Talk:Cleavage (breasts)/Archive 2

image
I have replaced File:Adriana Sklenarikova Karembeu Cannes.jpg with File:Amanda Bach, a sexy fashion model icon.jpg on 19 December 2014 with an edit summary that explained - "the other image could also represent a bottom cleavage, this one has no chance of ambiguity". On 28 December 2014 it was reverted with an edit summary that said - "false edit summary". I seriously don't know what that editor meant by a false edit summary, maybe he can explain it here. Without a valid reason for the revert, I have re-instated the image I put earlier. I also hope the other editor will stick to WP policies and re-revert without a discussion, and a consensus. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I 8 minutes that editor has re-reverted, showing a clear warring behavior and disrespect fro consensus building processes. I believe we shall need more editors to participate in the process. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, check out WP:BRD: You made a Bold edit, it was Reverted, and the next step is for you to initiate a Discussion, not to re-revert. In fact, BRD specifies that while discussion is going on, the article should stay in the status quo ante. But that's neither here nor there, because neither the image that was in the article, nor the one you wanted to replace it with effectively presented side cleavage, so I have replace it with one that did. Here are the three images at the size they appeared at in the article:




 * BMK (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I belatedly realized that the image you put it would work well if I cropped it down to focus on the breasts, giving the image above, so I put it into the article. BMK (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant solution.  Aditya  (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ~P.S., will you consider using "Brooke Haven on set Taboo 22 8.jpg" (File:Brooke Haven on set Taboo 22 8.jpg) over "Body beach crop.jpg" (File:Body beach crop.jpg) for the same reason of legibility/discernibility? As youy can see that even in this here the information focus of the image is clearly legible. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Six days have passed since I made the request, and BMK has many edits during that time, so obviously not away from action. Therefore I am assuming a no objection, and making the change. But, if BMK, you have a valid argument (as in not IDON'TLIKEIT), I really look forward to the discussion. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the legal status of some of these photos? I haven't investigated them all, but at very least the one of Amanda Bach, while a great photo perfectly illustrative of the term appears to be not-free. Centerone (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That CC license posted by the uploader and checked by flickrbot was revoked by the flickr user I guess. But, that is covered by policy (see paragraph 2) I think. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is sad that you took 8 minutes to 3 hours to make reverts, and I have to wait between days to weeks for a comment here that has your rationale. Then the comment happens together with a revert, and in the edit summary. Please, understand that consensus building and discussion doesn't happen in edit summaries. You can't have revert summaries as an alternative to discussing in the talk page (see WP:REVTALK). Also, since you have pointed to BRD already, remember that BRD is not an excuse for reverting without discussion (see WP:BRD-NOT). On top of it, consider that there is a WP:0RR principle against edit warring, which prohibits you quick reverts and lack of discussion.
 * I hope that you have noticed that the only time you decided to discuss, you could get a consensus alright. I appeal to you that you discuss to achieve a consensus, and keep to WP policies, guidelines and traditions. This whole project is built on those policies and stuff.
 * WP image guidelines are very clear on legibility - use images that make the subject obvious (see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE). Before reverting back to image you prefer repeatedly without a discussion, consider that you need to have a compelling reason before you over-ride a long standing guideline.
 * I will be waiting for that reason for next 24 hours before reverting back to the more encyclopedic image as per the policies. I hope we shall have a fruitful discussion like we already had once in this thread. Regards. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. That was a long enough wait. I am assuming, for very apparent reasons, that there is no objection to the replacement I proposed, and the policies and guidelines I presented. Therefore, I am making the replacement. If you revert without "establishing" your stand by consensus, we definitely will need to talk to the community and get un-involved editors take a look into the matter. Aditya  (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the appreciation of your efforts, but most of the images on this page are not sideboob, and it actually makes the page more obscure. Do you not have the the ability to look at pictures and realize the angle is from the *FRONT*, and not the *SIDE* ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.124.150 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105050201/http://origin.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?provider=top&storyid=102968 to http://origin.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?provider=top&storyid=102968
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/business/patents-in-bra-technology-an-incremental-improvement-can-translate-into-comfort.html?sec=technology&spon=&pagewanted=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cleavage (breasts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818132125/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/024-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/024-qmt.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003820/http://ajer.synergiesprairies.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/download/710/688 to http://ajer.synergiesprairies.ca/ajer/index.php/ajer/article/download/710/688

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Cleavage (breasts) and Décolletage - these two articles are about the same thing, and naturally much of the content is the same. The only difference is in approach. Not enough reason to have two articles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I too believe these two articles should be merged. I also believe Cleavage (breasts) is larger, more established, and more commonly known and would, therefore, be a better base for the final article. The Décolletage article can easily be merged into an early section discussing the history. It should also be added to the lead paragraph in a more prominent way. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure the subject is the same - décolletage usually means wearing clothes that are not supported by anything going over the shoulder - "strapless". The two sets of illustrations show this difference - almost all the cleavage ones have something over the shoulder, while the others don't. I accept D is often used as a coy synonym for C, but really the meaning is different - as here. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I recently reviewed all the prior edits to the Decolletage page and actually studied the details and now I am in agreement with Johnbod that these are two distinct topics that are very interrelated, but discuss different elements and should not be merged. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image 2017
has suggested that the current lead image is distracting due to the book and jewelry. They've added a different image below which they suggest is better. In my opinion, Orga too dark and not a good illustration of the topic.

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you said in your most recent edit to see the talk page but you have yet to comment here. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, please comment here regarding your bold changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The current one seems better - actually illustrates the subject, and is properly lit. These seem essential requirements. #6 in the old discussion above is the best of that lot, and does show the head and face too. I can understand why some don't like this one for not doing that. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for the sake of clarity, do you mean the proposed image or the status quo one per the two shown above? The "current" one on the article is the purposed one.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not any more!, NB you have broken WP:3RR already. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Proposed fits the article best. The status quo image is not a straight torso shot. The proposal frames the subject in a more appropriate way for the article. As well, association with cleavage is prominent breasts supported by an undergarment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyLevine (talk • contribs)
 * Readding original proposed image by AmyLevine. The image they are referring to in the above statement is the "second proposed" now.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "second proposed" (white top, buttons undone, in case anyone switches the captions again). Some might not like it though, as it's more "glamour shot" than the "previous", and depersonalizing, being headless. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod's "glamour shot" and "depersonalizing" comments; also, I suggest that the photo should depict more typical cleavage, perhaps with smaller breasts. Trivialist (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the status quo image as a more typical example.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My first preference is the "status quo" image, as it's better quality, and more natural appearing (if someone wants to crop out the book in the image, I have no objection, although I do not believe it's distracting so not needed to be cropped). The "Original proposed" is just a poor quality image - bad lighting and poorly illustrating cleavage in general. I agree that the "Second proposed" appears more like a "glamour shot", giving a less natural appearance and overall being poorer for illustrating purposes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this (the first image) no longer the lead image? This illustrates "cleavage" far better than the full-length photo of whatshername in the floral dress, or the photo of the wax figure of Christina Aguilera, which is more illustrative of "breasts" than "cleavage," as her breasts don't actually meet to form the pronounced cleft most people picture when the word "cleavage" is used. 2602:304:AB1C:7C09:51AB:1F96:B8D6:3CF6 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Sideboob" problematic terminology:
I think this is slang and we should not be explaining what slang is. This is the type of stuff which one would find looking into urban dictionary.

I do not think it is justifiable to keep it there, but whatever works for you guys I guess.

WikiOpenSourceContributer (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures
This article needs more photos. --71.200.28.21 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Angela Merkel's Opera Dress
A possibly better reference article is this one from Reuters India (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-33113020080418), as it includes 'the' cleavage photograph that sparked all the headlines at the time, whereas the current included reference doesn't (or no longer) contains photos.

EdJogg (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC) -- drive-by comment while investigating the origin of the word 'Décolletage' -- honest!

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Décolletage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601211316/http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/caricatures/fr6-wetnursing.cfm to http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/caricatures/fr6-wetnursing.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104085440/http://sixtiescity.com/Fashion/Fashion.shtm to http://www.sixtiescity.com/Fashion/Fashion.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Moving some unsourced content marked as original research here. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A dress neckline and consequently décolletage is an aspect of woman's fashions. As such, popular necklines change over time and vary depending on the social and cultural context. Modern Western fashions favour open neck and low-cut neckline styles. Women's swimsuits and bikinis commonly have very low necklines, as do evening gowns. Décolletage produced by such necklines is often considered a sign of elegance and sophistication on many formal social occasions. However, some people disapprove of such styles, which they regard as immodest and as reflecting negatively on the woman wearer.

From the 1960s onward, changing social mores led to the popularity of open neck and lower necklines and a greater display of cleavage in films, on television, and in everyday life, even for casual wear. However, fully exposed breasts have come to feature in contemporary haute couture fashion shows. In contemporary Western society, the extent to which a woman may expose her body depends on the social and cultural context. Showing the nipples or areolae is almost always considered toplessness or partial nudity. Though exposure of most of a woman's torso can be permissible in some settings, any exposure of breasts and much of the upper body may be prohibited by dress codes in settings such as workplaces, churches and schools, where any exposure of female breasts may be considered inappropriate.

I am not familiar with how to edit Wikipedia content and am also not sure I'm remembering this properly, but - at university, in art history classes, we learned that the display of bared breasts in portraits had to do with the status of the subject. Agnes Sorel had one bared breast, signifying she was an official mistress. Women painted with two bared breasts were considered more like a king's unofficial mistresses, someone he just dallied with. Queens were never painted with bared breasts. Note that this is from art history in the 1980s so perhaps new information has been uncovered (no pun intended) but I wanted to put this here.184.182.183.20 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition discrepency
Having looked through the entire history of edits on this page, I see there was a transition of the definition over time. In all the dictionary references I can find, this term is primary defined as describing the neckline of a garment which exposes the upper torso of the female body. I see in one or two instances, there are secondary definitions that defines the term as the upper torso of the female body that is exposed by a low-cut neckline.

I can understand that the article should consider all sources including industry experts and professionals that may be using the term in a different way than the primary dictionary sources define, but the current article seems to be missing sources that actually define the term as the article indicates.

I recommend we either add sources to support the primary definition used in the article or we should return it to the earlier primary definition.&sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Definition discrepency
Having looked through the entire history of edits on this page, I see there was a transition of the definition over time. In all the dictionary references I can find, this term is primary defined as describing the neckline of a garment which exposes the upper torso of the female body. I see in one or two instances, there are secondary definitions that defines the term as the upper torso of the female body that is exposed by a low-cut neckline.

I can understand that the article should consider all sources including industry experts and professionals that may be using the term in a different way than the primary dictionary sources define, but the current article seems to be missing sources that actually define the term as the article indicates.

I recommend we either add sources to support the primary definition used in the article or we should return it to the earlier primary definition.&sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kajolcleavagea.jpg

The new picture is legal
We took that picture for this article specifically. The image description describes that it is public domain with a consentual adult model. However I think the previous comment refers to another picture as the comments are from February and I only recently posted this new one in response to a request at Requested_pictures. HighInBC 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  --Allen 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the picture down, there's not picture on the "upskirt" article, why should there be one here? 68.149.23.252 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture was requested, it is topical, it is legal, it illustrates the article, information should not be removed without reason. HighInBC 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this picture really legal?
I just voted to keep this page on AfD, but I'm disturbed by the picture. Could somebody point me to an explanation of how this type of picture is uncopyrightable and legal? If we need a picture on this page, why not use one with a known, willing model posing? --Allen 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the picture. I can't imagine the shit we'd be in if the woman in the photograph found out it was on here.  --Allen 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are over reacting, firstly there is next to no chance at all the model would be aware of this photo if she is not already aware of it. Secondly it is bordering on impossible to identify the person in the photo anyway. Mathmo Talk 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... the picture's still up, on the past versions of the page. I don't know if there's an easy way to take care of that (sorta new here), but as the case here is legality, SOMEthing should be done. If it turns out later that it's legal, and the woman consents to it being posted, it can always be uploaded again. --Anonymous 16:57 EST, 17 February 2006

According to a post on Cleavage, this is a picture to whom the "model" (the wife of the photographer) readily agreed. Not the most exciting things (no offense), but kosher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalisphoenix (talk • contribs)

Pornography?
This article states that "There are many websites that promote downblousing as pornography, but in real life, taking photographs of someone surreptitiously is a legal offense in some countries." And Oxford Dictionary states "printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement." So wouldn't young teenagers in search of stimulating pictures key in "downblouse" and see this picture? Just a thought.


 * You're missing the legal context. In the United States, the appeal is to "community standards."  That has caused fits in the world wide web age, and there is a battle between "most restrictive standards of any community where it available" and "most permissive standards of any community" for employing that, but what thrills a teenager can be any oval at all, so appealing to those suffering from testosterone poisoning as the community is probably a non-starter.  The old joke is that they find the crack of dawn to be exciting.  Geogre 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously now, if this is/was the best so called "porn" that a teenager can find on the internet then we have much bigger things to worry about for that teenager than him/her seeing a bit of "porn" here! Mathmo Talk 19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Downblouse.jpg
Ok, every so often somebody removes this but nobody has given a reason. I am creating this section for the discussion of whether or not this image is valid.

I am not overly attached to the image being here, but we did make it on a request for this page. Now, if you don't think it should be there please outline your reasoning below: HighInBC 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a tag onto this image. Jimbo has not clarified this statement. Since I don't know what the alledged trolling was I can only assume he meant the images she contributed to related articles. I don't wan't to be called a troll, and "indef banned without so much as a how do you do", so I am playing it safe. HighInBC 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a picture of me. Can I post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsource1 (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe. We've been bitten in the past by people uploading questionable images, claiming they were of themselves, when they were actually of others, who had never given releases. I think this would call for something like the procedures described Verifying unusual image licenses. Please read that, and if you can comply, please go ahead. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard

 * The lack of verfication has been mentioned on WP:AN#Downblouse. I mention this in case anyone cares to concisely comment. &mdash; edgarde 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that the image discussion you have just posted under nolonger exists? Doesn't even matter now. Mathmo Talk 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the image was deleted minutes ago. Thank you for your participation in this process. &mdash; edgarde 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was refering to a different image. The previous one which is now gone could have been fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * lol, thanks bot again! Was just about to do that myself... Man, why am I being so forgetful at the moment? Mathmo Talk 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the various discussions, let's address the issue of "image requested."
 * I have no doubt that someone out there wants to see an image of women's breasts surreptitiously taken. Fortunately, there are hundreds of sites on the web that have them.  The "it was requested" isn't a very compelling argument.
 * Legal? Well, maybe, maybe not.  It depends on what is shown, but it's probably legal to take a photo with permission of the model, which would more or less rule out the "surreptitious" bit.
 * Needed? Is there anything ambiguous about "photo taken looking down a woman's blouse?"  Is there anything hard to imagine or visualize about "photo taken up a woman's or girl's skirt?"  Is there anything about such an image that would actually illustrate the article?
 * So, from my point of view, the gain to the article from having an image is purely prurient, and the "request" to have a picture, like the "illustration" urge in adding it would be a gain not to the explanatory power of the article, but merely the voyeuristic desires of the viewer (not reader) of the article. Therefore, I think there is no argument for adding an example to this article or "upskirt."  Geogre 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requirements to upload this type of image
Without debating the merits of including an image &mdash; I don't think it's a bad idea &mdash; I just want to add that for Wikipedia to host an image of this type, the image must conform to the following: A problem we were having at Upskirt is the uploader was  he had permission to upload, but refused to provide any verfication that this was true. This exposes Wikipedia to legal trouble when the copyright owner or unwilling subject finds the image posted (especially risky with sexually intimate or pornographic images). It also potentially runs us afoul of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.
 * 1) Image must be free from copyright violation.
 * 2) Subject must give permission to have this image posted on Wikipedia.
 * 3) 1 & 2 are verifiable.

I've asked around on this, and if one chooses to upload their own created image as a declared Public Domain (or otherwise-licensed) work, there are at least two ways to satisfy verification and subject permission needs:
 * 1) The norm for amateur sex-related pics is to take the same photograph with the subject holding a written statement like "Posting of this picture allowed on Wikipedia", or even simply "Wikipedia OK". This would prove both copyright ownership and authorisation to post, and we would keep the 2nd picture as proof while posting the other original.
 * 2) If a "Wikipedia OK" image cannot be provided, you also have the option of submitting your own personally identifiable information to Wikipedia. This way you do not have to reveal the identity of your "shy" "girlfriend", as long as you are willing to be held legally responsible in case the subject claims it was uploaded without permission, or in case of a copyright violation. Here is the necessary procedure: Verifying unusual image licenses.

Note that a Public Domain work is free for anyone to use. If your subject doesn't want their image flashed on At Large with Geraldo Rivera, or photomanip'ed into something gross, they don't want it posted on Wikipedia.

There are of course other license options. These would also require verification in a similar fashion. &mdash; edgarde 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for going to the trouble of writing that out. However.... it does have various problems that I can see. I'll start of with one of them: the verifying uploaded link that you have included goes to an inactive page that is nolonger policy and is only kept around for historical reasons and thus is not of current relevance to this article.Mathmo Talk 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The linked article is inactive because it was written as a policy proposal that never became official policy. However, the linked procedure is still the best description I can find for that process. &mdash; edgarde 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * best != correct Mathmo Talk 21:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now you're only gainsaying, and it's not really helpful. I don't have any reason to believe you actually know anything. &mdash; edgarde 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on new image
Concern was voiced over at talk:cleavage (breasts) over lack of discussion regarding the image switch, so I'd though I'd clarify why I changed it. The previous image was shot from an angle that looks like it would require the viewer to more or less touch faces with the subject (or have the camera right in the woman's face). The current image seems like it would be a more realistic angle of someone looking down (or taking an photo) of a cleavage.

Peter Isotalo 15:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the new image seems superior. It seems to present a more plausible downblouse view.  The previous image appears to be from an angle that would be difficult to obtain covertly as an unauthorized photograph. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The one that was added is clearly not a covert photograph, or even a good simulation of one (and I think what we want is a simulation of a covert photograph, as we should not publish a genuinely covert photograph). The older one is a better simulation of the invasion of privacy aspect that is key to being a downblouse.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kww, the other one looks like it was taken from extremely close up. It's hard to tell if the subject is standing up straight or bending over, but taking a photo with the camera that close doesn't seem especially sneaky. You should be opting for something taken from a distance if you're looking for the illusion of covertness.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, I don't go looking for downblouse porn. From what I have seen, it would appear that the typical pose is of a women bending over, taken as she signs a document, takes care of a child or pet, or gets something out of a cart. Not the distance so much as the fact that the woman is paying attention to something out of the camera's line-of-sight.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading a magazine article seems like a very plausible distraction to me.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there was any apparent accidental exposure of breasts here, you argument would have some validity.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downblouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526003912/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_32/b3946008_mz001.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_32/b3946008_mz001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture Discussion
No disrespect, but is a picture really necessary for this article?

Why not? A picture is worth a thousand words in this case?!--PeterMarkSmith 10:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Downblouse is a term used to describe images, enjoyed by voyeurs who like women, showing the view down a female's shirt or blouse. Taking photographs of someone surreptitiously is an offense in some countries, but in others there are no laws to prevent this. Some people consider this sort of photography to be a form of sexual abuse and an invasion of privacy if it is done without consent.

An alternative form of this type of voyeurism are upskirt images - similar to downblouse but with the intent of showing a woman's lower half.

The advent of cell phones fitted with cameras (aka camera phones) may be reason for surge in these types of photographs. Pcghost 18:52, 11 Novemeber 2005 (UTC)


 * These types of photographs were always there, and it was almost always the women, who (mostly) chose to wear this kind of revealing clothing. - Mardus /talk 12:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rating
I was unsure whether to rate this as "Start" or "B" - feel free to upgrade if you think it deserves it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was likewise unsure. That's why I didn't rate it when I created it. :) --AliceJMarkham 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know
I have suggested this article be featured in the did you know section of the mainpage here (fixed). Atropos 20:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct link is T:TDYK, not DYK, which goes off to a foreign language disambiguation page. Thanks for nominating it including a photo. I might get my picture on the front page of wikipedia. :) --AliceJMarkham 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh. T:T doesn't make any sense! It seems its just a necessary work around, though. Congrats for having your breasts on the main page (maybe). :) Atropos 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied from T:TDYK:

Sources are hardly reliable, mostly personal websites and advertising.--Carabinieri 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll go hide in a corner and cry now.--AliceJMarkham 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

POV
Current article is point of view of a crossdresser. This should be mentioned first or article should be changed to make it enhancement for all. Also if article is not changed to avoid pov, then all the links posted in see also should have description saying that it is for a crossdresser. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no POV violation here. The article addresses cleavage enhancement for both men and women, and cites examples of both. Lara_bran, you seem to be on a stalking/harassment campaign against the creator of this article, and I would suggest you cool it before you get blocked/banned. Jeffpw 08:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Cyberstalking of any form is frowned upon and stalking on wikipedia strictly prohibited. Benjiboi 08:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, i came here by see also's i found everywhere. Also google search for "cleavage enhancement" shows this article first, so it should be neutral point of view. The article gives undue weightage to crossdresser. Also give a look at policy about canvassing. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lara_bran, I'll assume good faith when you stop following Alice and harassing her on her talk page. Deal? Until such time, I'll keep an eye on what you're up to, in order to make sure Alice can edit without interference. Jeffpw 10:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Google's search places wikipedia amongst the first in many searches so that's a handy excuse but no reason to follow up with activities that quite a few folks see as cyberstalking. To answer the assertion that The article gives undue weightage to crossdresser I heartily disagree. It's a short article that clearly is about the subject and devotes all of one paragraph to crossdresser's to correctly illustrate that men do cleavage enhancement as well as women and spells out why. Benjiboi 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cleavage enhancement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812142321/http://www.austinbunn.com/articles.php?target=erinb.html to http://www.austinbunn.com/articles.php?target=erinb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017114351/http://malebreastenlargement.net/howtocreatecleavage.html to http://www.malebreastenlargement.net/howtocreatecleavage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070913080716/http://www.clcrv.com/crossdressing/divaDsnX.cfm to http://www.clcrv.com/crossdressing/divaDsnX.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Frans Hals 008.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aguilera Madame Tussauds.jpg

Move modern controversies to Modern history section
I can't paste, but there's a large misplaced wall of text at the end of Related trends, little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at how the related trends are largely a matter of history (with some explanation of what the trend is), I thought it would be a better fit with the history section, may be with a little copy edit to make it a better fit. That way the wall of text remains relevant. I had a 21st century section to accomodate the related trends and the wall of text together. May be something like that would help.
 * If not then it probably is alright to add that block of text to the end of the modern history section. Any thoughts? Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything that ever happens is a matter of history. But when we're discussing the history of cleavage, it's jarring to switch to the history of side, under and downboob for a few reasonably-sized paragraphs, then back to modern cleavage for a huge pile of controversial postcript from the same time period we already left. I get that boobs are made of essentially the same stuff from top to bottom, but so is Earth (laterally); gotta draw a line somewhere. Or widen the scope of the whole article to properly include bosom buddies that just hang out, together but apart. My first choice is still the easy one in the header, but I'm not married to it or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That makes the first option better - move the wall of text to end of history section from the end of the trends section. Does that work? Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think it could work, I wouldn't have asked you to help. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Check if it works now. BTW, I have just seen a few medieval pictures showing underboobs while checking the Commons. I guess the RS are descriing popularity and not sporadic instances. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, it worked! Good job. Homemade crop tops used to be popular, some trustworthy fashionistas just plain forget, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender mention
After a brief skimming of the page, I was disappointed that I didn't see anything for transgender women. As a transgender woman myself, I really am interested in this topic. Could something be added for us? If it has already been done, could you point it out? Just to be totally clear, transgender women are not crossdressers, so the specifics aren't the same. Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Having difficulty finding WP:RS. Is there someone who can show me some sources (links etc.). I definitely am interested to add that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like,, , but all are passing mentions.Bogger (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even breast doesn't mention transgender women. I get how merely changing clothes is different. But if you get breasts, does it really matter when or how, as long as they reach each other around the general neckline area? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

More inclusion for other genders?
Can we remove a lot of the gender-specific language from this article to more accurratly reflect the fact that other genders including men can fall under Décolletage?
 * Done. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On this note, you may want to think about the section all about cross-dressing and how it also applies to transgender people who aren't simply "cross-dressing" (and aren't mentioned much elsewhere). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried as evident in a discussion below. But RS on the topic is almost impossible to find. If someone can provide some RS, I can work on the material. I failed to find some. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossdressing section sources
I have no major issues with the Crossdressing section's text, some of it's sourcing is incredibly poor. Example 1 Example 2 the advertisement as source.... This is in need of re-sourcing and re-writing. In particular considering removal of the line "Many crossdressers believe that displaying a convincing cleavage will distract attention from flaws in their appearance and will improve their ability to pass." since true or not it's not supported by the source. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already posted to the LGBT project to get help with sources. But, it seems that there is little forthcoming. I will still give it a try this week. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about this article's sourcing in general. For example, we really shouldn't be using sources from 1901, 1936, etc. for biomedical information, per WP:MEDRS. While most of the content cited to such sources is basic anatomy that isn't in dispute, it should not be hard to find a newer source to support this information. This jumped out at me - "Frosty Wooldridge, How to Deal with 21st Century American Women page 145, AuthorHouse" - if the book's title wasn't enough of a red flag, AuthorHouse is a self publishing outlet and not RS. Moreover, the content this is used to support is According to culture journalist Frosty Wooldridge, "We can't wait until summer when cleavages bust froth from tank tops, bathing suits and low-cut blouses."; why is it relevant to an encyclopedia that some guy wants to look at boobs? There are a number of citations to commercial sites e.g. apparelsearch.com, lingerie-confidant.com, barenecessities.com, which are not RS, and the "cosmetic conditions" section is mainly based on popular press sources, not MEDRS sources as required. Spicy (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Frosty Wooldridge removed. After several hours of Google search I think I also have some RS replace the commercial sites – Healthline, Stylecraze and The Guide to Breast Reconstruction by Patricia O’Grady. Can you check if I can use these sites too for additional information – Clovia, Bratag, and Zivame. As for MEDRS, I posted to the Medicine and Anatomy projects. Though I am also searching for better sources, it would be highly helpful if someone else also lent a hand there. One question: does the cosmetic stuff also need to be MEDRS compliant? Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your edits. Re. the sources - the breast reconstruction book is from AuthorHouse, a self-publisher, so not RS. Zivame is a blog for a commercial website, and Bratag is a blog as well - not good sources. I get a strong alt-med vibe from Stylecraze's authors page - not necessarily relevant to content about bra styles, but a red flag in general - and they don't seem to have a clear editorial policy. Healthline does appear to have an editorial policy and is probably fine for sourcing fashion content (though I'd never use it for WP:MEDRS stuff).
 * I think MEDRS sourcing is required for any claims related to permanently altering the appearance or structure of the breasts... so for example, it wouldn't be needed for claims about using makeup or clothing to enhance cleavage, but claims about using exercise to improve one's cleavage, or treatments to permanently resolve cosmetic issues, would fall under MEDRS. Spicy (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AuthorHouse has been a total dissapointment. That means more work. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's unfortunate. I always make sure to check the publisher if I'm using a source from google books. They index a lot of vanity presses. Spicy (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy and disorders sections
I think these should largely be cut. I don't think these comport with the ordinary understanding of what cleavage is, and the anatomy section is completely incomprehensible to me, a hyper-educated person with a background in biology. I think essentially none of our readers gain anything from it. Thoughts? Separate thought: One missing subject that I think should be added (and perhaps could be the basis of a completely overhauled anatomy section) is content from this existing reference about classifying different shapes of cleavage between the breasts and how getting the right shape is important for breast surgeries. Lots of interesting stuff in there, and actually comprehensible. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the cleavage shapes and types, I have already posted to the Graphic Lab, though haven't got a response yet. To get the Anatomy and Conditions part, I have posted to Anatomy and Medicine projects. The response so far was limited., and  may be able to able here, they seemed interested in a limited way. I could probably develop the anatomy part into something useful, but I need reliable sources to do that, and that may be a slow process.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Big, big suggestion
I think the general history section and the undergarment history section should be merged. I think the undergarment section would be better as a time-independent account of cleavage-enhancing undergarments. The merit of the undergarment history section (in an article about cleavage) really is dependent on what the undergarments tell us about how people displayed cleavage at any given time. E.g. 1940s people had conical bras because the goal wasn't mainly to create cleavage, 1990s people loved pushup bras because cleavage was all the rage, now bralettes are hot because people care more about comfort than creating cleavage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did thought of that. The actual bra design and how it helps cleavage may remain in the bra section under cleavage enhancement, but the hisrorical part can go to the history section. Any thoughts? Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Added The LGBT inclusion is very weak. We have not touched the connection between cleavage enhancing garments and breast cancer. I would like to include one or two lines on cleavage piercing. The Quran and the Torah I think has specific guidance about the cleavage. Also my Western sources arehardly shedding light on the cleavage in Africa, Arabia, China, India and elsewhere. Too centered on North Atlantic at the moment.
 * ... pinging everyone. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in reading your one or two lines about cleavage piercing. But a history of conewear, cancer and the Old World sounds overly complex and troubling to me. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree it would be useful to have more content about cleavage in other cultures. I'm an American and know nothing about it, so I probably can't assist unfortunately. No idea where the sources would be, or if the sources exist. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I implemented the merger of the history sections. It's not totally smooth, but I think it's improved. We'll see if I get reverted! ha. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to smoothen it as much I can. But the text needs to be broken down into smaller sub-sections. Any thoughts on that? Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sounds good. I don't have any strong feelings. My division was pretty arbitrary, just based on where the current text could be divided without putting some about the same years on each side of the divider. Redivide as you see fit! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Section merge
I strongly feel that the natural methods of body care to improve cleavage - exercise and food (supplements) - should belong to the same section. But I have not been able to frame that section. Any thoughts? Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Another topic: surgery
The source about classifying cleavage shape that we've discussed talks about attention paid to cleavage shape during breast surgery. We have a section on breast augmentation but not about other breast surgeries, like reconstruction post-mastectomy. I also looked to see if there was anything about cleavage and the going flat movement but didn't see anything (in Google Scholar at least) other than masters theses, which aren't considered reliable. One discussed women post-reconstruction who choose to wear high-necked clothing to hide perceived flaws in their cleavage. Anyways, another angle to consider. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reconstruction of cleavage would be a good inclusion. But I have not seen anything that directly (or closely) connects cleavage with breast reconstruction. Still searching. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert and more
Sorry to have reverted your set of edits. It is just that we need some discussion before the changes, along with a couple of other editors helping with the article. For one - the painting is a less objectifying image than the one you used. Also you managed to remove images of the topics discussed to replace it with a wonderbra picture, which may not be the right approrach here. I like the sideboob picture, but I will probably crop it a bit to make the topic a bit more discernible. Finally the description of bra types are being recrafted with massive change of sources (see the discussion above), and that would probably require a day or two to finish. I hope you see the reason in this and are available for a bit of discussion. Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll go through a few thoughts. The overarching goal of most of the edits was to swap out the multiple current objectifying come-hither photos in the article.
 * Deleted text in bra section: I think that should stay deleted because it's plagiarized from the source, but not a big deal if it's being replaced in a few days anyway.
 * Lead image: Current image is not a great choice because it doesn't even show cleavage clearly (lighting at boobs in painting is very weird, and odd to have a painting at all rather than a photo). I don't think the Mariah image is objectifying at all. She's a powerful performer who has chosen how to present herself in a performance. It's not super sexualized though obviously it's over-the-top glamorous. Old image did have the benefit of showing body diversity which is otherwise mostly absent. Mariah adds a bit of racial diversity though, so that's a plus.
 * Sideboob and underboob: These are both near-pornographic (one is literally a porn actor). Mine doesn't eliminate the porn actor, but both get rid of the come-hither looks.
 * Padded bra and underwire bra: These bras have the exact same features pictured so there is no need to have both of them in the article. Both are padded, both have underwire.
 * Push-up bra and plunge bra: These photos barely even show the bras and mostly are just photos of models, again both with come-hither looks. I disagree that they illustrate the concepts discussed. The existing photos are probably both push-up bras and both plunge bras. Very hard to tell anyways from the photos presented. Also, the wonderbra is both a push-up bra and a plunge bra. We could label it with both if you'd like. By the way, it might make sense to just have photos of bras rather than people wearing the bras in this section. Or maybe a photo of a push-up bra right next to a photo of a person wearing a push-up bra.
 * Cleavage top: This photo divorced from a body is pretty horrible, but I don't have a proposed alternative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, a couple thoughts that I had while reading portions of the article: The underboob text completely overplays this "trend". Maybe it was a trend for certain celebrities on Instagram, or was included in some runway collections, or was a feature of some evening gowns worn at award shows, but this is not a "trend" in the sense that any appreciable numbers of actual people were showing underboob. I would reevaluate what the cited sources are actually saying, and make an effort to see whether any sources indicate this is something that made it to H&M etc. (pretty sure the answer there will be no). Also, the article says that there is a trend toward the use of underwires (I think citing the year 2005). This has been completely reversed. Now bralettes are increasingly popular and people are moving away from underwires. See e.g., specifically mentioning that people are favoring comfort over cleavage enhancement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with Calliopejen1 about the lead image, & I suspect the other points, where I lack the expertise. I don't think any of the paintings used are especially well-chosen. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope this isn't a WP:VOTE booth for WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT type comments. I have a few observation about the points raised:
 * Where did the idea that a painting can't be a lead image comes from?
 * What is wrong with cleavage without a face, since this article is about cleavage and not the face?
 * What is a "come hither" hither photo and why it is wrong to use?
 * And, all the pictures were chosen "very" carefully. Knee jerk responses and fly by opinions would be quite a disservice. Please remmber that it is possible to post images on the talk page to discuss its merit before it is put into the article. I migh take "all" the lead image options for an open discussion at the Fashion project.
 * BTW, the underwear section has been re-written a lot. Regards. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your attitude toward other editors' contributions is terrible. I'm not "voting" about whether "I like" things any more than you are. It's extremely rude to characterize genuine constructive feedback as "knee-jerk" and "fly-by". There is a seriously problematic collection of images in this article and I'm trying to help improve the article. I came here in response to a post at WT:WIR seeking more women's input on this article, specifically because it is sensationalized (and I agree with that assessment).
 * A photo generally illustrates a subject better than a painting. I also explained specific issues with this particular painting that make it a bad choice.
 * Cleavage without a face can be objectifying, especially in the context of the various objectifying male-gaze photos in this article. I also removed that photo because it is redundant -- the feature it is supposedly illustrating is a feature shared by the other image in the box.
 * Some of the faces of women in this article are faces that are basically never made in real life. They exist mainly in photos (ads, glamor shots), often targeted at men, and are sexualized looks intended to draw the viewer in. It's also combined with the touching of hair/breasts to be more sexualized (here in the "push up bra" photo and what I am calling the "disembodied boob" photo).
 * Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Noooooooooooo... I am so very sorry for the miscommunication. It was not a reply to you. It was a reply to, who stands guilty of knee jerk and fly by and ilikeit and everything that I find very upsetting.
 * You on the other hand have been a most helpful partner for me. I have not answered to you because I am still working on the answers. Most of of your issues I am trying address, rewrite, remove, reframe and all, inclduing the lead issue. Already prepped the current lead to move to medieval section, and started researching on Mariah Carey. Also trying to moderate the trend issue with underboob.
 * BTW, did you not notice my post below the request at WIR? I need desnsationalizing, but I also need four bra pictures. So far many options surfaced, but any hardly better. I believe we will need more help with that, not less. That might also apply to the right lead image, which I would like to put to the Fashion project (and invite WIR members there).
 * Cautionary note: While I mostly agree to you, there's possibility that I might still disagree here and there. :D Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we really need four bra pictures, especially if our only options are porny images like these. It's an article about cleavage, not about bras, per se. Although there are some nice illustrations of bras, including plunge bras, in the lead of the Bra article, which might be useful here. Spicy (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . (Though I still think that Johnbod's input is helpful, and it wasn't a great response to her/him either...) In terms of bra photos, I'm not sure that it necessarily makes sense to have four images. If you're taking that approach I assume you should have an unpadded underwire, a padded bra with no underwire, a non-push-up plunge bra, and a non-plunge push-up bra. One other problem with the bra photos (and other photos we're using) is that almost all of the modern photos are of 36-24-36 (well you can't see the final 36...) 25-year-olds with a C cup. This is not what most cleavage looks like in the wild. I recommend looking at Aerie's approach to bra photos -- these are all still obviously beautiful models, but at least they have a wide range of bodies/races represented (and to a lesser extent ages since their main customer base is young) and they are not porny. One other approach that would be amazing would be to get a photo of two (or more) bras and the same person wearing both to illustrate the differences in how they work on the body. I wonder if you could find a model on instagram or something who would do it for free for the exposure. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just posted in a FB group of 60k women in LA asking if anyone knows a model (or anyone else) who would be interested in doing a series of photos: 1) minimalist bra not being worn, 2) pushup bra not being worn, 3) person wearing cleavage-revealing outfit in minimalist bra, 4) person wearing same outfit in pushup bra to illustrate the difference a pushup bra makes. We'll see if we get any takers! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally awesome. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead image
For the lead image, I would propose to use something like the image here. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an everyday image with a regular body.
 * The ethnicity and age of the subject is obscure.
 * A lack of face, beautifiers or posing makes it more clinical than sexual.
 * No objectification, no come hither look, and no exaggerated body ideals (which I am afraid is a feature of Ms Carey).
 * With the natural angle and frame of the image it also doesn't look voyeuristic.
 * And... it still has the topic of the article in focus and center. Any thoughts?
 * My problem with this and similar images is that we don't know that the person photographed gave consent. There's not really enough info here to determine whether the subject of the photo as the same person who uploaded it. And even if she is, then she may not have realized that a CC-BY license meant that she would be the face (well, breasts) of the Wikipedia article about cleavage, on display for the whole world. I think we should use a photo of someone who dressed a particular way on purpose, knowing that they would be photographed and seen by the entire world. (Even if the image isn't identifiable to readers, it could be identifiable to the subject of the photo if they see this article.) So those concerns weigh in favor of a celebrity dressed up for an event, or a photo of a model modeling. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now dropping my proposed photo of Mariah here for reference so others can see my initial idea. I'm not married to this proposal, but I think it is better than the anonymous cropped one you put above. I still think I prefer a picture with a face so people can see cleavage in context. Also because it is not primarily a clinical concept. It's often used when discussing how someone is dressed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Caucasian upper class female catering to exaggerated body ideals... doesn't seem too good at the moment, especially the body ideal part. The current lead image already has a face and a cleavage, and while cacasian, she is not affluent and has a regular body type. And... that image has a story to tell.
 * But, yes, I totally see the consent point. That image may not be usable at all. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your points, except Mariah Carey is definitely not caucasian! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She is in that picture, but yeah, not in the darker ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a photo of Lizzo? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My bad. Lizzo looks good. I was about to suggest this one... Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm just not crazy about the quality of the photo. It's a selfie, has bad composition, cluttered backdrop, weird angle, etc. But something of a higher image quality of the same people could be suitable. (Still in the land of potentially unattainable body type, so I'm not sure how it's any better than Mariah -- who to be honest these days probably has a more average body but gets squeezed to within an inch of her life in her stage costumes...) I think I'm going to put Lizzo in the lead for now and we can look for an upgrade if there are any better images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sounds good. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Back in 2017 etc we had this as the lead pic - it isn't great quality, but is anonymous, and shows the article subject well. It has the consent/awareness issues, but is now 11 years since upload (posssibly helps). Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about that one -- without having thought about this deeply, I'd prefer something taken from a more natural, straight-ahead angle. That one still strikes me as kind of weirdly voyeuristic given that it's looking down her shirt at an angle that basically no one in real life would see. (With that shirt, no one interacting with her in a normal way would see her bra, for instance.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a couple more ideas... disadvantage of the 2nd is that it's all lingerie rather than fully clothed. Either could be cropped. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first image has way more than the topic. Ideally a cleavage picture needs not to have anything below the waist, and definitely not the legs and all. That is a whole woman, not a cleavage. Problem is that if we crop any one of them any further, especially the first one, to keep the topic as the subject of the image it will probably be difficult to discern the crutches an all. I like the first picture, but the maginification may not be suitable for the topic. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion... White woman on red carpet (though the rest of the article is looking more racially diverse these days). But not a skinny lingerie model -- some body diversity, and less distracting outfit than Lizzo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or this one, with some racial diversity and not implant city? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not including skinny linegierie models may be a good policy, considering the health hazard they pose as role models. But, yes, Lizzos clothes may be too distracting. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Some more comments
I read through part of the article and did some copyediting. I have a few comments which I'll post here. I plan to go through the entire article but I have to go to work in a couple minutes and I probably shouldn't be looking at an article full of boob pictures on my work computer. Comments: More to come, Spicy (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Kinsey Reports, most men derive erotic pleasure from seeing a woman's cleavage,[28] and many appreciate their female partner's cleavage enhanced with a push-up bra or exposed by a low neckline.[17]
 * The sentence structure makes it sound like the third clause is also from the Kinsey Reports, but it is not. I also have some concerns about the second source - from what I can tell from search results and the archived version of their website (the company now appears to be defunct), Incompra Press is a very small hobby press with unclear editorial practices. This would likely be questioned if you were to nominate the article for GA.
 * During adolescence, some girls become obsessed with breast shape and cleavage.[29] British actress Keira Knightley, who had her breasts digitally enlarged on the U.S. versions of the poster for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and King Arthur, said that it "comes from market research that clearly shows that other women refuse to look at famous actresses and stars with small breasts" and that she is "not allowed to be on a magazine cover in the US without at least a C cup because it 'turns people off'."[30]
 * The way this is laid out makes it sound like the "it" in Keira Knightley's quote is referring to adolescent girls' body issues, which it is not. Also is posterwire.com a RS - looks like a blog, does not appear to have an about page or any indication of editorial processes.
 * The use of tight clothing and the display of cleavage have been attributed as causes of an increase in breast fetishism, and atypical paraphilia.
 * Attributed by whom and in what context? This is sourced to a book titled Selected Readings in the Anthropology of Religion: Theoretical and Methodological Essays. which is not the source I'd expect for a claim like this which verges on MEDRS. Could be acceptable but needs more explanation.
 * The ayat refers to the women's clothes worn, parted in the front to expose the breasts, at the time when it was cited.
 * "ayat" is not mentioned previously so needs to be explained for readers who are not familiar with this term.
 * The title "Detractors" is a bit odd and implies a WP:OR false dichotomy between "cleavage lovers" and "cleavage haters", might want to change it to "Modesty" or something similar.
 * Sean Curtis, Steal This Book Too!, page 287, Authorhouse, May 2004 - AuthorHouse is self publishing, not RS
 * though Morris notes that in recent years there has been a trend toward reversing breast augmentations - sources for this are from 1997 and 2004, not really "recent", should say "as of (1997/2004)"
 * I feel like including the image from the 2020 journal article is assigning undue weight to a primary study published in a low impact factor journal
 * "Evolution of the Camera phone: From Sharp J-SH04 to Nokia 808 Pureview". Hoista.net. 2012-02-28. Archived from the original on 2013-07-31. Retrieved 2013-06-21. - hoista.net appears to be some random person's blog, not RS
 * NASUWT, the UK teachers' union, reported an upward trend of such pictures at schools. - during what timeframe?
 * "the legal provisions are inadequate" - this is an opinion - according to whom?
 * Carl Fors, Hens: Why Women Are Different, page 312, Infinity Publishing, 2006, ISBN 9780741429544 - Infinity Publishing is a self publishing outlet, not RS
 * a trype of fashion police - a trype? huh?
 * I am sure I will get a couple of days time to sort these out. Quite a long list of things that are wrong. Thanks a lot. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spicy. I noticed some of these same issues. Though I think there are some very big structural things wrong too so I will probably focus on those first. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did not take as long as expected. Please check if I got it right. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good... I will try to finish the rest of the article today. BTW, you don't need to ping me, I have this page on my watchlist. :) Spicy (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo volunteer
So, someone responded to my post in a Facebook group soliciting volunteers to create useful photos for this article! She is white, appears to be in her 30s, with a body that I think is representative of many women. What I had initially asked for based on the state of the article a few days ago was 1) minimalist bra not being worn, 2) pushup bra not being worn, 3) person wearing cleavage-revealing outfit in minimalist bra, 4) person wearing same outfit in pushup bra to illustrate the difference a pushup bra makes. I think this would be good to replace the historical corset picture and the underwire bra picture in the cleavage enhancement section-- it would actually show the effect on cleavage the bra features have. Do others agree? I don't want her to go through the trouble if it wouldn't be useful. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound like a very good idea. May be Spicy also has something to say. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is the image project progressing? The current images and images we had before are all inadequate. Either the photos are objectionable or low quality, or the subject isn't suitably captured. Your success will mean a lot.
 * BTW, I am still working on the article. I hope to submit it for scrutiny by you and Spicy in a couple of days. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Other picture candidates for cross-dressing section
Figure I'd drop them here for future reference. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Saw this note and adjusted Sheena's curves for you :-) Funcrunch (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Medieval heading
The Medieval section needs work. Medieval is the 5th to the 15th century but it starts right off with two illustrations that are not in that time period. Then it flips all around into Victorian, etc., periods. Gandydancer (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. The subheader was originally edited by another editor, and I didn't take a look into it closely. Taking a look into the matter now. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed text
CC-BY-SA: text in this section removed from the article because it is off-topic and belongs in another article. I've left it here in case its removal breaks any refs.

From "Anatomy"
In the anatomical name, "Intermammary" ("inter", between + "mamma", breasts + "ry", place ) means something that is located or performed between the breasts (example: intermammary intercourse). "Sulcus" is a Latin word that means a furrow or groove, commonly used to mean a fold, fissure or furrow of the brain (example: lateral sulcus).  Baffle☿gab  23:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

From "Enhancement --> Exercise and supplements"
"The most recommended poses to develop cleavage are backbends like bhujangasana (cobra pose), dhanurasana (bow pose), ustrasana (camel pose), setu bandhasana (bridge pose) and salabhasana (locust pose); twisted poses like gomukhasana (cow face pose) and matsyendrasana (lord of fishes pose); front bends like halasana (plough pose) and balasana (resting child pose); standing poses like vriksasana (tree pose) and virabhadrasana (warrior pose); and leg stretches like uttanpadasana (raised leg pose) and viparita karani (inverted leg stretch)."  Baffle☿gab  01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

From "Male and transgender cleagage"
(belongs in Gynecomastia): Gynecomastia is thought to be caused by an altered ratio of estrogens to androgens mediated by an increase in estrogen production, a decrease in androgen production, or a combination of these two factors. This may occur even if the levels of estrogens and androgens are both appropriate, but the ratio is altered, as estrogen acts as a growth hormone to increase the size of male breast tissue. Gynecomastia is benign and common among three age populations: newborns, adolescents, and men older than 50 years old. as physiologic gynecomastia develops in up to 70% of adolescent boys, which is usually associated with benign pubertal changes. Adults can also have it because of drugs, liver diseases and other reasons.  Baffle☿gab  23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support groups exist to help improve the self-esteem of affected people. Mild gynecomastia in adolescence may be treated with lifestyle habits like proper diet and exercise. 75% of pubertal gynecomastia cases resolve within two years of onset without treatment.


 * Nothing broken. It's all dictionary cites for particular word/prefix/suffix.
 * I was thinking of keeping all lexical material in one place though, while I think you are trying to keep most anatomical discussion in one place. Looks cool, though I still miss the 3rd para of the lexicographical description.
 * Did I forget to thank you? That's probably because I am overwhelmed by an expreinced copy editor taking an interest (I almost had given up on that as our few copyeditors are already burdened by a huge badly written encyclopedia). It's so nice and I am so grateful.
 * Let me know how I can help. There may be places where you need clarification, or what the original source wrote, or what was I trying to write... and so on. There may be other things I can help with. I am never more than four hours away from a response these days. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, Aditya, I'm finding the article interesting and life would be dull if only took the easy ones! I removed the material above because I think it's drifting away from the subject of cleavage into anatomy—though I won't object if you wish to re-add it. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

 * Three awesome editors,, and you, have found lexical discussion about the anatomy unsuitable (may be bacause from cleavage as a fashion concept to anatomy to lexicon of the anatomy is too much of a concept train). I would think at least three times before adding it back. { Also that I believe a good copyeditor needs to do what needs to be done, even if is slightly in disagreement of the original author.
 * Having said that I would like to request you to add or remove whatever you see fit, and if possible, summarize some part of the article into lead. I have not been able to get enough help for lead yet. Let pour you a cup of hot tea. It's better than beer, you know.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I think most of the text is fine but I do anticipate removing some text towards the end of the article, but I'll see when i get there! :) Thanks for the tea, most refreshing and appreciated! :D Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An update: After talking to you and, especially I realized that the article has become a mix of two things - anatomy and fashion, and that has made the article too long for comfort. So I am moving the anatomical part to a more appropriate article - Intermammary sulcus. That was also a suggestion from  and . I hope I have done the right thing.
 * BTW, I loved the way you divided the history section. Now I should sort 18th from 19th century and make them separate like 16th and 17th. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you are creating and undoing redlinks as you are progressing. Is it because it would be better if those entities had WP articles of their own? If it is that, then I guess you can retain all the redlinks you created. I will try to make at least start class articles for as many of them I can. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it maybe wiser to stay away from BLP, and include a bit more on the experts quoted right in this article. Less weightage that way.
 * But I have another request: When you go through the male and trangender cleavage section, can you give an opinion on the history of the male cleavage? I believe it belongs with the rest of the history. Let me know your view. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi ; sorry for the later reply. I tend to remove wikilinks to commonly known terms (terms of which I expect most readers would have a basic concept) and repeated wikilinks, per MOSLINK. I usually add links to terms I don't understand or those I think would help readers better understand the current article. With redlinks, I usually check the inbound links; if there are none except the article I'm wiorking on, I normally remove the redlink. Yes, I'll have a look at the male / transgender cleavage history section, though I think the main History section is long enough already. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Maternity dress


Vera Farmiga pregnant at Metropolitan Opera's 2010-11 Season Opening Night - "Das Rheingold" Date	27 September 2010

You need a maternity dress that shows a lot of cleavage. How about this one from David Shankbone? I wasn't sure where to add it so I'll post it here. I also was thinking that perhaps research may find a discussion about sexy maternity fashions, or is it brand new to our age? Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can find an encyclopedic context for that. Otherwise it might fall into the WP:NOTGALLERY category of images. It would be great if you also looked up some sources that discusses the maternity cleavage. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gosh, it seems to me to be as encyclopedic" as anything else you've got. I thought that you were the one that was doing the research here.  Oh well, never mind--I will post it at the maternity clothing article that I have worked with for several years.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to snap at a polite suggestion. Please keep in mind a couple of things:
 * The policy says "If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context." (WP:NOTGALLERY), and "anything else you've got" in this article is clearly contextualized in the text and in the captions. Right now the only context I can see is something like "pregnant women can also wear cleavage reavling clothes as seen here". That would not be too encyclopedic, would it? "Sexy maternity clothing" is not really a subject of this article, that may belong to Maternity clothing. Though indiscriminately adding images to that article just because they are "sexy" may not be very advisable either. Wikipedia is not a playground for voyeurism, you see.
 * When you thought I am "the one that was doing the research here", you thought correctly. And I did say, "Let me see if I can find an encyclopedic context for that". But I also suggested that you lending some help there "would be great". I don't think it would be great anymore, as, obviously, you are annoyed at that request. Probably because it will be impossible to find an encyclopedic context for it, and you know that well. Dumping the work that you can't do on some other editor is bad, snapping at them for not doing it is worse. Nobody works for you here.
 * Maternity clothes are not a very "sexy" subject, it probably doesn't matter how many "sexy" images you put in there. But this article will turn into an open floodgate for WikiVoyeurs, who regularly try to post one boobs photo or other in here. It took a lot of work to remove all the unncessary boobs from this article, re-opening the floodgate may be the worst of ideas. There are over 3,000 cleavage pictures on the Commons. Why do you think your image is better or more relevant than any of them?
 * I still stand by my promise, and will look for some context to go with this image. But if I fail... I don't think you can put it in any article on Wikipedia without adhering to policies. BTW, the pride in "article that I have worked with for several years" may also be very misplaced, as only 57 edits has been made to the article, and, after years of your hardwork, it still is a start class article. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've got a real life friend who is (IIRC) six months pregnant and is, ummm, "well built", but if I ask her to pose her cleavage for Wikipedia, I will probably get a blunt object aimed at my head.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My wife went through that phase seven years back, and she still haven't recovered. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand point here...her image would fit perfectly in Cleavage (fashion). After all, maternity is the primary reason for mammary and basically why we have cleavage. And the world is round, so we don't need to provide citations to support it, if you get my point. And gentlemen, not all women see maternity as unsexy but that isn't the point - fashion is the point, and the image is a plus for the encyclopedia because (1) the image is indeed fashionable, and (2) women read WP, too. j/s SMirC-wink.svg Atsme  Talk 📧 14:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think I do have one or two of those flammable images from my wife's pregnancy days. Can I start a gofundme to buy some personal pretection (medieval armour etc.), so that I too can claim it to be fashionable and hence encyclopedic? Everybody should be with the fashion. Nobody wants to remain a Homo Erectus for ever. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg - thx for that! I have only two things to say in response: (1) I'm glad you wikilinked homo erectus as it is a prime target for some of my witty colleagues who adorn the round table at User talk:EEng, and (2) my daughters and granddaughters have an entirely different view from that of your wife, and that is what makes life so wonderfully interesting. Following is your BS for the day:

Atsme Talk 📧 19:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dang. Not again. I am such an idiot. I am really sorry if have been disrespectful to anyone, that was totally not the intention. I wanted to write back "outdated", then thought of replacing it with something more spectacular, like "Neandertals", then I thought those of our brothers were probably more advanced than us, so I went for Homo Erectus, and I loved the pun. In fact I am still curious to know which part of it was more offending - the Hominin uncle or the pun? Aditya (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said to me, Aditya - it was this, which connects to some of the above discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 01:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another failure. I believed I was respectful and factual when posting that comment (looks like I was not). Is it the phrase "highly suspiscious"? Maybe my suspiscion was incivil, but the image has been twice reinstated in the article in two days by the same editor after being removed by two different editors (here and here), showing a slightly warring behaviour without providing any context in the talk page.
 * I sincerely am trying to learn how to report potentially inappropriate edits while being totally correct, polite and non-judgemental. Thanks for the guidance (though at the moment I am slightly afraid to comment on anything that is not 100% nice and 100% free of disputes, as even a simple "I don't think that's right" might trigger something in someone). I hope I can learn to be 100% correct, polite and non-judgemetal (even with vandals and socks, as I have been practising over last couple of weeks) with guidance from fellow editors.
 * Perhaps we can have a cup of tea meanwhile. Pour you one? Cheers. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Content forking
You have reverted my edit without a reason stated. I am re-reverting it, because: If you want to revert back, please, discuss here first. Otherwise your actions might be seen as disruptive editing. Thanks. Happy editing to you. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) A number of editors have proposed that the article needs to be shorter in size, especially if it needs to become a featured or good article.
 * 2) A number of editors have found those two/three paragraphs to be trivial and undue.
 * 3) Content forking is a standard Wikipedia procedure for articles that become too long.
 * 4) The information of those paragraphs are not being removed from Wikipedia, they are just being shifted to another article.

Thank you for doing that, I realize that I probably should have done that, in the future, I will be more diligent in my reversing. ProfessionalGecko (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Peter Lewys Preston (2017).jpg

Lead image
I haven't followed the lead image discussion, but I wanted to propose one more possibility--the image here, or a cropped version of it. Its merits: 1) head-on instead of downblouse angle; 2) no privacy concerns - this is an actress who knew she would be photographed and chose to dress this way; 3) woman of color, contributes to diversity of photos; 4) fairly representative body; 5) not cluttered, though I wish the hair were out of the way. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have made a comment so delayed (considering the amount of nagging and begging I posted to your talk page). You see, I have somewhat lost faith in the community since my last altercations at WP:WIR, WP:LGBT and WP:ANATOMY. From what I have found, it is not safe to do anything that is not protected by multiple policies/MoS/declared consensus/etc. here.
 * I have checked, and I don't think there is any policy etc. to support or oppose the image of Balan. I guess, between you, Spicy and I we have managed to make this article as objective and inclusive as we could, and I am still working on it. But, I don't think I would try a consensus again without serious protection from policies etc.
 * I also believe that of the 242 watchers of this article some have gone inactive, some are too busy, but most are satisfied with the current lead image. A sort of consensus or other can be drawn on to support the current one, and already an RfC has been called upon in strong language, along with an insistence to keep a status quo in stronger language. No one seemed to object. And that I think is called consensus by editing.
 * While I totally want to collaborate to have a more inclusive and a less voyeuristic lead image that doesn't objectify women's body, I don't think there is any policy for that. Rather, the whole attempt perhaps is a little off-policy. I am sad and sorry to be unable to support or oppose (though the image you propose is nice on so many counts). By the way, I am delighted to see that eversince I started editing the article again, the talk page has really come alive. 25% of all edits to the talk page were made this year. That's something for a 15 year old article.
 * Sorry for the rant. Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Well, it's here as an idea for posterity. I'm not going to fight for its inclusion because I don't care deeply. At any rate, the current image seems less bad in context now that the article is not filled with porny images. To think that the other image here was ever serious considered is pretty troubling. Glad that we have moved on from that... (where's an eyeroll emoji when you need one?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this – 🙄 – work? BTW, I have taken this one out for a peer review. Want to take a look?  Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerns
This article is growing in size when it should be going in the opposite direction and spun-off as I recommended earlier. WP is not a fashion magazine or a place to provide tips for physical breast enhancement as what I'm seeing in this diff. I prefer that we collaborate productively, so and  - are we on the same page in that you understand the article is going in the wrong direction? Atsme Talk 📧 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my best to keep the article on-topic; I've just removed a wad of text from the male cleavage section (see above). I've been quite conservative in my c/e but feel free to remove anything you think is off-topic once I'm done. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  23:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * has just finsihed her/his copyedit work, and despite being "quite conservative" (her/his word) the prose reads much better now. Also, I think the copyeidt work has reduced the size by some degree. I have ruined the reduction by writing a large enough lead to accomodate all the stuff that's in the body. I know the lead needs more work. For that my plan was to finish the lead first (still not finished, as I understand) and then seek your help in reducing it.
 * I also have moved out all the anatomical and strictly medical material to Intermammary sulcus. But that probably didn't reducce the size as much as desired. Removing fashion and grooming tips will definitely help (but, I probably would perform that surgery with a scalpel and not a chopping knife, which I am sure you will approve).
 * When the article is satisfactorily developed, I plan to take it to peer review, and there, request inputs from all the relevant projects. I hope to have some reduction there (which I probably will specifically mention as one of the concerns when requesting a review).
 * GAN comes next, and, if the size still remains somewhat ungainly till that time, I am sure the review will help to reduce some more.
 * The big forking that's possible at the moment is summarizing the history part here, and spin or a "history of the cleavage" article. I also have a wish to do that, though not sure when.
 * Meanwhile any and every editor, especially awesomes like you, are most welcome remove or reduce anything they see fit. I might not agree to all the removals (some might not happen with an encyclopedic intention, and some might be a bit too sloppy), but hopefully that would help to reduce it further. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is massive and I think several sections can be easily spun out to their own and summarized here instead.  Glee anon 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Spot ref checks
Just giving cursory look for obvious problems I got through the first 200, the only odd on I’d change is what seems to be a duplicate around #170: Cunnington, C. Willett and Cunnington, Phillis E. The History of Underclothes. London: Faber & Faber, 1981. ISBN 978-0-486-27124-8 ^ C. Willett & Phillis Cunnington (1981). The History of Underclothes. London: Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0-486-27124-8.

Not much but I’ll try to look at the rest later.  Glee anon 04:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Got through the rest just looking for outright problems, on the surface they all seem fine. I’ve added bullets for multirefs for readability.

The vetting for refs will be better when you start on the path to good article for either this or one of many spin-off articles. The WP:GOCE will want to check everything. I think you should entertain spin-off articles first.  Glee anon 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was most helpful. I have just two spin-offs here - intermammary cleft and history of the cleavage. The former has a completely different set of sources, with MEDRS and all. The second I am checking myself. I am worried about just this one, as it seems to be ready to be a GAN. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I would consider spinning off more, I think it would help readers in the long run. Culture, Theories, Enhancement, and Male cleavage would all make great spin offs and then just executive summaries here. Each one you spin off can be worked on by GOCE, which will take time, and concurrently you can do a DYK, then send to GAN. I would start with the shortest section of those first as vetting all the references might be taxing.  Glee anon 01:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed split
If you want to split the history section into a new article, do not just copy-and-paste information so the same content is duplicated on two articles. You must use WP:Summary style in the main article summarizing the content of the subarticle in the main article. Having the exact same content – and yes there are 40 paragraphs that are identical in both pages – is not an appropriate writing style, as it confuses readers when two articles are very similar, especially so when they are slightly different as editing on both pages makes them slightly diverge.
 * Whoever posted this unsigned comment, take the discussion to Talk:History of the cleavage, not here or on my talk page. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for missing my signature above. I don't hate the separate existence of this article, I want you to follow the dang instructions at WP:SPLIT when you split an article, which means not being a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. I'm not merging or deleting anything when all of the content is already still in the main page!! There are processes other than your personal irritation. Use them. Reywas92Talk 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss at Talk:History of the cleavage. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 01:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Impossible citation
The entry states: ″In 1713, British newspaper The Guardian complained about women mostly eschewing the tucker, and letting their necks and the tops of their breasts remain uncovered″ however the Guardian newspaper wasn't founded until a century later. I suppose this could be another paper of the same name that predates it but it seems unlikely, and certainly the article links to the wrong wiki entry on the Guardian., I checked the source and this claim is basically verbatim from it but it doesn't specify what other Guardian this might be. It makes the source appear rather untrustworthy. I'm going to tentatively remove the paragraph, perhaps another source could be found? BHC (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought I decided to strike only the most offending sentence but perhaps someone with more expertise than me could look at the remainder of the paragraph sourced from this article: https://www.racked.com/2017/12/21/16738658/cleavage-history ? BHC (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Such a terrible mistake. Apologising. I hope it is fixed now, though I had to bring back the entire sentence to pipe the link to The Guardian (1713). Also I tried to edit out the strong flavour of plagiarism from the sentence. One mislink apparently jeopardised an entire paragraph along with credibility of the source. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed splits: Resolving the article length problem
This article is almost certainly too long, it's almost double the 100,000 byte rule of thumb for splitting an article and I personally find it awkward to navigate. Its references section also takes up about a quarter of the rendered article, and while I don't know if that's saying much (World War II's two reference sections take up about a third of its article) it is separating the tail of the article from the rest with an ocean of sources.

Aditya Kabir performed a bold split of the history section to History of the cleavage in the Autumn of last year, but the content in this article hasn't been cut down since. It seems that since then the two articles have diverged since then.

I suggest that two articles be split off: a new article on titled Cleavage enhancement for the corresponding section, and completion of the split of the History section to the aforementioned history article. Still, it seems like the article might be coatracking and talking about breasts and lingerie in general. It's entirely possible that trimming the enhancement section down could make the article easier to get through without a split.

If I were more confident that it was the right decision, I'd have split the enhancement section boldly, and I'm unsure about how to resolve the half-finished and irregularly-performed bold split that Aditya did with the history section, so I figured that some sort of discussion was in order to make a course of action clear. What do people think? --EnronEvolvedMy Talk Page 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the 100,000 byte rule refers to readable prose, of which there is 68,000 bytes because this article is so well sourced. I think there's a decent amount of wordiness that can be trimmed, and splitting is not necessary. I think the duplicative history article should be merged back here, but if you don't like that, completing the split (with summary style) would be more than satisfactory to shorten the page. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I mentioned a split in prior discussions. If my memory serves (without having to search the archives), it was about splitting the medical aspects into a separate article or maybe merging if one already exists. Perhaps move the fashion portion to Cleavage (fashion). I do believe there may be too much detail about fashion, considering it is ever-changing and short-lived. Just my .05¢ worth.  Atsme 💬 📧 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Male bra?
What does the existence of a male bra have to do with cleavage? Why is that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.69.211 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Front and back
A caption says, "Swelling of the anterior is a sign of mating-readiness in most ape species." Well, no. "Anterior" means "front". Did you perhaps mean "posterior" or "buttocks"? IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)