Talk:Buttock cleavage

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pointless

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge to Cleavage (anatomy)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is awful, please take it to AFD. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{(talk • contribs)} 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lexicon - "Builder's crack"

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 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Incidentally, the Brazilian Portuguese word for the crena is the cofrinho, or "little box", for which there is a well-developed partialism.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private Parts

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)[reply]

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^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting my original research here rather than to the article

I am a very sheltered person and only recently discovered the cause of plumber's crack. Men who have a large belly (aka beer belly) wear their belts and waistband below it. When bent over, the waist slips down, and the results are the same as low rise jeans. Maybe everybody knows this. I did not. Tkech (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tkech, you really ought to get out more!

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Slut slot" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slut slot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

LAWorldSeriesChamp replaced the image File:Maurerdekolleté.jpg (which I happened to check just now) with their upload File:Padres fan butt crack.jpg. This was reverted once by a bot as possible vandalism, but then repeated. I suggest that it is indeed vandalism. (They also added that image to wiktionary:it:coscia and wiktionary:it:cosce, so this appears to be cross-wiki vandalism, which I don’t really know how to deal with.) Pinging @Demt1298, who originally added File:Maurerdekolleté.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur this appears to be a subtle form of vandalism. Based on username of @LAWorldSeriesChamp and file name, File:Padres fan butt crack.jpg, it is clearly a juvenile attempt to deface an opponents team within this article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have reverted it on the page, added a vandalism warning to @User talk:LAWorldSeriesChamp and will assist with monitoring for future vandalism. Demt1298 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Jen-the-girls-at-soccer-practice-10-30-10-jennifer-garner-16636025-1860-2560.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]