1369:
1910:
1625:
2660:
recognized for its cultural significance and impact on fashion, the emergence of the micro miniskirt represents a notable shift in style and societal norms. By documenting the transition from the classic miniskirt to the more daring micro version, the page acknowledges how fashion trends evolve over time and reflects broader cultural shifts. Additionally, the micro miniskirt trend serves as a lens through which to explore discussions around body image, gender norms, and the influence of designers and fashion houses in shaping contemporary fashion. Including information about the micro miniskirt trend enriches the
Knowledge (XXG) page by providing readers with a more nuanced understanding of the miniskirt's enduring legacy and relevance in modern fashion culture.
1224:
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.
1028:
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.
2123:
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?
1050:
882:
360:
981:
834:
1201:
1242:, 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.
2039:
1019:
846:
991:. 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.
858:
559:
899:- 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.
2385:
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
Knowledge (XXG), 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.
2108:'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.
870:
276:
255:
2604:
286:
486:
465:
224:
1887:, 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.
1722:, 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.
391:
1497:
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
675:
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).
1341:
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)
1086:
appreciate being the poster child for miniskirts on
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1109:
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.
2616:
796:
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.
1340:
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
674:
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.
2384:
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
2172:
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
2122:
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
799:
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. Knowledge (XXG) 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
795:
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
2423:
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
2222:
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
2147:
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
1477:
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
1027:
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
957:
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
1831:
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
909:
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
2176:
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
1922:
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,
1858:
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
1223:
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
721:
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
1764:
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
1161:
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
1132:
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
1496:
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
1416:
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
2369:
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
1448:
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
902:- 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).
2659:
I have included a section about the recent resurgence of the micro miniskirt. The inclusion of the micro miniskirt trend on a miniskirt Knowledge (XXG) page is essential to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of this iconic garment. While the traditional miniskirt has long been
1085:
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
2287:
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:
1108:
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
1882:
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
1293:
1725:
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
1421:" 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.
1403:
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
1543:
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
1937:
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
722:
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.
961:
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
893:- 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.
1836:
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
1368:
827:; 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:
2191:
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
1278:, 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....
1959:
2442:
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
598:, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Knowledge (XXG).
1180:
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.
1133:
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.
1643:
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
1748:
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:
958:
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)
1758:
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
153:
1859:
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.
2399:
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 Knowledge (XXG).
1876:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) has worked since before 2005 is that
1157:- 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
2241:
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.
1609:, 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?
1996:
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
1463:
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.
1909:
608:
1755:
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
682:
1787:
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.
381:
2177:
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.
1586:, 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
2204:), 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.
1695:, 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.
1112:
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.
1828:
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.
2021:- 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.
447:
2698:
1624:
584:
437:
2518:
2514:
2500:
2708:
910:
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.
1296:
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.
954:
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.)
1412:
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
147:
2486:
1752:
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?
413:
2446:
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.
79:
2693:
2580:
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.
2703:
536:
342:
404:
365:
1669:
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.
2718:
2688:
1655:
There have been plenty of suggestions in the past, what do you propose - suggesting them here, rather than disrupting the article itself? Thanks.
618:
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
526:
332:
1043:
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.-
85:
1071:
1007:
940:
626:
2046:
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.
2439:
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.
1939:
1629:
2723:
2425:
1956:
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.
905:- Candid shot of a sign-language interpreter in a denim miniskirt. The skirt is immediately visible, and not lost in the background colours.
502:
308:
2093:
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.
1162:
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.
30:
1691:
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
896:- 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.
1049:
2290:"Petite Panoply by Jamie Donaldson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"
2344:
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
697:
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.
686:
99:
2713:
2683:
2496:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1590:. 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.
44:
104:
20:
2624:
2424:
to end 12 inch below her butt. Without sounding creepy, I would like to ask, is it an appropriate representation of a mini-skirt?
1558:
We probably should also revise the article that a miniskirt in dress form may be called either a minidress or a miniskirt dress.
881:
833:
493:
470:
299:
260:
74:
2487:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151127044600/http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/spring-summer-2003/ready-to-wear/gucci/catwalk-report
1741:
235:
412:
and related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2583:
The lede is to summarise the article proper, not a dumping ground for misc information - especially when it isn't sourced.
1505:
into separate articles, as they would end up more or less carbon copies of each other. Unless we were to rename the article
65:
2038:
639:
Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Knowledge (XXG) article at ]; see its history for attribution.
2561:
2490:
168:
2197:
1449:
together or not, they are different articles of clothing and one should not be used to show an example of the other.
1417:
practical with miniskirts and were replaced with coloured tights. The popular acceptance of miniskirts peaked in the "
1067:
1003:
936:
135:
1923:
because if it were just a tiny bit higher to show the waist of the skirt, then it would be a perfect illustration.
1388:
well above the knees, generally at mid-thigh level, normally no longer than 10 cm (4 in) below the buttocks; and a
185:
2293:
109:
2517:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
380:
359:
203:
2429:
2079:
Thank you. I've boldly swapped the file for the cropped version, which I think is even more of an improvement.
634:
194:
190:
980:
845:
655:
241:
857:
2588:
2552:
2478:
2451:
2352:
2316:
2153:
2113:
1895:
1795:
1770:
1700:
1660:
1595:
1487:
1454:
1200:
1186:
1167:
1117:
967:
805:
1059:
995:
928:
678:
129:
2665:
2474:
2405:
2375:
2335:
2257:
2228:
2182:
2070:
1674:
1563:
1435:
1315:
1310:
I like that one. And minidress is right in the first paragraph, so this image isn't going too far afield.
1261:
1063:
1044:
999:
988:
932:
824:
603:
2308:
55:
2644:
2536:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2524:
761:
501:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
307:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2477:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2201:
2065:
Mabalu, that's the best miniskirt image that anyone has suggested so far. I say we go with this one.
70:
2327:
2018:
125:
1555:
that does the same. The 1966 article explains that designers are also turning out mini-skirt dresses.
1506:
223:
2628:
1833:
161:
2223:
discussion. I would do it, but I don't have a Flickr account and don't want to sign up for one.
1765:
miniskirt, but a dress, and the other to me is just as unrealistic as you find the current image.
2607:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
2584:
2447:
2348:
2312:
2244:
2214:
2149:
2109:
2096:
2003:
1969:
1891:
1873:
1840:
1791:
1766:
1732:
1719:
1696:
1656:
1647:
1606:
1591:
1483:
1450:
1373:
1220:
1216:
1182:
1163:
1142:
1113:
963:
820:
801:
782:
208:
175:
2521:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1878:
you do not edit war and insist on your preferred version stays in place while we discuss changes
1018:
2537:
2661:
2620:
2401:
2371:
2331:
2253:
2224:
2178:
2148:
down to stubbornness rather than arrogance or intentional flouting of process and procedure.
2066:
1790:
Please clarify why you believe that Bold Revert & Discuss does not apply to you, thanks.
1670:
1559:
1431:
1409:
1311:
1257:
869:
630:
51:
2640:
2632:
2390:
2128:
2084:
2051:
2026:
1947:
1928:
1864:
1614:
1514:
1468:
1355:
1301:
1283:
1247:
1229:
1091:
1033:
915:
754:
738:
702:
409:
205:
2544:
2193:
1745:
1692:
1154:
1418:
1413:
1405:
1239:
1176:
You might want to read up and understand the entire discussion here. That image is only
2503:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2017:
I absolutely agree about avoiding the male gaze. I think I've found the perfect image:
1547:
Suppose we look instead at the term's use, especially during the heyday of miniskirts.
396:
291:
141:
2543:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2510:
2677:
2576:
I have removed this disambig - again. The claim that "mini dress" is also a type of
2105:
1965:
1135:
775:
752:- simply a somewhat shorter miniskirt, and the line of distinction is rather blurry.
2491:
http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/spring-summer-2003/ready-to-wear/gucci/catwalk-report
1430:
I think that looks great. It's so much better a picture than the one we have now.
2577:
2346:"Please link back to my blog, not this flickr page if you share my images. Thanks!"
1729:
looks like something that could actually be worn in everyday situations or to work.
924:
Hi. I think the best pic is no. 5 (of the sign language girl). -Shreyoshidasgupta
2669:
2603:
2598:
Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
2386:
2252:
Thanks, Peter, I sent a short email to the contact address listed on her blog.
2208:
2124:
2080:
2047:
2022:
1943:
1924:
1860:
1610:
1583:
1510:
1464:
1351:
1297:
1279:
1243:
1225:
1087:
1029:
911:
734:
730:
698:
275:
254:
2509:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
714:
386:
281:
1551:
that clearly shows miniskirts to include dresses as well as separate skirts.
1482:
something that is not inherently a skirt, but a different item of clothing.
1219:'s viewpoint. The image they propose is okay, but far from ideal - I am with
2470:
1997:
1552:
1548:
1502:
1498:
24:
1270:
I personally have zero objection to that, although Quant is wearing a mini
571:
2370:
considered this in any depth and would welcome the thoughts of others.
1958:
1639:
Sorry for being bold, but I replaced the image of the young woman in a
1385:
637:
to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is
498:
304:
485:
464:
207:
1408:'s banana skirt that she wore for her mid-1920s performances in the
2037:
1957:
1908:
1623:
1350:
Click to see how the lede would look with the Korean group image.
1048:
1017:
979:
2330:
that uses a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, so it seems that we are okay.
2042:
Woman in a red miniskirt and green cardigan - Mabalu's suggestion
2648:
2592:
2566:
2455:
2433:
2409:
2394:
2379:
2356:
2339:
2320:
2261:
2247:
2238:
2232:
2217:
2186:
2157:
2132:
2117:
2099:
2088:
2074:
2055:
2030:
2006:
1973:
1951:
1932:
1899:
1868:
1843:
1799:
1774:
1735:
1704:
1678:
1664:
1650:
1618:
1599:
1567:
1518:
1491:
1472:
1458:
1439:
1359:
1319:
1305:
1287:
1265:
1251:
1233:
1190:
1171:
1145:
1121:
1095:
1075:
1037:
1011:
971:
944:
919:
809:
785:
767:
742:
706:
690:
595:
552:
217:
209:
15:
733:
article was merged into this article, so there is precedent.
1256:
What about promoting the Mary Quant picture to the lede?
2481:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
607:
to this template: there are already 1,480 articles in the
1384:(sometimes hyphenated as "mini-skirt") is a skirt with a
1727:
2173:
full-length photo, rather than just showing the skirt.
160:
1832:
that the image you're arguing for looks like amateur
1400:
is a miniskirt with its hemline at the upper thigh.
591:
497:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
408:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
303:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2513:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
587:
a machine-translated version of the French article.
174:
1238:I thought I'd found a possible Flickr candidate,
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2499:This message was posted before February 2018.
633:accompanying your translation by providing an
578:Click for important translation instructions.
570:expand this article with text translated from
8:
2307:I asked the question over at the helpdesk -
2207:Many thanks for finding the red dress pic,
1781:"you're the only one opposing it right now"
422:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women's History
2469:I have just modified one external link on
2304:- ie the blog - states that they are 4.0.
1588:not the best representation of a miniskirt
1376:wearing mini- and micro-minidresses. 2012.
1345:
676:
459:
354:
249:
2211:. Looking up the source was a great idea.
1367:
1199:
2699:Low-importance Women's History articles
2462:External links modified (February 2018)
829:
461:
356:
251:
221:
1783:- that's correct, but nevertheless, I
1630:File:Minirock (Lack) Photo Model 1.jpg
1204:Woman in miniskirt with big purple bag
612:
1632:(see above, "Alternative view of #1")
1240:Model Carla Ossa in a black miniskirt
683:2601:240:8100:E2AC:E9E9:635:3F22:C6DD
7:
2709:WikiProject Women's History articles
491:This article is within the scope of
425:Template:WikiProject Women's History
402:This article is within the scope of
297:This article is within the scope of
2704:All WikiProject Women-related pages
1478:the best example of a miniskirt is
511:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Culture
317:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fashion
23:for discussing improvements to the
2612:
2608:
2309:Is wikipedia a commercial venture?
1392:is a dress with such a hemline. A
819:OK - let's sort this out. Pinging
14:
2473:. Please take a moment to review
2296:we cannot use 4.0. Although the
1178:"inappropriate and controversial"
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2694:C-Class Women's History articles
2615:. Further details are available
2602:
1883:dissatisfaction with your image
880:
868:
856:
844:
832:
557:
484:
463:
389:
379:
358:
284:
274:
253:
222:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2719:Low-importance culture articles
2689:Mid-importance fashion articles
2654:
1913:Close-up of same skirt as above
531:This article has been rated as
442:This article has been rated as
337:This article has been rated as
2300:claim to be CC BY-SA 2.0, the
1942:though, so will keep looking.
643:You may also add the template
240:It is of interest to multiple
1:
2639:— Assignment last updated by
2593:21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
2239:http://www.petitepanoply.com/
1628:Alternative added instead of
1600:08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
1568:02:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
1519:22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
1492:14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
1473:13:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
1459:10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
1440:23:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1360:23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1320:05:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1306:03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1288:03:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1266:03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1252:03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1234:02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
1191:17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
1172:17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
1146:13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
1122:11:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
1096:11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
1076:04:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
1038:00:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
1012:23:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
972:19:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
945:19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
920:18:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
810:18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
786:09:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
505:and see a list of open tasks.
416:and see a list of open tasks.
311:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2724:WikiProject Culture articles
2567:03:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
2292:, and according to the Wiki
1779:As per your edit summary of
1553:Here is a clipping from 1967
1549:Here is a clipping from 1966
1215:Hmm. I really do appreciate
768:03:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
743:14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
514:Template:WikiProject Culture
320:Template:WikiProject Fashion
2410:14:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
2395:08:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
2380:21:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
2357:19:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
2340:16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
2321:11:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
2311:, where it was clarified.
656:Knowledge (XXG):Translation
615:will aid in categorization.
405:WikiProject Women's History
2740:
2649:15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
2530:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2466:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
645:{{Translated|fr|Minijupe}}
590:Machine translation, like
537:project's importance scale
448:project's importance scale
343:project's importance scale
2456:19:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
2434:18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
2262:23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2248:22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2233:22:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2218:21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
2187:21:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2158:13:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2133:11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2118:10:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2100:22:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
2089:22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
2075:22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
2056:22:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
2031:22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
2007:22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1974:22:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1952:22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1933:21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1900:21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1869:21:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1844:21:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1800:20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1775:20:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1736:20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1705:20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1679:20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1665:20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1651:19:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1619:11:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
572:the corresponding article
530:
479:
441:
374:
336:
269:
248:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2714:C-Class culture articles
2684:C-Class fashion articles
2326:Actually, the source is
729:- In 2006, the original
707:10:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
691:00:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
428:Women's History articles
2670:02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2104:My support would go to
1372:South Korean pop group
654:For more guidance, see
2655:2020's Mirco Miniskirt
2043:
1963:
1914:
1740:I am fully aware that
1633:
1377:
1205:
1053:
1023:
1022:Alternative view of #1
984:
825:User:Shreyoshidasgupta
717:back into this article
230:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2619:. Student editor(s):
2041:
1962:D.Creish's suggestion
1961:
1912:
1627:
1371:
1203:
1052:
1021:
983:
627:copyright attribution
234:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
2511:regular verification
1890:Be the decent man.
1742:consensus can change
670:Need more 1980s info
105:No original research
2627:). Peer reviewers:
2501:After February 2018
1834:glamour photography
494:WikiProject Culture
300:WikiProject Fashion
2617:on the course page
2555:InternetArchiveBot
2506:InternetArchiveBot
2237:She has a blog at
2044:
1964:
1915:
1634:
1378:
1274:rather than a mini
1206:
1054:
1024:
985:
821:User:Chaheel Riens
800:article subject.
713:Proposed merge of
635:interlanguage link
236:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
2531:
1744:, however as per
1426:
1425:
1374:Girls' Generation
1079:
1064:Shreyoshidasgupta
1062:comment added by
1045:Shreyoshidasgupta
1015:
1000:Shreyoshidasgupta
998:comment added by
989:Shreyoshidasgupta
948:
933:Shreyoshidasgupta
931:comment added by
693:
681:comment added by
667:
666:
579:
551:
550:
547:
546:
543:
542:
458:
457:
454:
453:
353:
352:
349:
348:
216:
215:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2731:
2651:
2625:article contribs
2614:
2610:
2606:
2565:
2556:
2529:
2528:
2507:
2328:a Flickr account
1940:one valid option
1346:
1138:
1078:
1056:
1014:
992:
947:
925:
884:
872:
860:
848:
839:1. Current image
836:
778:
766:
764:
759:
646:
640:
614:
611:, and specifying
596:Google Translate
577:
561:
560:
553:
519:
518:
517:culture articles
515:
512:
509:
488:
481:
480:
475:
467:
460:
430:
429:
426:
423:
420:
399:
394:
393:
392:
383:
376:
375:
370:
362:
355:
325:
324:
323:fashion articles
321:
318:
315:
294:
289:
288:
287:
278:
271:
270:
265:
257:
250:
233:
227:
226:
218:
210:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2674:
2673:
2657:
2638:
2609:22 January 2024
2600:
2574:
2559:
2554:
2522:
2515:have permission
2505:
2479:this simple FaQ
2464:
2426:223.176.202.198
1507:Mini (clothing)
1427:
1419:Swinging London
1414:Earle K. Bergey
1406:Josephine Baker
1394:micro-miniskirt
1362:
1136:
1057:
993:
926:
888:
885:
876:
873:
864:
861:
852:
849:
840:
837:
817:
793:
776:
762:
755:
753:
719:
672:
663:
662:
661:
644:
638:
580:
562:
558:
516:
513:
510:
507:
506:
473:
427:
424:
421:
419:Women's History
418:
417:
410:Women's history
395:
390:
388:
368:
366:Women's History
322:
319:
316:
313:
312:
290:
285:
283:
263:
231:
212:
211:
206:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2737:
2735:
2727:
2726:
2721:
2716:
2711:
2706:
2701:
2696:
2691:
2686:
2676:
2675:
2656:
2653:
2629:Graciekass1101
2599:
2596:
2573:
2570:
2549:
2548:
2541:
2494:
2493:
2485:Added archive
2463:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2444:
2440:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2242:
2212:
2205:
2174:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2094:
2077:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2001:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1935:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1888:
1880:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1838:
1829:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1788:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1753:
1730:
1723:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1645:
1622:
1621:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1556:
1545:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1443:
1442:
1424:
1423:
1410:Folies Bergère
1364:
1363:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1294:this fun image
1236:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1149:
1148:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1110:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1041:
1040:
978:
977:
976:
975:
959:
955:
907:
906:
903:
900:
897:
894:
890:
889:
886:
879:
877:
874:
867:
865:
862:
855:
853:
850:
843:
841:
838:
831:
816:
813:
792:
789:
771:
770:
757:Mr.choppers |
746:
745:
718:
711:
710:
709:
671:
668:
665:
664:
660:
659:
652:
641:
619:
616:
604:adding a topic
599:
588:
581:
567:
566:
565:
563:
556:
549:
548:
545:
544:
541:
540:
533:Low-importance
529:
523:
522:
520:
503:the discussion
489:
477:
476:
474:Low‑importance
468:
456:
455:
452:
451:
444:Low-importance
440:
434:
433:
431:
414:the discussion
401:
400:
397:History portal
384:
372:
371:
369:Low‑importance
363:
351:
350:
347:
346:
339:Mid-importance
335:
329:
328:
326:
309:the discussion
296:
295:
292:Fashion portal
279:
267:
266:
264:Mid‑importance
258:
246:
245:
239:
228:
214:
213:
204:
202:
201:
198:
197:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2736:
2725:
2722:
2720:
2717:
2715:
2712:
2710:
2707:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2692:
2690:
2687:
2685:
2682:
2681:
2679:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2652:
2650:
2646:
2642:
2636:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2605:
2597:
2595:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2585:Chaheel Riens
2581:
2579:
2571:
2569:
2568:
2563:
2558:
2557:
2546:
2542:
2539:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2526:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2502:
2497:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2467:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2448:Chaheel Riens
2445:
2441:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2349:Chaheel Riens
2347:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2313:Chaheel Riens
2310:
2305:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2294:copyright FAQ
2291:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2246:
2243:
2240:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2216:
2213:
2210:
2206:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2150:Chaheel Riens
2146:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2110:Chaheel Riens
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2098:
2095:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2040:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2008:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1960:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1936:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1892:Chaheel Riens
1889:
1886:
1881:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1857:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1835:
1830:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:Chaheel Riens
1789:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1767:Chaheel Riens
1763:
1757:
1754:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:Chaheel Riens
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:Chaheel Riens
1654:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1626:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:Chaheel Riens
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:Chaheel Riens
1589:
1585:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1484:Chaheel Riens
1481:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1451:Chaheel Riens
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1422:
1420:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1375:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1339:
1338:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:For example,
1291:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1221:Chaheel Riens
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:Chaheel Riens
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:Chaheel Riens
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:Chaheel Riens
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
990:
982:
973:
969:
965:
964:Chaheel Riens
960:
956:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
922:
921:
917:
913:
904:
901:
898:
895:
892:
891:
883:
878:
871:
866:
859:
854:
847:
842:
835:
830:
828:
826:
822:
814:
812:
811:
807:
803:
802:Chaheel Riens
797:
790:
788:
787:
784:
783:
780:
779:
769:
765:
760:
758:
751:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
724:
723:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
669:
657:
653:
650:
642:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
610:
609:main category
606:
605:
600:
597:
593:
589:
586:
583:
582:
575:
573:
568:You can help
564:
555:
554:
538:
534:
528:
525:
524:
521:
504:
500:
496:
495:
490:
487:
483:
482:
478:
472:
469:
466:
462:
449:
445:
439:
436:
435:
432:
415:
411:
407:
406:
398:
387:
385:
382:
378:
377:
373:
367:
364:
361:
357:
344:
340:
334:
331:
330:
327:
310:
306:
302:
301:
293:
282:
280:
277:
273:
272:
268:
262:
259:
256:
252:
247:
243:
237:
229:
225:
220:
219:
200:
199:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2662:Kendyldelyse
2658:
2637:
2621:Kendyldelyse
2601:
2582:
2578:bodystocking
2575:
2553:
2550:
2525:source check
2504:
2498:
2495:
2468:
2465:
2422:
2402:John M Baker
2372:John M Baker
2345:
2332:John M Baker
2306:
2301:
2297:
2289:
2286:
2254:John M Baker
2225:John M Baker
2179:John M Baker
2067:John M Baker
2045:
1884:
1877:
1784:
1780:
1671:John M Baker
1640:
1587:
1582:
1560:John M Baker
1479:
1432:John M Baker
1402:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1381:
1379:
1312:John M Baker
1275:
1271:
1258:John M Baker
1177:
1158:
1141:
1134:
1058:— Preceding
1055:
1042:
994:— Preceding
987:hi. This is
986:
927:— Preceding
923:
908:
818:
798:
794:
781:
774:
773:Merge done.
772:
756:
749:
726:
720:
677:— Preceding
673:
648:
631:edit summary
622:
602:
569:
532:
492:
443:
403:
338:
298:
242:WikiProjects
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2641:Elliesamide
2633:Elliesamide
2613:10 May 2024
1885:as the lede
1726:alternative
731:Micro skirt
148:free images
31:not a forum
2678:Categories
2572:Mini dress
2562:Report bug
1605:Apologies,
1544:minidress.
1398:microskirt
815:Lead image
715:Microskirt
2545:this tool
2538:this tool
2471:Miniskirt
2202:pantyhose
2194:brassiere
1998:male gaze
1503:minidress
1499:miniskirt
1390:minidress
1382:miniskirt
649:talk page
601:Consider
574:in French
88:if needed
71:Be polite
25:Miniskirt
21:talk page
2551:Cheers.—
2443:"always"
2106:D.Creish
2019:this one
1966:D.Creish
1217:SilkTork
1137:SilkTork
1072:contribs
1060:unsigned
1008:contribs
996:unsigned
941:contribs
929:unsigned
791:Lede pic
777:SilkTork
679:unsigned
625:provide
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2475:my edit
2298:uploads
2198:panties
1837:choice.
1720:Chaheel
1641:plastic
1386:hemline
750:Support
727:Comment
647:to the
629:in the
613:|topic=
535:on the
508:Culture
499:culture
471:Culture
446:on the
341:on the
314:Fashion
305:Fashion
261:Fashion
232:C-class
154:WP refs
142:scholar
2387:Mabalu
2302:source
2209:Mabalu
2125:Mabalu
2081:Mabalu
2048:Mabalu
2023:Mabalu
1944:Mabalu
1925:Mabalu
1861:Mabalu
1746:WP:BRD
1693:WP:BRD
1611:Mabalu
1584:Mabalu
1511:Mabalu
1465:Mabalu
1352:Mabalu
1298:Mabalu
1280:Mabalu
1244:Mabalu
1226:Mabalu
1155:WP:BRD
1088:Mabalu
1030:Mabalu
912:Mabalu
735:Mabalu
699:Mabalu
238:scale.
126:Google
2245:Peter
2215:Peter
2097:Peter
2004:Peter
1874:Peter
1841:Peter
1759:shop.
1733:Peter
1648:Peter
1644:have.
1276:skirt
1272:dress
592:DeepL
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2666:talk
2645:talk
2611:and
2589:talk
2452:talk
2430:talk
2406:talk
2391:talk
2376:talk
2353:talk
2336:talk
2317:talk
2258:talk
2229:talk
2183:talk
2154:talk
2129:talk
2114:talk
2085:talk
2071:talk
2052:talk
2027:talk
1970:talk
1948:talk
1929:talk
1896:talk
1865:talk
1796:talk
1771:talk
1701:talk
1675:talk
1661:talk
1615:talk
1596:talk
1564:talk
1515:talk
1501:and
1488:talk
1469:talk
1455:talk
1436:talk
1356:talk
1316:talk
1302:talk
1284:talk
1262:talk
1248:talk
1230:talk
1187:talk
1168:talk
1118:talk
1092:talk
1068:talk
1034:talk
1004:talk
968:talk
937:talk
916:talk
806:talk
739:talk
703:talk
687:talk
623:must
621:You
585:View
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2519:RfC
2489:to
1480:not
1396:or
1159:not
594:or
576:.
527:Low
438:Low
333:Mid
176:TWL
2680::
2668:)
2647:)
2635:.
2631:,
2591:)
2532:.
2527:}}
2523:{{
2454:)
2432:)
2408:)
2393:)
2378:)
2355:)
2338:)
2319:)
2260:)
2231:)
2200:,
2196:,
2185:)
2156:)
2131:)
2116:)
2087:)
2073:)
2054:)
2029:)
1972:)
1950:)
1931:)
1898:)
1867:)
1798:)
1785:am
1773:)
1703:)
1677:)
1663:)
1617:)
1598:)
1566:)
1517:)
1509:?
1490:)
1471:)
1457:)
1438:)
1380:A
1358:)
1318:)
1304:)
1286:)
1264:)
1250:)
1232:)
1189:)
1170:)
1120:)
1094:)
1074:)
1070:•
1036:)
1010:)
1006:•
970:)
943:)
939:•
918:)
863:3.
851:2.
823:;
808:)
763:✎
741:)
705:)
689:)
193:,
156:)
54:;
2664:(
2643:(
2623:(
2587:(
2564:)
2560:(
2547:.
2540:.
2450:(
2428:(
2404:(
2389:(
2374:(
2351:(
2334:(
2315:(
2256:(
2227:(
2192:(
2181:(
2152:(
2127:(
2112:(
2083:(
2069:(
2050:(
2025:(
2000:.
1968:(
1946:(
1927:(
1894:(
1863:(
1794:(
1769:(
1699:(
1673:(
1659:(
1613:(
1594:(
1562:(
1513:(
1486:(
1467:(
1453:(
1434:(
1354:(
1314:(
1300:(
1282:(
1260:(
1246:(
1228:(
1185:(
1166:(
1116:(
1090:(
1066:(
1032:(
1002:(
974:.
966:(
935:(
914:(
887:5
875:4
804:(
737:(
701:(
685:(
658:.
651:.
539:.
450:.
345:.
244:.
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.