Talk:Go Topless Day

Clean-up needed

The article currently has the following text:

"In 2016, Go Topless Day in the US was held on August 28. It was the 9th annual Go Topless Day.

In 2017, Go Topless Day in the US was held on August 26. It was the 10th annual Go Topless Day.

In 2018, Go Topless Day in the US was held on August 26. It was the 11th annual Go Topless Day.

In 2019, Go Topless Day in the US was held on August 25. It was the 12th annual Go Topless Day.

In 2020, Go Topless Day in the US was held on August 23. It was the 13th annual Go Topless Day."

I'm not sure that we need the date of every Go Topless Day in the article, but surely a simple chart would be less of an eyesore compared to what we have now. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith revert

I have reverted the changes made by User:GlowingLava to this article, which completely undid almost every single change I made in my good-faith improvement of the article on April 8. My improvements include:

• Improved wording in the introductory sentence
• Clarification of the relationship between Go Topless Day and Women's Equality Day
• Corrected spelling of the organizing group to GoTopless (not Go Topless) as per their website
• Improvement of the wording in the "Events" section so that every single paragraph didn't begin the exact same way
• Integrated the paragraph about the Gwen Jacob case into the paragraph about the 2011 Ontario event to provide context
• Removed paragraphs from the "Events" sections that simply said the event was held in a given year but provided no further discussion of particularities or notable activities
• Provided updates about the Sonoko Tagami case
• Removed unrelated or tangentially relevant links from the "See also" section and deleted links that already existed in the article

Additionally, GlowingLava made an earlier change that added a redundant listing of the 2011 event (but no other year's) to the History section despite it being described in much fuller detail in the subsequent section Events.

GlowingLava's edit summary when they reverted virtually all of my edits did not mention at all that they were engaging in a revert, and in fact did not describe any of the changes their edit was actually making other than those to the "See also" section:

Added back most of the see also section. I see no reason any article shouldn't have a long see also. Removed articles already nested neatly in other articles listed and grouped together related links with bigger and more related concepts first.

This summary, and the "See also" changes themselves (which restored all but two links I had removed), bely an unfamiliarity with MOS:SEEALSO, which states that these links "should be limited to a reasonable number", "should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category", and "[a]s a general rule . . . should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" (emphasis in the original). Links I removed that GlowingLava reinserted are:

• Gender equality (already in article)
• Public nudity (not its own article, simply a redirect to Nudity which is an extremely broad category
• Sex-positive feminism (one of the aims of Go Topless Day is to de-sexualize toplessness)
• Breastfeeding in public, Dress code, Femen, Hadaka Matsuri, Holly Van Voast, List of social nudity organizations, Naturism, World Naked Bike Ride (irrelevant)

If you have actual constructive changes to make, by all means please make them, but the reversion of the changes I made worsened the article. -Literally Satan (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not adequately checking if the links were already mentioned in the article. I still argue at least Naturism and World Naked Bike Ride are surely relevant. The first is linked to the concept that nudity should be normalized and the other is the closest analogy in terms of being both a parade and a protest. I might even argue that a strange article such as this one deserves a longer See Also than an average article. This is a topic likely to be tabooed or blanked or deleted and in the spirit of Wikipedia not being censored, proving quality and comprehensive information about controversial topics is extra important. I am also a bit more on guard when articles like this get hit with -1500 character edits as many people instinctively think the proper way to edit an article about nipples or balls is to trim away at it until it's gone. You seem upset so I will merely request someone add these two topics back to the See Also (or write them into the article) for now. Edit: I don't have any qualms with 90% of your edit, and my edit description did clearly state I was undoing part of a removal twice. I think we're on the same page on wanting the article to be better. /positive Edit: Clothing-optional bike ride seems to be the generic page actually, so that one instead. GlowingLava (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)