Talk:Midriff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
 

Origin[edit]

What has anyone heard about the origin of midriff shirts? I heard it was from a complicated advertising campaign for a soft drink. Anyone?
124.176.58.245 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Marketing meaning[edit]

The term "midriff" is one used by Viacom in their hunt for new MTV programs, and it refers to their target female audience. They also use the term "mooks" referring to their target male audience. For more information, the PBS Frontline program, Merchants of Cool[1], has this information as well as video clips from this particular report. I consider this an excellent source that shows the topicality of this particular term.
Perhaps disambiguation is necessary for this article.
--Kulturvultur (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of "belly" in etymology section.[edit]

For some reason, there's some text visible when you click the "edit" button of the etymology section which is not visible on the main article page. It partly alludes to my point, which is that people who consider themselves at all refined avoid the use of the word "belly" altogether, unless it refers to part of an airship or an animal, as in "pork belly." This is not because of any connection with obesity, but simply that (in Britain, at least), certain words are simply not used in polite conversation. This is, sadly, not as rigorously enforced as it used to be. One curious exception, by the way, is that the word "belly" seems acceptable when referring to undernourished people (particularly children) in the developing world. One often hears the word used by newsreaders. Pavel (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ameesha Patel still4.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Ameesha Patel still4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ameesha Patel still4.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why only photos of women?[edit]

Doesn't the term also apply to men? 73.42.240.206 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Perception of women[edit]

The article currently contains no substantial content except for the perception of women's bared tummies. Not much else to say, really.

Peter Isotalo 19:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter, I started working on it, but it lacks content and can't really be copy-edited. For example:

Dolce & Gabbana 2012 resort presented this fruit-laden plethora of prints cut into belly-flattering fiesta-chic ensembles, which demonstrated that Midriff fashion is getting more prominence in mainstream fashion design.

This is both meaningless and probably plagiarized, and there's quite a bit of that kind of fluff. I suggest we redirect the title. SarahSV (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could redirect it to Navel in popular culture. Also see Navel fetishism. We ought to create a template for articles with problematic depictions of women, similar to {{Globalize}}. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree, such a template would be quite useful to mark articles so that issues can be dealt with.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Midriffs aren't navels, though. There's certainly some overlap, but I don't believe they should be merged. Regardless of the merge discussion over at talk:abdomen, this is just a sub-article of abdomen. If we redirect, a summary should be included in that article.
Peter Isotalo 10:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work here, you two. How about a redirect to Abdomen#Society and culture? Alternatively a rename of the Navel in popular culture article to include the midriff area (content is already relevant). I struggle to think of a name. Maybe Abdomen in popular culture (which can also tie in with the other proposed changesa *Not the most appealing title I admit ).? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly dislike stuffing anything related to social and cultural perceptions into "X in popular culture". Sections named "Society and culture" should cover topics like cultural history, sociology, anthropology, history of religion and whatnot. All of these are serious topics with established academic traditions behind them. "Popular culture" is very narrow aspect of just a few of these disciplines. The focus should always be to provide relevant coverage in the top-level article, which in this case is abdomen. If you want to avoid people piling on trivia like video game references (or mention of Family Guy episodes), it's better to use more accurate labeling for headings.
Peter Isotalo 10:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove from WP Anatomy?[edit]

I don't think this is anatomy article. Relevant because of these diffs:[2], [3]. Should perhaps add this to WP:FASHION. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For posterity I quote myself ([4]) here: --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
In summary yes. I should write an essay WP:ANATNOTMED which lists our points of difference, but in short, anatomy is concerned with the structure and layout of living things (and this project mostly concerns itself with that of humans). This is usually, but not always, related to medicine - which seeks to exploit knowledge of these to improve our quality or quantity of life. Two separate fields. So yes, midriff does relate to anatomy, but not to medicine. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the input, Tom.
Sammy, I'm generally against the tendency to throw out content about society and culture from medical articles, but neither am I particularly happy about this highly lopsided article. Moving to WP:FASHION sounds like a pretty good suggestion so I've notified the project about it.
I still consider it a valid alternative to summarize the content at abdomen and simply make this into a redirect... :-p
Peter Isotalo 01:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The current article does seem more in line with WP:FASH than anatomy. I don't speak for everyone there, but I think a change would work. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)