Talk:Leotard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:The Anome has now removed Image:Ska_naru_leotard.jpg twice, calling it "inappropriate". However, it seems like a perfectly good image of a leotard, with the Kigurumi aspect of it not getting in the way of portraying the garment. I'm going to restore it again, but please let's discuss the matter here further. I'm not wedded to this image in particular, but since that's the image we happen to have of someone wearing a leotard it seems ridiculous not to use it. Bryan 17:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the image as well, but as long as we don't have a better one, let this stay. Paranoid 20:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From my POV, the Kirigumi aspect of the image overwhelms all else, distracting the reader from the topic of the article. Besides the fact that I really don't like this image: very similar Kirigumi images have been placed into a number of articles where their relevance is similarly tangential. To take this to reductio ad absurdam: if this picture is relevant here, why not in "human" (it depicts a human), "textile" (the leotard's surface is made out of a textile), "mask", "curtain" (there's one in the background), "hand", "wig", "condensed matter" and so on.... Clearly, to do all of these would be ludicrous, even though the picture contains clear visual representations of every one of these.

Please, can someone download a picture of a person wearing a leotard in a more typical context such as dance, yoga, circus or gymnastics, so we can stop arguing about this? -- The Anome 22:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that the reader is distracted by trying to guess if the person in the costume is male or female... The Anome 22:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an out-of-copyright image of M. Leotard wearing his costume could illustrate two articles for the price of one image? -- The Anome 22:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. As long as this IMO perfectly-fine image of a leotard is replaced by another IMO perfectly-fine image of a leotard I've got no basis for complaint. :) Bryan 05:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image replaced by the one provided by Viruswitch, then. Snowflake Sans Crainte 00:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome 08:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image that might be better. Check it out.

<img src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leotard_ballet.jpg">

Viruswitch 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underwear section

I can see this one either way. I don't think it detracts from the article. I do wonder about its relevance, but not enough to have deleted it myself. -- Jay Maynard 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it detracts from the article for the following reasons reasons:

1. It has no actual relevance to the subject matter
2. It states that "leotards are worn with or without ... depending on the circumstances", thus underlying its unnecessary mention - do we also need a section on shoes sometimes being worn? How about tracksuits sometimes being worn over the top of leotards?);
3. It lists several points (e.g. dancers belts, menstruation) that really don't need discussing in an article about leotards.
4. All comments within this section are questionable at best and entirely unsourced.

--Zoe.R 12:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Selection

Is the bunch of movies listed in this article really required? At least one of the movies listed (WarGames), only contains a character in a leotard for less then a minute of screen time. Also many of the movies listed are based around gymnastics. Isn't it expected to find leotards in a movie about gymnasts?

It seems like who ever wrote that selection has a fetish for leotards as it lists the actresses as well, which isn't needed or required for the article. Could we get it cleaned up? - 202.180.71.20 09:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this for a while. To be honest, I think it's superfluous and could be removed without detracting from the article. --Zoe.R 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've decided to be bold and remove it. - 202.180.71.20 07:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)