Wookieepedia

READ MORE

Wookieepedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Wookieepedia
Advertisement
Register
Wookieepedia
In a galaxy far, far away....
204,095
pages
in: Trash compactor archive 2007

Forum:TC:Breast

View source

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Insufficient consensus to merge or delete. Article stays. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Breast (talk - history - links - logs)

They have no more specific Star Wars relevance than any other body part. We don't have articles on arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, or anything else on the humanoid body. Why breasts? jSarek 07:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep. Because of things like trees and reptiles and fish having boobs. It makes it notable. Havac 07:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So? They also have arms and legs. There's nothing in the canon about why that should be notable. jSarek 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • [Redacted by administration] KEJ 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Reptiles normally have arms and legs. Fish have fins which can easily be believed to evolve into arms and legs. Sentient trees are humaniform because that's the way things get made in sci-fi. But there's absolutely no precedent for breasts on a fish. Or on a reptile. It's unusual and what's wrong with documenting that? We have articles on the Yevethan dew claw. Why not have an article on breasts? Havac 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sikon 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep. http://www.cuswe.org/newdescr.asp?search=42045 -- add this info to the article and it is no longer subject to the deletion policy. --School of Thrawn 101 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep. They are an important thing in many cultures. If lekku get a page, then so do breasts. If sugar and water and alcohol get pages, then so do breasts. Kaje 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Keep! Where else would you go to find out how many species have more than 2 breasts? I wouldn't object to having a head article that lists species with more than 1 head, and an arm article that lists species with more than 2. These types of articles could also list characters whose heads/limbs/lekku have been severed, and also link to their corresponding prosthetic replacements. Clothing specific to the respective body parts could also be mentioned. —Unsigned comment by Azizlight (talk • contribs). I've changed my mind. An anatomy article would suffice, and would cover everything. --Azizlight 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Darth Culator (Talk) 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Unit 8311 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep!! McEwok 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per McEwok. - Jinko 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. [Redacted by administration] supergeeky1 BobaFett The Cantina 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Azizlight. Adamwankenobi 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Just noticed all the dodgy pictures of Aayla Secura's chest have gone, so keep. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. If there are more referances to them than other body parts, why delete them? I happen to like the page. K-E-E-P!!! Anzati02 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    [Redacted by administration] 216.77.197.34 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Yarna has six of them! -- Riffsyphon1024 04:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. It should primarily mention SW-specific information, species physiology etc. I actually believe we can make something serious out of it if we can hold the vandals at bay. Evir Daal 07:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. What exactly makes these less notable than lekku or anything else in Category:Anatomy? We shouldn't omit things just because they exist in the real world. That's incompatible with a truly in-universe perspective. -LtNOWIS 02:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Hell yeah! Azra Namor 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. There are articles on other body parts. Kuralyov 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. It's an anatomical trait, it varies from speices to speices, which makes it notable, and it's well written and informtive. I've seen good arguments FOR keeping it, but most of those voting delete haven't provided good enough reasons, as far as I'm conserned. Din's Fire 997 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC) changed mind. Still no reason to delete, but good reason to merge. Din's Fire 997 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)) Oh hell, call me wishy-washy, but Havac makes some bloody good points. Din's Fire 997 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. I have changed my vote, since the article we have now is different enough from the article VFD'd in the first place. -- Ozzel 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. A notable anatomical trait. Be mature about it.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Having read it (ahem, certain votes down there), I'd say it documents notable phenomena in a tasteful manner. - Lord Hydronium 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

  1. Merge with Mammal. KEJ 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mean redirect to mammal? I'm not sure merging it makes sense, since the two articles have entirely different purposes. --School of Thrawn 101 07:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, I mean "merge". I'll refrain from commenting on the purpose of the breast article. KEJ 07:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Merge/redirect with a new anatomy article. --Azizlight 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    How about just including an "Anatomy" section in species articles? --Imp ATATatarismall.png 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    The species articles would probably benefit from that, but I still ask the question: Where else would you go to find out how many species have more than 2 breasts, or more than 4 arms, 2 heads, etc? Someone suggested a new branch of categories, but I think a simple anatomy article would solve everything by answering all these questions. --Azizlight 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I agree with both an anatomy article and an "Anatomy" section in individual species' articles. - Esjs 08:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Any of these is acceptable to me; the article alone not so much. CooperTFN 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    An anatomy article would be more than satisfactory. Din's Fire 997 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. huh? I just found this article, a little out of the norm, but I agree with those who says it should be merged with Mammal. Humbone 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think that this article has some redeeming qualities- especially the cultural significance in the SW universe. I don't believe it deserves a page of it's own, but connecting this with mammals makes a lot of sense. Mrobviousjosh 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

  1. Redirect to the Wikipedia article, as per the masturbation link on the Wank article —Unsigned comment by Spindler (talk • contribs).
  2. A soft redirect would work, as there are issues about it regarding the Falleen. But then lock it immediately afterwards to prevent vandalism. -- SFH 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete

#Delete. jSarek 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. Delete. I have to say that I don't envision an a category for body parts. Should this include kidney as well? Cull Tremayne 08:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. --School of Thrawn 101 08:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. [Redacted by administration] .... 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak delete. See comment below. -- Ozzel 08:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Delete. Darth Admony 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
  4. [Redacted by administration] Enochf 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Do we really need an article on this? Delete.--Windu223 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Delete. General Layton 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
    Delete. T8-13 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
  6. Delete. ASAP. If this isn't deleted, I demand articles on fingernails, shirts, knuckles, vests, towels, navels, scalps, sweat, etc. All of which are mentioned in canon works, but none of which are particularly distinctive to SW. Atarumaster88 15:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Delete mainly on the basis of notability. When would this legitimately be linked to? Arms, hands, and hair are all a lot more notable, arguably. We do not need to even point out the Neti thing (we aren't a stand-up comedy routine), but even if we did, it would belong in the species' article. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Delete, along with its search icon.-Solus (Bird of Prey) 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Still trying to come up with an airtight rationale for deletion, but I say get rid of the damn search icon. Replace it with a picture showing Rasha Bex's face and chest if you must. I'd speedy it myself, but I don't want to break anything. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Fanboys. >:( - Dark Spork 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Unfortunately. Chack Jadson 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. JMAS 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. What the...? Stake black msg 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Still unable to come up with the airtight criteria, and my friend did say she thought it was "brilliant", but this is too far on the silly side of hyperinclusionist fanwankery. Distribute the canonical info in the Twi'lek, Dathomiri, Mammal, etc., articles, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. I see no reason to keep it--unless you want to have an article about the male organ and ITS uses in the same way. No? Didn't think so. Any unusual breast-related cultural attitudes or notable biological features can be covered in the article belonging to the relevant species--in context. This article as it is is just certain men expressing their "desires" in a not-so-veiled manner. Teris Shae 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, I don't believe the male organ has ever been mentioned in canon. jSarek 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Find a canonical reference. Write an article. I'll vote to keep it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. The Broox 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Yoshi626File:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Imp ATATatarismall.png 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. --Eyrezer 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. With Silly Dan. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    Destroy it. There's absolutely no justification for it being here. The reasons that others have come up with aren't justifications, but backwards reasoning. --GrandAdmiralJello 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
    • Oh? I beg to disagree. I'm no boob-drooling fanboy. I only defend it because I think it does have value of its own. Frankly, any fanboy edits would get reverted. Why should content be removed because some fanboys give everyone a bad name? Havac 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Wookieepedia is primarily a resource for people to find out information about Star Wars, yes? If I was thinking "hmmm, who is this Baron Fel guy that everyone keeps talking about?" I could look him up on Wookieepedia. I could read the links in his article and learn all about him, what he's associated with, and the books he appeared in. Would I ever, though, think to myself "Hmm, what are breasts? To Wookieepedia!" ? Never. --GrandAdmiralJello 01:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, by that logic, we should get rid of human, soldier, merchant, corporal, duck etc. The site isn't just for looking stuff up. People also browse it, presumably. -LtNOWIS 01:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Weak delete. See comment.--Valin Kenobi 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. 000 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Delete Jaina Solo(Talk) File:Jainasolosig.gif |25px 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Utterly destroy. This article has no place in a Star Wars wiki.Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
  23. Delete, Darth Ocean 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oh, for Christ's sake.... Do we really need to debate this one? Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Destroy this article we must --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Delete, Greyman(Paratus) 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Delete. Why have an article on it? Why? WHY??? What is the POINT? --Crazy Jedi Girl 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (Stricken by Evir Daal as per Forum:Single issue voters)
    • Coverage of a canon topic. Havac 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. The arguments made to keep have been sound enough to overcome my initial objection. However, the fact that every single female vote we've had here has been for deletion tells me there are deeper issues at work here than just the canonicity and notability of the topic. If not one woman Wookieepedian is comfortable with the article while so many males are, then I'm afraid there are some fundamental NPOV issues that I'm blind to. As a result, I'm not going to vote "Keep" just yet. jSarek 06:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think it's about time for us to make a policy in regards to what things with Earthian counterparts we will cover on the site and what we will not. -- Ozzel 07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur, and the policy should be linking to Wikipedia in those cases. See also Entymal and chitin. If we keep Breasts, we need a Chitin article. And who will work on it? No one. Why? Because the breasts article is inherently immature. Sorry, but it's true. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If this is kept, then I want an article on Facial hair! KEJ 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To borrow from someone else, I'm so opposed to this article that my opposition could split from me and form a separate entity, giving two votes against this thing. Atarumaster88 16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Keep! Where else would you go to find out how many species have more than 2 breasts?" -- Um, how about that species' article? Didn't read that carefully enough. But in IRC we discussed the possibility of a "List of species by number of breasts." It would be a woefully short list, of course; one might as well just use the Search feature... Gonk (Gonk!) 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Who the heck wants to know how many species have more than two breasts?!? --Crazy Jedi Girl 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Redacted by administration] KEJ 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously, this article is going to be a target of immaturity. But then again, so is Waru. And Wank. And Leia Organa Solo (bikini OMG LOLZ!!!!). But we have those anyway because they're canon and that's what we do. The first edit of Visas Marr was something about her being raped by Nihilus. We just turned it into a respectable article. I don't think we should allow the potential for vandalism -- or the idea that breasts are naughty and we can't have an article on them -- to keep us from making a respectable article. Furthermore, they have notability within the Star Wars universe, due to their appearance on species which should not have them, which should be covered. It's probably best off as a brief overview of what it is, a discussion of their SW significance, and a link to Wikipedia for more facts about them in general. It doesn't hurt anyone. Havac 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "I don't think we should allow the potential for vandalism -- or the idea that breasts are naughty and we can't have an article on them -- to keep us from making a respectable article." That's not my argument. I don't see how a respectable article can be made here, or is necessary. See also kidney; no content there couldn't be covered in some other, more relevant place. By your rationale, Havac, we should have an article on Hair and every mention of hair in every article will need to link to it. That includes infoboxes. Now if you're seriously advocating that, OK -- I could be persuaded to be that hyper-anatomically-inclusionist :) and change my vote here. But while I might agree that it's notable enough to mention Neti and Mon Cals having breasts, it belongs on the respective species' pages. Let someone sufficiently interested do a search for "breast" instead. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there's no content in Luke Skywalker that couldn't be covered in the articles about the stories he's appeared in. It's about bringing the information together and presenting it cohesively. Breasts on a tree, breasts on a reptile, breasts on a fish, breasts on another reptile, sure, they all fit in their own articles. But bring them together, and you have an article about a phenomenon that spans canon sources. I don't see what the big deal is. Havac 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Breasts are canon. They appear, explicitly, in three seperate scenes in The Courtship of Princess Leia, which differentiates them from the spurious pages people have compared them to. And that's to say nothing of implicit toplessness in Tyrant's Test and elsewhere, widespread discussion of their significance in Falleen physiology, and the appearance of a bare-breasted Oola character-design in RotJ production art (The Art of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi). I really think that we have the potential to create a great Wookieepedia page here, one that's amusing without being smutty or silly, and also mature and informative. Ultimately, Wookieepedia is about what appears in Star Wars canon: breasts are among the things that do, and subjective POVs shouldn't be allowed to interfere with that principle. There's vandalism at Palpatine, and Korlo Brightwater is a stub in need of serious expansion. These factors don't make those articles irrelevant. --McEwok 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So they're canon. So they appear. So does sand. Doesn't make it notable. As far as the Courtship content and other implicit content, does it not belong Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/List of sexual references in Star Wars/4th nomination|here? (And to reiterate, I'm not objecting on the basis of POV definition of smut or vandalism probability.) Gonk (Gonk!) 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Or...they could all be summed up in a "mother" article that lists such things as various types of soil encountered in the Galaxy...or an article that describes clothing worn by different factions. Or create a bunch of stubs for things like shirts and sand and breasts and other aspects of the Galaxy that are relatively minor influences and contain them in categories that effectively describe them. Personally, I'm a fan of the "mother" article concept. A hefty, well-organized article that addresses clothing, for example, could be easily brought up to such a status as to be worthy of good article nomination. Such an effort would be well within our role as an encyclopedia" (My post on the Breast talk page.) --School of Thrawn 101 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe y'all are even trying to come up with justifications for this. Way to pander to stereotypes, boys. I'm so proud. -- Dark Spork 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] --Azizlight 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • /me grins and waves at snarky fangirl stereotype in the previous comment. In reply to Gonk, the content in CoPL is not "implicit", nor is it primarily "sexual": through Chapters 14-16 (pp. 177, 191, 210, etc.) we get a good insight into the cultural and semiotic context of the mammary on Dathomir, with some insights into how a Tatooine farmboy and a Princess of Alderaan react on the side. The same is true of the Falleen biology stuff. And, with respect to Gonk, jSarek, Ataru, etc. I can see equally clear justification for major, and interesting, pages on geology, limb, eye, clothing and reproductive biology, to which most of the other pages they've suggested would be obvious redirects. "We've not thought of these pages yet" is no excuse for VFD'ing this one—in fact, it seems to be serving as a catalyst for people to define areas the Wookiee needs to cover! --McEwok
    • I would support the creation of a geology article as it is a science. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is an indisputable fact that breasts, in the Star Wars Universe, are more notable than the average Pokémon. --School of Thrawn 101 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahh, freedom of speech is a fickle mistress. You voice your opinion and soon self-confessed totalitarianist neighbors are throwing rocks through your windows. But back to the topic: McEwok, I don't have Courtship handy, but on the pages you cite, are breasts actually named? Because if it says "Hey look, she has breasts—mammary glands for use in feeding her young" or something comparably overt ("explicit" may have been the wrong word choice here), then that is indeed one legitimate reason to keep the article. Otherwise, we may well be assuming that something is there based only on our own physiology as non-SWU-humans. Furthermore, the fact that anyone who speaks English knows what breasts are would seem to be a good reason why we don't need this article. Same for hands, feet, etc. These are basic human concepts, not tied to any culture, common to even the least developed languages. Wikipedia has links to such things; we don't need them. We are, remember, a specialized encyclopedia. I doubt, for example, that The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural has an "anatomy" category, and they could more readily justify it than we could. Gonk (Gonk!) 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of those are indeed explicit references (there are actually at least six references over those three chapters). As to your second argument, there are two good reasons why "basic human concepts" as you define them should have pages on Wookieepedia: their specific cultural context in Star Wars, and the comparative biology of the fictional nonhuman species. On both those points, this article is relevant! --McEwok 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think the "keep" side has several good points, and a lot of the article content is useful. (But the Behind the Scenes on the canonicity of comics boobs is just sad.) However, keeping this article just plays to the worst sort of fanboy stereotype and I don't think it's worth the hassles. This content can be broken up and distributed to the articles for Falleen, Askajian, Neti, etc.--Valin Kenobi 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is basically what happens when we start forgetting about the readers and falling in love with ourselves. Bleh. .... 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect, I fail to see why there are more hassles here than with Palpatine, Mohrgan or I-a2b solar ionization reactor. Or with any page where an edit war or persistent troll might be involved (thus far, there's seemed to be no problem, in fact). To suggest that breasts are sillier than Coruscant or Ewoks seems to me to show a loss of perspective in the first instance, and if you dislike the Behind the scenes section, which is no more silly than the decade-long discussion on the length of the Super Star Destroyer, then of course, edit it out!
    In short, I'm yet to see a coherent argument against this page. I'm sorry if that seems a bit strident, Valin Kenobi—your even-handedness is genuinely appreciated; but I don't think that even-handedness covers the flaws of a VFD argument that you yourself seem to recognize the weakness of. --McEwok 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • For starters, here's my basic argument for VFD: 1) the fact that this particular article was created over ones such as arm, leg, etc. is evidence of fanboyism in its original purpose. Look at the page history and the images that were splashed over it. 2) The subject of this article is basically the same as the RL counterpart article on Wikipedia. Notable EU subjects such as the Neti or Mon Cals should be listed on the species' page. 3) Professionalism. The fact that this particular article exists when other articles don't, or when so many topics that are original to Star Wars have crummy stubs is not particularly appealing to me. As an outsider, if I came across this article, I would basically interpret this article as being evidence of this community's lack of professionalism and um, ogling fanboyish fanwankery by some members. I can see this now popping up on Chee's forum over at SW.com "Mr. Chee do breasts have an entry in the Holocron? Because they have an article on Wookieepedia (link)." The eyes would be rolling for the next decade or so. Atarumaster88 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "Professionalism." There's the word I was looking for. I mean, I appreciate a heaving bosom as much as the next guy, but....--Valin Kenobi 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ataru:
  1. I don't think "fanboyism in its original purpose" is a justifiable reason for VFD'ing stuff from Wookieepedia. Do I need to explain why that is? Also, for the record, the images weren't part of the original edit. They were an action of pardonable enthusiasm by fans who liked the idea—would we delete pages with spurious galleries attached? No. Also, the fact that limb still needs written is a spurious argument for deleting this page: would we delete Mara if it was written before Luke?
  2. If you're going to say that a wikipedia article and an ability to distribute the content of a page to other pages are grounds for a VDF, we should remove lightsaber and planet.
  3. You already raised this one in 1, more or less. The fact that other articles haven't been written yet is no reason to remove those that have. The really professional thing to do is to write limb and eye. --McEwok 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With three It appears in the cultural section and It is possible in Non-Mammals doesn't that make the page conjecture? When's the "Did you know Dathormiri breast feed?" going onto the front page? 62.31.69.202 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So's suggesting that they're usually a feature common to Star Wars mammals come to think of it. 62.31.69.202 01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. The three "It appears" sentences are all just a particular idiom (mine, in fact); they can be (and have been) removed without affecting the sense of the page. The "It is possible" sentence could perhaps be rephrased, but it's not so much conjecture as logic: IF Falleen breasts aren't functional mammaries, THEN they're either a naturally evolved or artificially-created immitation, which fits right in with what we know about the species.
    As to the Dathomiri, I think "Did you know that young Dathomiri mothers breast-fed their babies during councils of war?" would be a perfectly healthy "Did you know...?" entry.
    And as to mammals, having them is the key definition of the class in the real world, and it seems to be the same in Star Wars, as shown by the definition of mammalian features in discussion of reptomammals.
    And limb and eye are up as stubs, by the way. They can be developed in depth, of course, but so can the page under discussion here. --McEwok 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it should be deleted, but for those of you naysayers, why not link it to Wikipedia. I'm sure there's probably some old policy forbidding it, but if not, why not? These kinds of articles are not what Wookieepedia was created for. Seriously.Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you actually read the article? With respect, what would the point be of linking to the page on Wikipedia when the page on Wookieepedia is specifically about the nature of the topic in the Star Wars canon? Or does Wikipedia have wikipedia:Breasts in Star Wars now? --McEwok 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the following quote mean, and whom is Ben reffering to? ""She feels all... mushy" ".--Anzati02 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "As an outsider, if I came across this article, I would basically interpret this article as being evidence of this community's lack of professionalism and um, ogling fanboyish fanwankery by some members." Exhibit A--I shudder to think how [redacted by administration] we will be made to look when the blogosphere gets hold of this debate. We already got at least one complimentary mention for the "Made in England" VFD. :P--Valin Kenobi 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So we should not include canon information because . . . people might laugh at it? OK, sorry Jar Jar, your article has to go. The cool people at SA might laugh at your page. Oh, sorry Marvel. People laugh at articles about a space pirate in a speedo. You might be canon, but we refuse to cover you now. You're not "professional" enough. Uh-oh, we mention that Oola's boob slips out in her article. That's so unprofessional. People will think we're a bunch of horny fanboys. Goodbye, documentation of fact. You might make us look bad. Certainly if we get rid of that we'll be taken soooooooo much more seriously by the people who come to a website to read about Star Wars information. Come on. Havac 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. We have officially run out of new articles to create if we're spending this much time on this. I'm just so, so proud. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? If I create an article on something minor like, say, oh, I don't know, a minor NPC in KOTOR and take it to FA, is that such an incredible waste of time because a "big-name" article isn't perfect yet? Have you in your wisdom judged that unworthy of effort? Is that too much time to justify spending on an article because you don't care for the topic? The topic is canon. 90% of the votes against it are simplistic and childish. "The mean people at SA might laugh at us. We have to be cool." "Oh, it's about something remotely sexual? Grow up, fanboys!" There are about three people making decent arguments against it accompanied by a lot of shouting about how immature anyone who might want to keep the article is. You know what? All it takes is one or two intelligent users watchlisting it and removing fanboyish additions. Bang, perfectly innocuous article. Who really has to grow up here? Havac 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Grow up. And I don't mean that for the keepers, I mean for the crowd whose sole reason for deletion seems to be "Breasts are dirty, and we can't talk about them!" Certainly not all delete votes like that, but the reasonable ones seem to be in the minority. See, I always thought that the idea behind whether we should delete or keep an article is its canonicity and notability. They're canon, that much is obvious, so the question is whether they're notable by themselves. But I'm mistaken, obviously. The true way to decide whether something should be deleted is how ashamed we feel when we look at it, or because we don't like the reasons we've decided it was made, sitting in our thrones of omniscience and dispensing armchair psychology like it's candy (see: Delete vote #18, assuming nobody else strikes out any delete votes before you read this). It's voting against a wide number of things: fanboyism, icky private parts, those mean people at Something Awful laughing at us. Oh yeah, and those couple people actually voting to delete the article. Now, observant readers may have noticed that I haven't actually voted. That's 'cause, see, I'm trying to actually decide whether I think this is notable enough for its own article, not seeing the word "Breasts" and leaping with spittle-flinging furor into the delete section because HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT THAT IN PUBLIC YOU PERVERTS. I'm tempted to vote "keep" just out of spite, but that would probably violate some regulation about point-making. - Lord Hydronium 08:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • My view is that we are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia of Star Wars-related information. If it is possible to create an article on breasts that provides information unique to Star Wars, I feel that we are obligated to perform that function. It's a relatively simple approach to the method of chronicling information, imo...and if more editors considered this philosophy, we wouldn't be experiencing this level of discord. --192.251.125.85 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Mine --School of Thrawn 101 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC))
  • It's not about "looking cool" for Something Awful--it's about not handing them on a platter things to make us look like jackasses. Forgive me for being slightly concerned about the Wooki's reputation in the outside world. If I thought this article was notable enough, I would vote Keep and say potential controversy be damned. But I don't think there's enough notable content here. Here's how I would sum up the article. 1) Mammals have breasts. 2) Breasts are for feeding babies. 3) Breasts usually have things covering them 4) except among Dathomiri and Fallanassi, which cannot reasonably be extrapolated for the galaxy at large because almost all breasts seen everywhere in canon are kept covered. 5) Some Mon Cals, Falleen, and Neti have breasts. 6) Breasts in the comics are bigger than in the movies. *eyeroll*. 1 and 2 are basic biology and not unique to SW. 3 is a "no duh" for anyone who's watched the films. 4 and 5 can go in the articles for the respective species/planets. And 6 is truly just sad--I'd delete it, but am I allowed to fiddle with an article while it's under VFD? On top of that, the article is riddled with such conjectural BS: a: Wookiee females have six breasts?? Source when every visual seems to depict no more than two? b: "on Alderaan, the bust of high-ranking women like Princess Leia Organa was generally minimized by their clothing" based solely on OOU information about Carrie Fisher taping 'em down because she wasn't wearing a bra?? c: Twi'lek dancers sometimes performed bare-breasted--based on concept art that by its definition was rejected from canon? And this is what we base an article around? Come on.--Valin Kenobi 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Valin: 1.) No, mammals and reptomammals have breasts. Star-wars specific. 2.) Sociologically, Star Wars civilization seems to support parental breast-feeding quite strongly. 3/4.) Some cultures in the Star Wars Galaxy clearly have no problems with public toplessness. 5.) The cultural position of breasts in Star Wars is such that they're widely immitated by non-mammals 6.) A tongue-in-cheek reference in a BtS section, spoofing genre clichés. In short, this is an article about breasts in Star Wars, and as such belongs in Wookieepedia. As to the specific info, a.) is also on Wookiee and [CUSWE], and I'm looking for the source, but I'd guess it is canon (where have you seen a two-breasted Wookiee?); b.) is simple fact (George decided very early on that Alderaanian clothes minimised the bust), but the trouble is finding an in-universe way of referencing it; c.) is perhaps {{ambig}}, and could be moved to BtS. The real question is if this pic appears elsewhere in a canon context.
  • And is the actual page really sillier (or, more cringeingly fannish) than the VFD discussion that everyone seems to be taking part in with passion? I don't even see why this is relevant: fannishness is part of what we do at Wookieepedia. We might as well shut down the entire wiki if we're worried about people thinking that this is eccentric.
  • There's also possibly some need for a disambig page, I think. See Talk:Breast? --McEwok 17:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "a.) is also on Wookiee and [CUSWE], and I'm looking for the source, but I'd guess it is canon (where have you seen a two-breasted Wookiee?)" Well since I can't find image corroboration at the moment, I'll retract that half of my statement, but I've still never heard they have six, and since they're primates, it seems more reasonable to assume they've only two. Yubookoo seems to imply a fairly human configuration to the torso. "b.) is simple fact (George decided very early on that Alderaanian clothes minimised the bust), but the trouble is finding an in-universe way of referencing it;" OK, but if this is the case, then we still need a source and my point stands "c.) is perhaps {{ambig}}, and could be moved to BtS. The real question is if this pic appears elsewhere in a canon context." Why should rejected concept art be ambiguous at all? By that logic we might as well make "Girl Luke" and "Fritz Lang 3PO" canon while we're at it. "And is the actual page really sillier (or, more cringeingly fannish) than the VFD discussion that everyone seems to be taking part in with passion?" I fear you have a point.--Valin Kenobi 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, since when are wookiees primates? -LtNOWIS 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, there have been some topless Twi'leks performing in issues of Republic, if I'm not mistaken. Jan just draws them facing away from the camera. If I had my comics on me, I'd find a page and reference it. And just what is the "reputation" that you're so interested in preserving? We're nerds writing about Star Wars canon. Not having an article on boobies will not make the low-self-esteem dumbasses out there suddenly stop making fun of us. So the folks at SA made a crappy attempt at mocking us. Who gives a damn? The people on the SA board, the real people on the internet, have a 40-page thread asking nerdy Star Wars questions on which we're frequently cited. Clearly, having articles on something beyond Luke Skywalker and Chewbacca is not dragging our reputation through the mud. For those who are going to make fun of us, how is breast going to make us sooooo much more vulnerable than wank or Grabda Weng or even freakin' Jar Jar Binks or Crimson Jack? The ability to be criticized for nerdiness and fanboyism is inherent to this site. Learn to deal with it. Don't engage in silly self-censorship of anything remotely nerdy or criticizable simply in order to please some random assholes on the internet. Havac 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer various questions:
  1. Who the heck wants to know...? (Crazy Jedi Girl) - well, this is a question that you could, I think, ask about almost anything on Wookieepedia!
  2. Yubookoo seems to imply a fairly human configuration to the torso. (Valin Kenobi) - a good point, but we apparently have Gamorreans with two, six and eight breasts in different sources (possibly significant in itself!), and given its appearance at CUSWE, I suspect that the six is canon for Wookiees, so we should keep it with a {{fact}} tag until someone finds the source.
  3. OK, but if this is the case, then we still need a source and my point stands - we need a source, yes, but that's what the {{fact}} tag is for, and this isn't the only page with that issue....
  4. Why should rejected concept art be ambiguous at all? By that logic we might as well make "Girl Luke" and "Fritz Lang 3PO" canon while we're at it. - it's not so much "rejected" as "evolved from", but I take your point, and someone should probably move this to BytS.
  5. If I had my comics on me, I'd find a page and reference it. (Havac) - anyone got any references for this?!
  • Thanks!! --McEwok 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Havac: I don't think any of us give a damn what SA thinks: I'm more concerned with what other segments of the fandom think (we've already received a bad notice on ClubJade.net for this.) —Silly Dan (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement