the incident to at the 'main' article. DJ Clayworth 20:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Euphemism?

I'd say that "wardrobe malfunction" is better described as a colloquial term than as a euphemism--does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink jester (talk • contribs) 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Roberts wardrobe malfunction

If my memory serves me correctly, Tanya Roberts exposed pubic hair while filiming publicity stills for "Sheena". It was approx 1985. Anyone want to help me with this?

Banned Words from the Queen's English

"Wardrobe malfunction" was listed in Lake Superior State University's annual poll for Banned Words from the Queen's English in 2005. [1] Is that worth mentioning here, given that the article also discusses the popularity of the term? Quite a few people did get sick of it, apparently. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Carmen Miranda

Removed a link that contained pornography. Jackkoho 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it back. Considering there is a naked breast right on the page, this really isn't a major concern. There are naked breasts all over this site, I'm certain this one isn't going to cause problems, and it's a notable image. In the event that we can clarify the copyright of the original image itself, we could even upload it to the Wikipedia servers. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see the image when I click that link, I just see what looks like ads to a bunch of porn sites. If you can find the actual image and upload it I think that would be better than the link. Jackkoho 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It was there...a black and white image on the left hand side. Anyway, I removed the link after consideration, and may do the same for the others because of undeterminied copyright issues. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

W's Daughter

I removed the link to the photoshopped pic. This is the same pic, sans nipple. KnightLago 11:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

+++The girl changing on the beach isn't Jenna. It's just a lookalike.

Britney Spears' wardrobe malfunction?

I think we should note about features, that Britney Spears got in the car WITHOUT underwear, which may caused both controversy and interests for paparazzi. Any thoughts? 86.101.211.226 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What source of sympathy? Source please

Yumiko Cheng

I think the link to the video should be taken off. I mean it said that they requested for it not to be shown. So i think we should respect that wish.

Definition of Wardrobe Malfunction & Appropriateness of Links

This article defines a wardrobe malfunction as the accidental exposure of an intimate part or parts of the body due to a defect in an article or articles of clothing. In my book, that doesn't include not wearing underwear. There is no wardrobe malfunction taking place when a celebrity decides not to wear underwear and a paparazzi jumps out of the bushes to snap a revealing picture. Therefore, I'm removing links that don't seem defined by this article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying Britney was "showing it" on purpose? Whether a skirt flies up or a top falls down, either way it's a "malfunction" unless it was done on purpose. Wahkeenah 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: a defect in an article or articles of clothing is not what is being described in several of the "incidents" listed in this article. Upskirt, I believe, is the proper home for them. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So put it there, THEN delete it from here. Wahkeenah 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve this, Wahkeenah. I've tried to understand where you are coming from (see User talk:Wahkeenah). I believe that we agree that these incidents don't belong in this article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than chopping, move the stuff from one article to the other. Use two different sessions if you have to. Or three, since some of these (like Loren/Mansfield) belong in Downblouse, not here. Wahkeenah 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page for my opinion on placing that picture in downblouse. I don't know exactly how to add those incidents into the upskirt article without disrupting that article's general flow. But I encourage you (and anyone else who cares) to do so. Meanwhile, I'd like to focus on cleaning this article up a bit more. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Men?

I notice that there are not any men mentioned in this article. Do men not have wardrobe malfunctions? Perhaps the term should be redefined as a defect in an article or articles of clothing of a woman? Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most men wear underwear, and "nip slips" are a non-issue. Plus, there are a lot more men who care about women getting exposed, than there are women who care about men getting exposed. Or, maybe men are just more careful. Wahkeenah 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

US Boxer Riddick Bowe suffered a wardrobe malfunction during a bout when his shorts ripped, exposing half of his buttocks.Chops79 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the difference in clothing designs... women's clothes tend to have lower necklines, higher hems, and show more in general (blame the designers, I'm just saying what I see) than men's-- yes there are lots of exceptions. Anyways, it would be harder, for example, to get a shot right up someone's pants or shorts to the genitals than it would be for a skirt. Also, most men's shirts don't show much below the neck, as opposed to the low lines in women's clothes. And of course, one must also realize that like it or not, a woman's skirt coming down gets a lot more press-coverage than a man's pants coming down.

Of course there are male malfunctions, especially in sport. There are plenty of pictures of soccer players and other guys hanging out of their shorts. There's a famous picture of a bullfighter with his pants ripped open. Someone just needs to go and collect the stuff, if they are interested.

There is a pic of Ely Guerra Nip Slip

189.141.105.251 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)I was in the concert when Ely Guerra accidentaly showed her right breast. For your pleasure, visit the following links. http://www.staticfiends.com/suburbia/download.php?id=1464 http://www.staticfiends.com/suburbia/archive/ely-guerra-nip-slip-the-vive-latino-music-festival-2481.htm 189.141.105.251 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 189.141.105.251 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Arturo189.141.105.251 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

external links

I have removed most of the external links in this article as violating Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. In other words, the paparazzi worked to take the photos and some tabloid spent good money to buy the copyright from the paparazzi. Linking to sites and pages that are infringing on the copyright of the owners is a form of contributory infringement and prohibited on Wikipedia. Articles that discuss malfunctions without infringing on the image copyright are, of course, fine. - BanyanTree 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken to an extreme such deletions can actually undermine the documentation that is required for inclusion.... Only in very clear cases of copyright infringement should this be done, and a citation tag (and hidden editorial note) should be left requesting either a proper link or the deletion of the content. -- Fyslee/talk 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this argument holds any weight given the links in question, which were about the clearest examples I can imagine. (Also note the page history to see the spammer try to reinsert links to their site.) Could you give an example using the links I removed? - BanyanTree 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my confusing wording which I have now reworded. I haven't checked the links and am only referring to principles. As long as you are certain, then no problem. I've seen deletion of links by people who want to censor Wikipedia. As long as that isn't happening here then no problem. I still think that leaving a citation tag would be best. Otherwise the content should be deleted as a possible BLP violation, but that would be a step backwards. We're trying to build, not tear down. -- Fyslee/talk 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one on live TV

The Pendragons performed their Metamorphosis trick live on a magic show hosted by William Shatner. When Charlotte popped up out of the chest, her 'pants' (as Shatner called it) snapped, exposing her pubic hair. Couldn't really see much because it was a long camera shot and both the item of clothing and pubic hair were dark, and she quickly crouched down into the chest. (I remember all that but not what year the show was broadcast live!)

Heavily cut

I have heavily cut the list per WP:BLP. You can see what I did here [2], so and if you want to try to replace them with citations go ahead. However I don't think you should be trying to document every single "wardrobe malfunction" that ever happened to a celebrity, you should try to figure out some criteria for "notability"... eg. were they actually discussed, not just reported. Kappa 04:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely BLP doesn't apply to Diana, Princess of Wales? =) Powers ^T 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the Jackson incident has its own separate article, nothing remains here except basically a dictionary entry. Might as well delete the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy

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.

This article contains nothing more than the incident at the Super Bowl, and has no real reason to exist because the same information is adressed within the other article. Grsz11 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to have much more information, but an editor cut it heavily.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Conditional merge. If (a) KD Tries Again or another editor wants to try to restore any material that shouldn't have been cut, and (b) "wardrobe malfunction" in a context broader than Superbowl XXXVIII meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability, then by all means restore it and hold off on the merge. Otherwise, it should be merged right away. Frankly, I am heartily skeptical that those two conditions can be met. Ipoellet (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Let's not confuse criteria and assignments. Most of the examples removed were perfectly authentic; finding references is not difficult but it's a time-consuming assignment. If the article is worth keeping, we should place those examples in a suitable location for willing editors to work through them. Whether the subject meets the Wiki criterion of notability is a distinct question. My point above is that if editors insist that only the Janet Jackson incident qualifies for mention, then it might as well be merged with the article on that incident. Otherwise, this article just needs to be expanded again, with citations.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm thinking this should go to AFD. I just can't see any value added here. The entire section on 'nipple slip' I've removed, as we are not a dictionary. In fact, there is a Wiktionary entry, perhaps more detail should be put into it, and this deleted. Achromatic (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The term has taken a life of its own. There are 826,000 google hits for "wardrobe malfunction" today. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for an article in Wikipedia makes no mention of the number of ghits as a sufficient condition for an article. No one is arguing that this is not a commonly used term. The argument is that this article does not provide anything that isn't already provided by Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy and the wikitionary entry. What the article does provide is information that is synthesized into this neologism, or information more appropriate to other articles like upskirt. -Verdatum (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Isn't the wardrobe malfunction a way bigger issue than that Superbowl thingy? If you need a merger, do the other way round. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• DO NOT MERGE. The term applies to far more than the superbowl incident. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Don't merge. Relevant nformation that used to be in this article should be restored. This is not just about the Superbowl incident. Entheta (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is obviously no consensus for a merge as the article contains much other material now. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

N

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.

Viviane Castro

• http://gridskipper.com/353949/for-rios-carnival-you-may-only-be-999-naked

For Rio's Carnival, You May Only Be 99.9% Naked -- Toytoy (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I'm returning this page to a redirect. The content added since the last time it was a redirect is original research, unverified claims, and synthesis, unless you can find a reliable source that called the music video a "wardrobe malfunction". If you think this article should not be a redirect, please make an argument for why it needs to be anything more than a dictionary entry. -Verdatum (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is fine, but this article covers many more aspects of WMF than the Superbowl article. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to hear the case you thugs have made for removing sourced material including at least one RS describing an incident as a wardrobe malfunction. Kappa (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to waver on my opinion about this. Although I don't appreciate the implication that any of us are "thugs" just because we request a bit of justification; as Kappa said, there are references to events that are described by reporters as "Wardrobe malfunctions" which arguably could be innappropriate for the Superbowl article.

The only thing I continue to feel strongly about is that this should be an article about the neologism "Wardrobe malfunction" I don't particularly see the need for an article about random accidental celebrity indecent exposures. Such a list could get rediculously long, and not serve any particular benefit that I can see. Instances should only be mentioned when reliable sources refer to the event as a "wardrobe malfunction" so as to reinforce the notability of the term. If other people prefer this as a redirect, they are welcome to argue the position, but I don't think I'm going to revert it anymore. If it changes back to an article, I would however cleanup the article to match the scope I have described. (I'd also modify the appropriate section of the halftime controversies article to conform to WP:SUMMARY once any lingering editwars subside.) -Verdatum (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, where having a whole bunch of thugs on your side puts you in a postion to "request" explanations by brute force while relieving you of the necessity of providing them. Kappa (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

History

Work has began only. Everything will need citations and sources, everything that remains unsupported must be removed. There shouldn't be any peacock words or judgmental commentary. But, removing it, like was done quite a few times, will also remove the possibilities of improvement. Whatever you want to remove in large scale, please, discuss here per Wikipedia conventions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

People can look in the history. Per wp:blp unsourced about living people has to go immediately. Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• User:Garion96 should please make and discuss his edits more details rather than cutting great swathes out of the article. WP:BLP is obviously not applicable to people such as Jayne Mansfield or Carmen Miranda as they are dead. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think those are indeed the only two deceased people on that list. For those entries there is always Wikipedia:Verifiability. To quote "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." For all the other ones the same is even stronger per wp:blp. Almost all of the examples stated are of living persons. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the policy first then wield it like a weapon, which is what you are doing here. Challenge first, and remove if there is no response. Don't start an edit war, please, it's disruptive. I agree that the stuff needs copyedit and also appropriate sourcing. But, if you remove it there will be none of that. This blunt and dogged approach of removing information without giving it a chance doesn't build an encyclopedia. Not helpful at all. If you don't like it for your personal values, please, there are forums on Wikipedia where you can report. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with personal values. Although personally I do think the article does not need a list. I think the article looked great since you improved and doesn't need the list. But if the list stays, all entries have to be sourced. We don't add information about living people to articles and hope that people will source it. We add it and source it immediately. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)