The trend, popularized by a number of celebrities including Christina Aguilera, Victoria Beckham, Mariah Carey, Melanie Blatt, Paris Hilton, Jordan, Anna Kournikova, and Britney Spears waned within the decade........Melanie Blatt of All Saints was photographed flashing her thong as she got out of a taxi, and Victoria Beckham suggested that her husband enjoyed wearing her G-strings around the home.[8] Britney Spears has been portrayed as a major contributor to the whale tail's popularity.[9][10][11] Her whale tail flashing has been referred to in such creative literature books as Married to a Rock Star by Shemane Nugent,[12] Thong on Fire by Noire,[13] The Magical Breasts of Britney Spears by Ryan G. Van Cleave,[14] and Off-Color by Janet McDonald.[15]

As usual, Wikipedia force-feeds its readers what its crackpot writers want to feed them, not what is useful information in the real world.

As usual, Wikipedia force-feeds its readers what its crackpot writers want to feed them, not what is useful information in the real world.

What? This. 45k bytes of absurd details and chatty happy-talk, plus 122 references. I daresay that 3 paragraphs would have sufficed.


Why must we know all this crap?.......

As usual, Wikipedia force-feeds its readers what its crackpot writers want to feed them, not what is useful information in the real world. Even the bikini article is more restrained and better organized and written.

Let the record show that Eric feels readers should have to go elsewhere to learn about the "whale tail". If there's nowhere else to go--oh well.

Put me down for that too. If it's not about the Cocteau Twins, I'm just not interested.

I don't think that was Everyking's point.

Have you noticed that he's sort of run out of material now that his "I should be an admin again" act has played out?

Have you noticed that he's sort of run out of material now that his "I should be an admin again" act has played out?

I don't think that was Everyking's point.

What? This. 45k bytes of absurd details and chatty happy-talk, plus 122 references.

Let the record show that Eric feels readers should have to go elsewhere to learn about the "whale tail". If there's nowhere else to go--oh well.

122 references for an important topic like this one, is not unreasonable.

Folks, this is important, important stuff, with social implications: Social impact of thong underwear.

Let the record show that Eric feels readers should have to go elsewhere to learn about the "whale tail". If there's nowhere else to go--oh well.

Let the record show that Everyking has poor reading comprehension skills: Mr. Barbour said you could reduce the article to 3 paragraphs, not delete it entirely.

The article is an excellent case study of "inclusionism". It is the vision of Wikipedia that drives the kooks like Everyking: every article would look like an incurable scatterbrain wrote it. Robots, follow along:

1) google up "whale tail"
2) paste random sentences from random hits to random positions into the article
3) carefully cite each reference for brownie points

Woe to anyone who comes along and tries to correct the problems here, as removing material is the only way forward.

Again, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Again, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Again, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Again, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Shockingly, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Only this nefarious attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

Deletionists already have encyclopedias perfectly suited to their desires, but evidently their fondness for limitations on the availability of information is not broadly shared by ordinary people.

You are beyond stupid.

Editors are human powered data compression algorithms. Instead of 5,000 words of incoherent, rambling, run-on, useless drivel -- even if carefully referenced -- they can write 300 and actually better inform the reader.

You and your gang of idiots are incapable of this job. Deletionists? No, these people you are trying to insult are Structualists, and you miserable fucks aren't much better than mean-spirited vandals. You scribble idiot trivia across the face of knowledge, and cry foul when your intellectual betters rightly sandblast it.

You don't seem to understand that there should be no conflict between detail and summary. A three paragraph article on the whale tail sounds fine to me: that can be the lead section. If you just want a summary, you can stop reading as soon as you get to the end of the lead. If you want detail, you can keep reading. Your solution serves only one type of reader; my solution serves both.

You don't seem to understand that there should be no conflict between detail and summary. A three paragraph article on the whale tail sounds fine to me: that can be the lead section.

Man, there's a ton of thong pics on the Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thongs

This article needs a gallery.

Well, exactly. This article should be about the Cocteau Twins' song, not some slang term for how a woman's underwear looks in certain positions.



The song's from 1986, so not only is it a nicer subject, it was there first!

(I suppose it's really more of a "tone poem," but ehh, whatever.)

You don't seem to understand that there should be no conflict between detail and summary. A three paragraph article on the whale tail sounds fine to me: that can be the lead section. If you just want a summary, you can stop reading as soon as you get to the end of the lead. If you want detail, you can keep reading. Your solution serves only one type of reader; my solution serves both.

Again, this attitude shows no consideration for the reader and no consideration for the fundamental purpose of the encyclopedia. "Oh, you want more information? Well, three paragraphs is all we're going to give you! You want more than that, go read...I don't know, Urban Dictionary or something." The most important thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from a traditional encyclopedia is its breadth and depth of coverage. That's what makes Wikipedia so brilliantly compatible with the needs of the information age. "Inclusionism" is in fact the very heart and soul of the project.

("Whale of a tale" video excised for brevity)

Feel free to add it to that article. Have fun!

I doubt this woman thought when she was going out for a stroll one day that her unfortunate choice of clothing colors would be preserved for posterity as part of the Sum of All Human Knowledge.

Feel free to add it to that article. Have fun!

Not bad, but it's a different spelling of "tail," so that completely changes the meaning of the phrase. I mean, if you're going to include that, you might as well just include A Whaler's Tale by David Hawthorn Cardno, written in the 1920's, or any other tale about whales, such as Moby Dick or "Hunters of the Dark Sea," or the movies Free Willy and Orca, the Killer Whale.

I stand by my original point: If the article is going to be about whale tails, the Cocteau Twins must be given credit for there to be any historical validity to it.

There was old man Nemo, feeds his crew on worms & fishes!
Eels for breakfast Slimy cold on seaweed dishes!
When they ate it, they knew it wasn't beef,
But eat they did the brisket squid, a-smellin' like a reef!

I know...I just love that song...and the movie it came from and the book that inspired it and have since I was too young even to be a Wiki Adminion.

You're thinking of "A Whale of a Tail," sung by Kirk Douglas in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and you don't even have the right song I'm afraid. The presence of the words "of a" in the middle of the title clearly disqualify it in this context.

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/classicdisn...haleofatale.htm

The ability to search IMDb is no substitute for having extensive direct knowledge of significant portions of the Western cultural milieu!

"The Magical Breasts of Britney Spears" by Ryan G. Van Cleave

Victoria Beckham suggested that her husband David Beckham enjoyed wearing her G-strings around the home.

There's also Category:Panty line, which is a personality-rights disaster waiting to happen. I doubt this woman thought when she was going out for a stroll one day that her unfortunate choice of clothing colors would be preserved for posterity as part of the Sum of All Human Knowledge.

Let the record show that Eric feels readers should have to go elsewhere to learn about the "whale tail". If there's nowhere else to go--oh well.

And lookey, I must've missed this possible BLP violation. Awesome.