Talk:Intermammary cleft

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Revert

@Iztwoz: Why was this revert necessary? I am reinstating the changes. You may revert again after discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a hasty revert based on seeing mentions of wrinkles when lying down etc. sort of unnecessary in my view and also a ref (haven't checked further) using NY times not a good ref to use. I re-looked and some of your edits are an improvement so please carry on and if necessary will bring any concerns to this page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not remove details. The article needs more details, not less. But, of course, your reasoning can pevail upon discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in the summary was unecessary - no article needs unecessary detail in order to fill it out - a reader is likely to be amused and say why not call a breast a breast.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested a proper citation for this material as it implies that the intermammary cleft is in popular usage termed the cleavage. The reference that was provided made no mention of intermammary cleft. Also as stated the area does not include the breasts - yet the cleavage clearly does. If you can find a valid reference use it.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir, Iztwoz has notified me as a third uninvolved editor to help provide an opinion on this (Special:Permalink/968328297). I edit in the anatomy space. I have reverted you per bold, revert, discuss (BRD). I agree with Iztwoz that these are separate articles - one relates to the visible part of the cleft from a social and cultural predominant perspective, one relates to the anatomical structure of the cleft. If you think this is wrong, I suggest you propose the articles for merge or post a WP:RfC so we can get some other editors involved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I had merged it per WP:SUMMARY, i.e. keeping small parts of subject in a comprehensive article, which may be split or forked when there is enough material to require a split. Right now the article is very small (even with non-anatomical stuff included) and can easily be accomodated into mother article.

But, did you really had to see "mindbent" and what not in my edits, especially when I removed the part ("but not the breasts") you objected to? Also, WP:BRD is not supposed to be handled by complaining against other editors, but engaging them in a discussion, which you didn't attempt. That's neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL.

For the merger, I am fine with the idea that this article needs to stand on its own. Keep it for some time, and if it fails to develop (not imprtant enough as an anatomical article to expand), then go the dimple or forehead way - one comherehensive article, instead of a range of stubs and starts. It is not unusual for a small anatomical subject to be part of a mother article with broader scope.

Just a mention - this article was split out of cleavage without discussion sometime back. But as this article has not developed on its own, it can't be a crime to put them back together, especially if the mother article stands more chance of developing as a nice comherehensive article. The exact policy quote is "consider whether a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of creating a new article" (WP:AVOIDSPLIT).

BTW, I have removed the non-anatomical stuff from the article, as it seems that being "anatomical" is the value of its separate existence. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

@Iztwoz: Currently the lead image is a repeat of the anatomy image. Is it possible to use another image? A quick look has given a few options:

File:Breasts of a woman.jpg
File:5450276 img 0750.jpg
File:Female with naked breasts partially covered with hair.jpg (black & white)
File:Lehnert & Landrock - 2559.jpg (black & white, will need croping)
File:Topless woman from Sri Lanka.jpg (black & white, will need croping)
File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-17.jpg (will need croping)
File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-046 (cropped).jpg (will need croping)
File:Brüste im Modell - breasts in the model.jpg (model)

I am sure there can be other options too. Any thoughts? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use a male image - it's the anatomic depression, does not have to specify the breasts. As for views on added content of page my own limited view is that it needs only a small entry. The cleft only refers anatomically to the depression between the breasts both male and female all other incidental inclusions of ligaments etc is in my view not needed. All else is applicable to cleavage. --Iztwoz (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It just slipped my mind that it could be a male image. Dang! I guess that would be a very good idea. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]