Talk:Tights

Picture

I won't remove the picture without discussion, but I think we can find a better one. The one on there now looks like a guy wearing it and you can kind of see his thing underneath the fabric. Surely a better picture of an obviously clothed female could be provided? Opinions? -Husnock 20:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"his thing"? You would prefer a camel-toe? -unsigned anon user

I replaced the photo with one thats hows three different versions of tights: sheer, semi-opaque, and heavy opaque. It was promptly removed by someone as "inappropriate" which I dont understand. Its not vulgar, no nudity, and the women in the photo are mid 20s and not minors. I think the photo up there now is good for the article, although on some computers when i load the page I get a little red "x". Hmmm. -Husnock 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Tights worn for basketball

This is verifiable by searching google news, or web sites such as espn.com or www.yaysports.com.

Dougaa 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Better picture of women's tights?

I think it's important for the article to include a picture of tights as they are most commonly worn for fashion, by women who wear them with a skirt or dress. The current picture is good that way, but is a poor choice for showing what tights look like. For someone in the U.S., the hosiery the woman is wearing is either too sheer to be considered tights, or just barely qualifies as opaque enough. The picture doesn't give a good idea of how tights differ from pantyhose. I'd recommend including a similar picture where the tights are much more opaque, with little skin showing. Hosiery like that would work for everyone, being considered tights in both the U.S and the U.K. The new picture could either supplement or replace the current one. I don't know if I'll be able to find an appropriate picture which satisifies the Wikipedia image guidelines, but I'd encourage someone else who knows of such a picture to add it. Dougaa (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop-ups

I just got a pop-up for tights apear on my screen with out concent, whilst reading the article!--82.14.48.253 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Full body tights

It is written at the beginning of the article: For the full body tights, see spandex. But in the article spandex you can't read the term full body tights. Would the terms zentai and catsuit fit better? --Fit (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifics in history

Could we have a bit more specifics in the historical background section? Perhaps some sources? -mildlydiscouraging 03:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mildlydiscouraging: Any suggestions for sources? Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Absolutely no idea lol, that's why I was here in the first place mildlydiscouraging (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mildlydiscouraging::@Jim1138: Hey, I couldn't agree more with you both. I've been trying to find out about the history of tights, specifically seamless tights for my uni fashion course essay and I came across this site which was really helpful. I thought you'd want to check it out too. BuxtonCoffee95 (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Photo too dark

File:Girl in red shirt and black tights.jpg is too dark. Jidanni (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheerleader photo no tights visible at all but no explanation given

Are they in fact really wearing tights at all? If so, there should be a note on how a reader can tell underneath the image such as "you can barely tell they are wearing tights by looking at ..". If not, there should be a note that includes why it is impossible to tell such as "the tights aren't visible in this picture due to the lighting". Wallby (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to be seen is kind of the point. But you can see the more opaque reinforcement of the center seam peaking out from underneath the shorts leg. May I assume you are not aware that it is possible to enlarge an image by clicking on it? Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)