Talk:Buttock cleavage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

That male buttock cleavage picture is pointless, seeing as there is none. Instead of a painting, why not a picture in a real-life context?

it is not quite none, rather it is the tiniest possible amount above none..... Mathmo 10:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. What's the point in putting up a picture of some nerd's ass? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.64.145 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

This article is garbage. There are far more interesting and informative articles delete from Wikipedia, and this one needs to go.

coin slot??? this whole article is crap--71.97.158.222 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Cleavage (anatomy)[edit]

This term is not notable on its own and will likely fail another AfD. It should be merged into Cleavage (anatomy) if this information is to be retained. If there's no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise I'll file an AfD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" bit. Evidence of notability is provided and the guarantee of a failed AfD is rather lacking in substance. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But why maintain the fork when the material could better be used to illustrate a fluid concept at Cleavage (anatomy)? Most of this material is preserved there, so I don't know why this article, with so few references to such an obscure and bizarre concept, would be better off separate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose What makes you think that 48 is hours is a long enough time? Wikipedia conventions usually goes for seven or five days even in case of speedy deletes. Why are you threatening with an AfD? What you are saying is essentially - "if you don't oppose I'll merge it, if you oppose I'll try to get it deleted." If the notability is not established then it's not encyclopedic (you know what to do in that case, and it's not a merger). If it is established then your initiative becomes a mere stylistic issue. And, your sense of style doesn't necessarily have to prevail. Aditya(talkcontribs) 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The 48 hours was only if there was no discussion. I meant it as a time frame for the unopposed move not a deadline for discussion. I will wait for consensus here to support it before I merge this page again. In regards to the AfD, this article will probably fail one, so it's reasonable to include that in the rationale for a merger. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is awful, please take it to AFD. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Article quality is no reason for deletion. If you are so concerned about quality, may be you can lend a hand and improve it. This kind of destructive complaining is seriously injurious to a collaborative project like the Wikipedia. Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no way this article can be much more than a WP:DICDEF and is of no value whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Also, your tone is rather unfriendly. Please moderate it - incivility is far more damaging to a collaborative project than removing an article on buttock cleavage would be. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that claim of unfriendliness really stands. You have started a crusade against a bundle of articles that have just emerged from a similar initiative of Cumulus Cloud, and while I have been adding stuff you kept arguing over non-issues. Not only that. Out of the bundle you wanted to put one article to AfD, which you claimed you would've done if IP addresses were able to do so. I have taken it to AfD for to help you, and let you know that immediately. But you came back to complain about tone of voice, not taking part in the AfD. As far as I can see, all that works more for reducing the encyclopedia, as opposed to increasing it. Not a good feeling at all. Aditya(talkcontribs) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, everything here can go to Buttocks quite easily. Why multiply entities without necessity? (edit conflict) As you can see, I am taking part in it, but we all have to sleep sometime. Goodnight. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lexicon - "Builder's crack"[edit]

In New Zealand, the expression "builder's crack" is the standard term to describe the buttock cleavage on tradespeople.

Evidence to support this is that there exists a popular trade service web site in New Zealand with an cartoon image of a tradeperson exposing cleavage. This site has the name "Builders Crack". Furthermore the url http://plumberscrack.co.nz redirects to the aforementioned site.

Should the lexicon “builder's crack” therefore be added for completeness and accurateness of the use of this term in different countries? I believe so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwynharris (talkcontribs) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You must provide the evidence that the term is indeed in wide usage, rather than someone's personal witticism. The evidence must be in the form of a reference to a reliable source which discusses the term, rather than simply uses it. - Altenmann >t 00:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.46.48 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to fill in "Maurerdekolletee" instead of "Bauarbeiterdekolletee" for the german expression. "Maurer" means masoner, and is actually the correct term. --Saflid (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is widely used in Germany - we also call it `Arbeiter-Ausschnitt´ (working-mans cleavage).--85.177.21.23 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In Scotland, particularly the urban West of Scotland, the crena is known by the Scots phrase 'the sheugh of' someone's 'arse'. 'Sheugh' is itself the Scots word for a ditch or roadside kerb.
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Plumber butt"? Never heard that form, despite having lived in the US my entire life. I have heard "plumber's crack", even though that is listed as Australian usage.--Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Private Parts[edit]

The scholarly work at footnote one is rubbish, I think. It refers to an article allegedly by a W.G. Cassidy, in Southerly: the magazine of the Australian English Association, vol. 34, 1939, when in fact said magazine was founded in 1939 and therefore was at volume 1. By 1944 it was only at volume five, and got to volume 39 in 1979 (see http://www.archive.org/stream/southerlymagass05howarich/southerlymagass05howarich_djvu.txt and http://www.catalog.slsa.sa.gov.au/record=b1137381~S1#). Futhermore "Southerly" is a literary and not a legal review.

Ah, and the quoted article is called "Private Parts: A Judicial Review". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.172.104 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have improved the ref somewhat. See how it stands in conflict with the link (2nd one, the 1st one says nothing) you provided. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)