Talk:Thong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 23 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed, per consensus. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Thong (clothing) → Thong
• Thong → Thong (disambiguation)

– Far and away the primary topic by pageviews and importance. Nothing else comes close. The disambiguation should not be in the main namespace. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, clear primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, primary topic and honestly surprised this wasn't done ages ago. None of the other pages would even register as a blip on the radar in comparison to this article. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The garment is the obvious primary topic; all other uses are obscure compared to it. The disambiguation should still be in the mainspace however, unless Zxcvbnm can provide a compelling reason for it to not be. Geolodus (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  They almost certainly meant the base term, rather than the namespace. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Song, even. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the only other reasonably likely candidate, flip-flops (via the non-American term for the footwear), has about four times fewer average daily pageviews, and that offers no visibility as to how many readers are actually searching for that article by the name "thong". For users who do, the hatnote at the clothing article handles the situation nicely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Engvar usage

I know that the two templates discussed are different, but the one infers usage of the other. If we specify date format to be dd-mm-yy, which is the UK variant, it is also logical to follow that the inherent text in the article will also follow the UK Engvar. It also follows thus that if there is no DMY preference then there is no preferred language usage, and whichever has dominance comes first. But in instances when people have taken the time and effort to specify a geographical date preference, that geographical preference should also apply to the article.

To that end I've added an Engvar template to the article, based on the DMY prefernce, and the source of the name - The origin of the word thong in the English language is from Old English þwong, a flexible leather cord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• @Chaheel Riens: For the record, I have no quarrel with that, but rather was trying to go with the state of the article and the fact the "English variation" template was not present. But now that you say this, I wonder if this may be consistent across the oars with English variations and date formats, and wonder if there may be a proposal somewhere to merge the templates... Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Thong(clothing)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thong(clothing) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Thong(clothing) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Woman using a G-string Thong 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was closed in July 2021 with the conclusion: Keep. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead image caption edit war

@Maya765

If you would like to discuss the recent edits you have made which have been reverted several times, please use this talk page to build consensus instead of redoing them. Yutah123 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming that you are assisting people with "low level English". No matter how poor their language they can see exactly what the image shows without being told.Moons of Io (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps @Maya765 could do such detailed descriptions about that of any other image in their Wikimedia Commons respective file page. There, people can be as detailed as they wish. I’m always against censorship in Wikipedia but in this case it is more about common sense in a caption. After all, an image speaks for itself and captions are necessary just to establish a place, material, person, creator, etc. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The user seems to only edit image captions of articles relating to sexual topics, such as this edit to Fingering. CanonNi (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)