Talk:Dimple/Archive 1

Archive 1

Celebrities with dimples

I wonder...do we really need the 'list of celebrities with dimples' on this page? I'm not sure whether or not it violates any Wikipedia policies, but it does seem a little...irrelevant. Perhaps link to it under 'See Also'? 65.92.72.203 10:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

List

As mentioned above, is it really necessary to have a list of people with dimples? How is this relevant to anything? If this isn't responded to in a couple of days I'm planning to delete the list. Soltak | Talk 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted and moved to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. User:Carie 14:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List has gotten very long

The list has gotten very, very long. I haven't counted lines, but it's obviously at least twice the length of the actual content of the article. Something really needs to be done about this, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If it's possible, the list should include only those who are known especially for their dimples, like Shirley Temple. If that's too short a list, or too subjective (one person may adore a celebrity specifically for his/her dimples, while another may see them as a small part of the celebrity's over-all charm), then it could list only those with especially noticeable dimples.

This article is about dimples themselves, after all, not about celebrities who have them. Their own articles can all mention that they have dimples, and include a wikilink here, but the huge list is ridiculous. Especially when it includes someone who only had a chin dimple that he later outgrew (Ernest Borgnine) and another person whose chin dimple was surgically created (Wacko Jacko)!

To further illustrate, does anyone really care that at least 17 members of congress and 6 other assorted politicians have/had cleft chins? That's random trivia if ever I saw it. Moreover, the vast majority of people on the list have chin dimples rather than cheek dimples. This seems somewhat ironic, as "dimple" usually refers to cheek dimples. There is a similar list at the cleft chin article, and while I haven't compared names, I'm sure it's mostly if not entirely redundant to have it here. Even just removing them (copying to that article as necessary) would be a major improvment length-wise for this article. That article may need a pruning too, but I'm focusing on this one for now.

Another, more radical solution would simply be to delete the list again, possibly reserving one or two particularly pronounced examples of each to be worked into the text of the actual prose sections of the article as examples. --Icarus 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The list of people with dimples is BACK! Dear Ford, is it terrible. Get rid of it again! - Dr. Zaret 02:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And practically every single edit to this article is an anonymous person adding even more people to it. The insanity must end. I'll put in an invisible note for now, inviting people to come join the discussion here on the talk page, but if no one can offer a good reason as to why the list should remain then I'll remove it. --Icarus 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the general Wikipedia policy regarding lists? I'd like to take a look at that and cite it here. - Dr. Zaret 00:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The most applicable policy I know of is the one at WP:NOT that I mentioned at the top of this section. I've also found the guidelines at WP:LIST and WP:CLS and an essay at WP:LC. I haven't looked these last three over in depth yet, but I plan to when I get the chance. --Icarus 18:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep this List!

They made a category for cleft chin and readers got so mad that they took it down. Some people may be curious who has a chin dimple. How is this any more relevant or irrelevant than other Wikipedia categories!? If you don't want to know who has a dimple, then don't read it. People wouldn't keep adding names if the topic weren't interesting to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 June 2006

A category isn't deleted because "readers got mad". Do you have a link to the discussion about its proposed deletion? My guess is that it was deleted for being non-notable trivia in violation of the policy against indiscriminate collections of information. --Icarus 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly

This article should be nothing more than a defintion of dimple, and an anatomical explanation for why they occur. Calling them universally (not true) cute repeatedly, and listing people with them is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.2.35 (talk • contribs)

I've tried to remove some of the POV-ness of this article, and add more citations. - AKeen 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It would probably also be helpful if someone could explain the biological processes behind the formation of dimples - AKeen 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It already explains that they're caused by a short muscle (in the case of cheek dimples) or an incomplete fusion of the jawbone (in the case of chin dimples). What exactly are you asking for? A source for the former statement? An explanation of the possible genetic cause? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a source for the shortened muscles cause dimples fact. - AKeen 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark dimples in picture, please

Hi, I didn't know what Dimples were (yeah, 2nd language english speaker here :-D), and it took me a trip to the dictionary to find out what dimples really are. Couldn't we just mark them in the example picture, please? Sergeyy 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Sweden wrong!

The Link to the Swedish site Dimple is wrong, it's about golfball-dimple(s). Not about the human dimple(s). Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.89.79 (talk • contribs)

Wanted to say the same actually. Someone should finally delete that one. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.165.158 (talk • contribs)

I fixed it - AKeen 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The name, please?!

It has a name, but I haven't seen it in years and then only once. What is the name of the little "dimple" or whatever that's above the lip and below the nose? I'd hoped that Wikipedia would have a full diagram of the face with all the visible parts named! GBC 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

philtrum. -- pne (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why...?

Why is this page a redirect from double chin? I was always under the impression that a double chin was caused when a person had fat under their chin, creating a second chin under the first one. In what way is that the same as a dimple?--Tiberius47 07:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, that's an odd redirect. Maybe a cleft chin is sometimes called that because it looks kind of "double." But the other definition is certainly the more common meaning. I've changed the redirect to double chin.

List is Out of Hand...again

The necessity of the list on this page has been brought up many times before, however, it's still here. I think the list should go: policy states that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate repository of lists WP:NOT#DIR. It doesn't add anything and constantly attracts non-notable names and vandalism. I'd say get rid of it. - AKeen 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. It's been removed in the past, but people keep adding it back. It's tough to know what to do in this sort of situation. I still think that only people who are somehow known for having dimples, like Shirley Temple, have any reason to be listed by name, if anyone should be listed at all... Anyway, I'm fine with the list being deleted, but I don't know how long it will stay that way. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New image?

File:Pimpthedimp.jpg

An example of a single dimple and a chin dimple.

This image was just added to the article, to the top, by a new user with no other edits. I do not think it adds anything to the article. It is grainy and has a characteristic "webcam" look to it. The cheek dimple is fine, but no better than the image that is already there. The chin dimple is hardly noticeable, much less so than in the Kirk Douglas picture. The mouth position is odd and unnatural looking, clearly meant to exaggerate the dimple, unlike in the other images. The article is short enough that an additional image crowds things. I oppose the inclusion of this image, but I figured it would be best to get others' opinions. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Back dimples?

Should we have a separate article for back dimples? 142.166.132.94 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures

I say we keep the first and scratch the rest.  Aaron  ►  04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The purpose of pictures is to improve the reader's understanding by illustrating the phenomenon, not to provide a gallery for random people who happen to have dimples. Keep the first image, as it is of acceptable quality, and does not have the borderline inappropriate promotion of particular individuals that the other two do. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the other two pix. 142.166.203.9 (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

dimples by smoking?

i have a question.can dimples be created by smoking?it is a constant move of the facial muscles and i think it is relevant.can anyone answer me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzanetos (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ageing and dehydration increase dimples according to Greek reference in page. May account for smoking link???--YakbutterT (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional refs

References you could look into adding? Ismailova ChS, Ginzburg EKh, Aksenovich T.I., Koshaliev E.K., Podgurskaia L.P., Meimanaliev, T.S. 1994: Segregation analysis of certain anthroposcopic characteristics. I. Alternative signs with penetration independent of age. J. Genetika 30, 6, 843–50.

Meirowsky P. 1925: Beiträge zur idiotypischen Bedingtheit der Kinn- und Wangengrübchen sowie der Nasenfurche und des Tremas. Archiv f. Rassen-und Vererbungsbiologie 17, 415–443.

Hartl D.L. 1983. Human Genetics. Harper & Row Publ, New York.

Pentzos-Daponte A. & Grefen-Peters S. 1983: Über die Verteilung einiger morphologischer Merkmale sowie der PTC-Schmeckfähigkeit in der nordgriechischen Bevoelkerung. Anthrop. Anz. 41, 21–31.

Schuhmacher S. 1924: Der Bau der Wangen (insbesondere deren Innenbekleidung) verglichen mit dem der Lippen. Z. f. Gesch. Anatomie. I. Abt. 73, 247–277.

Wiedemann HR. 1990: Cheek Dimples. Amer. J. of Med. Genet. 36, 376. --YakbutterT (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Genetic correlations?

Are dimples more common in women than in men?

Are they more likely in some ethnic groups than in others?

Do people with dimples have longer or shorter lifespans than other people do? Can dimples be correlated with resistance (or lack of resistance) to diseases or other conditions?

Rammer (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dimple of venus

Couldn't this article link to the Dimples_of_Venus ?

Who are these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Two_people_with_dimples.JPG

At least, where has the picture been taken from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.44.139.208 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the picture of the hacker guy. --Malerooster (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"also known as a gelasin"

This is misleading. "Gelasin" is a vanishingly rare word that only occurs in lists of English words and is not used in general conversation etc.; try a search on Google Books and see if you can find even one actual use of this word. Should we remove this altogether? Equinox ◑ 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia acts as our long-term memory, so knowing there was another word for dimple seems worth remembering. Just because gelasin is obsolete should not mean it should be removed. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pandabear510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)