Talk: Breast/Legends/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Breast | Legends

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Controversy

Ummm... --Azizlight 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • [Redacted by administration] -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • All right, but lets at least semi-protect it. This thing is a going to be a lightning rod for vandals. -- SFH 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Semi-protect it. --Zakor1138 02:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nickname? Are they called breasts in a canon source? :-P Cull Tremayne 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • [Redacted by administration] Cull Tremayne 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Canon source for the name is The Courtship of Princess Leia. That's why it says {{1stm}} in ==Sources==. I reckon we could make this a great Wookieepedia page, in all seriousness! --McEwok 02:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, just saw that right after I commented. I'm doubtful that this can be a "great" page, but I've been proven wrong before... Cull Tremayne 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[Redacted by administration] --School of Thrawn 101 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. I really have the urge to gag. This is disturbing. I thought you guys were encyclopediac or something, but I guess not. —Unsigned comment by 128.194.66.61 (talk • contribs)
  • [Redacted by administration] KEJ 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] KEJ 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If it has a canon source, yes. We cannot avoid something simply because it's a touchy subject. --School of Thrawn 101 07:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Sure, I don't care if it's a touchy subject or not, but this does warrant the dreaded articles on sand and shirt and so on. KEJ 07:29, 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. --School of Thrawn 101 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • [Redacted by administration] QuentinGeorge 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'd say the content of this particular article should be merged with mammal. Btw, interesting that the articles does not refer to Falleen mock mammaries. KEJ 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Then add it. --School of Thrawn 101 07:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
                • [Redacted by administration] QuentinGeorge 07:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • [Redacted by administration] - Sikon 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • [Redacted by administration]DarthIktomi 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)DarthIktomi

Wow. I really have the urge to gag. This is disturbing. I thought you guys were encyclopediac or something, but I guess not.

  • Isn't this Ataru? In which case...what? Cull Tremayne 09:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That twasn't me. Though I do have to agree with the gagging and disturbing part. My urge is to VFD this. ASAP. Atarumaster88 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Redacted by administration] DarthIktomi 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)DarthIkotmi

Improvements for the article

  • Extensive footnoting has been done, but there are still some things I think the article needs:
  1. Source and page reference for the TDL Nanny Droid's internal tank: The Official Star Wars Fact File or The Essential Guide to Droids?
  2. Source and page reference for Wookiees nursing their cubs.
  3. [Redacted by administration]
  4. Some sort of reference for Leia's clothes: we know from OOU evidence and comparison with RotJ that George had Leia's bust minimised, but how do we reference this? I vaguely remember something in Episode I: The Visual Dictionary on Alderaanian fashions?
  5. The Oola production sketch from The Art of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, p. 21, if this is acceptable to the Admins. Good enough for Nilo Rodis-Jamero should be good enough for Wookieepedia, no?
  6. Canon reference claiming Falleen breasts as natural?
  7. Pictures of some of the artwork from The Art of Star Wars books.
  8. [Redacted by administration]
  • Thanks! --McEwok 12:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[Redacted by administration] Anzati02 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point, it's a little ambig...if anybody has the source on hand, can you specify within the quote? (nudges McEwok) --School of Thrawn 101 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The quote is from The Unseen Queen, p. 58. It's Ben's POV with his Force-sense, when he detects Tenel Ka in the next room - she's feeding Allana. --McEwok 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Redacted by administration] Anzati02 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • [Redacted by administration] --McEwok 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration]Anzati02 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I say get a better quote. That one just doesn't work very well. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, either get a better quote or remove the current one, which is questionable...--The Wolfe22 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

Based on a pointer from Kuralyov, I wonder if we need a disambig page and a second entry on avian anatomy. I'm not sure what page titles we should use, but the second page might go something like:

This page is about anatomy of birds. You may be looking for the biology and anthropology of the mammalian breast.

Breast was a term used in anatomy to denote the chest area of animals, particularly birds. It could specifically denote the plumage of that area, as with the blue-breasted hover ibbot, and it could also be used as a culinary term for a cut of meat: hibbas breast could be served with bofa fruit sauce.

Appearances

Anyone want to take the initiative and add in the new page? Or should we just roll this information into the "other species" section? --McEwok

  • If you make the new page...you're stubbing it up pretty bad...I say roll it on in. --School of Thrawn 101 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Other information to include would be breastbone, breast pocket, and breastplate, all of which are canonical and obviously related to this subject. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, since women are in every single work of Star Wars, should the appearance list say "All"? Or should we just have a set of mentions, real, direct appearances, whatever?--The Wolfe22 00:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags

  • Until what is canon, and only what is canon is documented in the article, the tags should stay. There is a lot of speculation and original research in the article, not to mention POV. Atarumaster88 02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since apparently, we are required to discuss issues on the talk page before editing the article (and this rule is where?), here's some things I'd like to see addressed. An example of original research/speculation is "here seems, in contrast, to be little direct evidence for bottle-fed infant formula or wet-nursing, making it hard to assess the extent to which these alternative techniques were used" etc. The original research is the made up stuff or speculated content. An example of disputed factual accuracy is "Similarly, the physique that T'ra Saa, who was a Neti—essentially a sentient tree—assumed in her pseudo-human form can be regarded as consciously chosen, as she was in fact a shape-shifter", etc.- parts of which are true and canon but parts of which aren't. I see that as extending the canon to fill in the gaps- creating a factual discrepancy about what is canon and what isn't. And an example of NPOV is the entire cultural significance section, which basically takes a pro-mainstream Galactic society slant. Instead of just stating the different significances, whatever of breasts in those societies, it makes direct comparisons (and even holds as more significant) the view of mainstream society. To me, that's POV, although I admit that's a little more subjective. I think the reader should be made aware of the various issues in the article, and I would add three tags to it, but apparently adding those is a violation of rules now. Atarumaster88 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ataru, to treat your points one at a time.
  1. "There seems, in contrast, to be little direct evidence for bottle-fed infant formula or wet-nursing, making it hard to assess the extent to which these alternative techniques were used" etc. The original research is the made up stuff or speculated content.
    I agree that this is tricky, but it seems fair to assume that synthetic substitutes and nursing by beings other than the mother are known. Leaving them out would be to beg the question—but I can see your point, and if anyone has the information on the nanny droid's milk tanks, a direct quote would be appreciated!
  2. An example of disputed factual accuracy is "Similarly, the physique that T'ra Saa, who was a Neti—essentially a sentient tree—assumed in her pseudo-human form can be regarded as consciously chosen, as she was in fact a shape-shifter".
    My understanding is that Neti consciously control their physical shape, as described here: A Neti has the innate ability to alter its shape and size at will (emphasis mine). The fact that T'ra Saa appears in the form she does would thus seem to be her decision. Are you disputing the nature of this ability, and if so, why?
  3. And an example of NPOV is the entire cultural significance section, which basically takes a pro-mainstream Galactic society slant. Instead of just stating the different significances, whatever of breasts in those societies, it makes direct comparisons (and even holds as more significant) the view of mainstream society. To me, that's POV, although I admit that's a little more subjective.
    Frankly, I think you're overreacting here. Any prominence given to "mainstream Galactic society" merely reflects the fact that it's a Galaxy-wide interstellar society, as opposed to local or planetary ones. That's an objective, quantitative difference. Nothing more. It serves to structure the section (in a way that is objectively accurate), not to imply a value-judgement. That's my POV, anyway: do you have an alternative phrasing that you think is more NPOV?
  4. Also, do you have a page ref. and quote to confirm that Leia nursed the twins?
  • Thanks! --McEwok 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry for getting back so late on this- I really don't watch this page and this is the first time I've seen this post. As of my last edit to this page, and a cursory look at the current revision, it looks okay to me.
  1. All speculation on point number one was removed, so it looks good now.
  2. Withdrawn. The wording confused me, but I figured out what it meant. My mistake.
  3. I removed the parts on number three that irked me.
  4. I will find you a page ref. and quote if needed for Leia. I promise it's in the The Last Command, though the word "breast" never appears, IIRC. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness... —Unsigned comment by 71.162.241.244 (talk • contribs)

  • Atarumaster88: No worries on the delay:
  1. Thanks. I'd be interested to know if any details are given on the milk-tanks, though
  2. No problem!
  3. Well, I don't see any issues with the current phrasing, so that's okay.
  4. And you did. Great!!
  • Thanks all round!! I also removed the reference to Gran, because it didn't belong in "non-mammals", and I didn't see it belonging in either of the other sections, either. A list of the number of breasts different species have seems slightly superfluous, and there are others, like Gamorrean, that would have to be added. --McEwok 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

why

I saw the arguement at the top of the page. I think this will straighten it out. Okay, here it goes:

We should not create pages such as: Nail, Head, Hair, Arm, Leg, Butt, Ect... because everybody has them. This article is about a part that only Females have. In reguards to the Male parts: We should not create pages for them unless they are mentioned IN Books, Comics, Games, Ect...

Does that help? Anzati02 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No, because the argument was settled with the vfd. Don't restart old topics. Atarumaster88 20px (Talk page) 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing Boss!=) Anzati02 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[Redacted by administration]--Gonzalo84 04:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[Redacted by administration]

{{Morepics}}

  • [Redacted by administration] Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no such template. - Sikon 07:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mushy

[Redacted by administration] Dorsha 23:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Mon Calamari

if you look at the portrait of admiral Cha Niathal, she seems to have breasts, this may be worth mentioning—Unsigned comment by 81.141.216.199 (talk • contribs)

Ben Skywalker

The Ben quote, can someone give me its context?—Unsigned comment by 92.237.185.36 (talk • contribs)


Top Picture

[Redacted by administration]69.88.211.46 21:25, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • Canon is canon. Be mature about it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:27, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but should we really have this up? We don't want some browsing seven-year-old to see it.—Unsigned comment by 69.88.211.46 (talk • contribs)
    • [Redacted by administration] –Tm_T (Talk) 14:23, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, last time I checked, Visions was not official canon.69.88.211.46 16:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
        • My bad, forgot to add "mostly" while editing my reply. –Tm_T (Talk) 16:34, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
          • Nor is it official non-canon. Please, don't make a simple picture a bigger issue than it really is. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 17:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm just sayin' can we maybe move it and replace it with another picture in this article?69.88.211.46 17:36, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:47, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:50, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • [Redacted by administration] Holocron 15px (Complain) 04:30, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
        • Where exactly did this picture come from, anyways? I was unaware that any of the comic series showed nudity. 99.141.194.0 15:04, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
          • Star Wars Art: Visions says File:Aayla sleeping.jpg. –Tm_T (Talk) 15:15, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
            • Not to bring up an old topic, but I feel like it should be noted that this is the only image on the entire wiki that shows nudity. This isn't like wikipedia where everything is covered from Dora The Explorer to BDSM. People have certain expectations of Star Wars, and nudity is entirely not one of them. I'm not going to be a prude and say the image should be deleted, but I do think it should be relegated to a gallery and not the topic photo of an article. —Unsigned comment by 98.27.213.72 (talk • contribs)
              • [Redacted by administration] Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:25, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
                • Alright, if you're going to be that way: Wookieepedia:User_image_policy "6.Images must be "safe for work": no nudity, excessive gore, or other content which is unsuitable for a family audience, or would be likely to disturb or offend other users." Granted it's talking about User images specifically and no mention is given to it in Wookieepedia:Images, but as I said, this is the first time this situation has arisen. Regardless, I think the latter part of that policy is very, very clear. This image is nudity, from most people's viewpoint it is unsuitable for a family audience, and it is obviously disturbing or offending to other users, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If that policy isn't grounds enough for the immediate deletion of this image, it's at least grounds for a vote on clarifying Wookieepedia's official policy for nudity in licensed material. Don't brush it off with you're "cope with it" thing, this is an official policy issue. Really though, if we're all honest with ourselves, this particular article has always been a joke and I wouldn't say the image is worth fighting for. Just pitch it and put a metal bikini there and people will probably be able to figure out on their own what breasts are.98.27.213.72 20:32, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
                  • This article isn't a joke to me atleast (joke articles are not usually in the main namespace anyway), and if you really insist we shouldn't have breast being shown in the article about, well, breast, then by all means create an user account and set up a well formed and reasonable Consensus track discussion. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 21:20, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
                    • I've had a user account here since '06. I stopped using it a long time ago because I was getting sick of the elitist cabal that evolved in the ranks of the admins. Stuff like the inconsistencies in their criteria for featured articles, notability guidelines, user pages, etc. "Enter the beurocrats, the true rulers of Wookieepedia." If I have to dust off that profile I will, but I'd like to see the admins do the right thing on their own for once.98.27.213.72 21:38, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Tope, everyone is taking this way too seriously. If you don't like it, then ignore it. It's canon, George Lucas approved material. I don't get why everyone is so fussy over some canonical image on an article that really is something minor. I think that's enough. JangFett (Talk) 21:41, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
    • User. Image. Policy. And no, it's not George Lucas approved, it's approved by someone who's approved by someone who's approved by Lucas. I get the very distinct impression that Lucas would not approve of this, particularly given the fact that the current target demographic for Star Wars media, per The Clone Wars, is children and adolescents. Meaning you have a lot of kids on Wookieepedia who just want to read up on The Clone Wars. Given that Secura is on the show, I should think it'd be pretty easy for kids to unexpectedly end up here. And unless we are planning on completely ignoring the policy I've brought up, it doesn't matter who you think is responsible for what children see on this website. There are rules.98.27.213.72 22:02, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
      • User. Image. Policy. No relevance to this issue. Deal with it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:21, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

I say we should step back and have a look at this. I understand that it is not Wookieepedia policy to do something like removing the image (or article. It's not entirely necessary. Considering the fact that it's clearly inaccurate, (plant (T'ra Saa), fish (Cha Niathal), amphibian (Kit Fisto's chest exhibited the male dimorphed version), and possibly other non-mammal breasts? Breasts are called MAMMARY glands for a reason) I think everyone should agree at least slightly). However, I believe the image for the Selonian species would be better. It's educational enough, and fur-covered, slightly more unrealistically drawn, and less provocative. I believe that it would be the best image of all. I believe this at least warrants a vote.Gnost-Dural | Hands off the holocrons, THEY'RE MINE!! 12:52, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

  • No, article isn't inaccurate, you're confusing the facts of our universe to an article about fictional facts of Star Wars universe. And all that attempt to get us to choose some image that obscures the fact that this article is about breast, will gain only one-word answer from me: no. –Tm_T (Talk) 17:14, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration]Gnost-Dural | Hands off the holocrons, THEY'RE MINE!! 12:16, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
      • [Redacted by administration]Gnost-Dural | Hands off the holocrons, THEY'RE MINE!! 12:21, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
        • [Redacted by administration]Korsa3 15:43, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
          • [Redacted by administration]Gnost-Dural | Hands off the holocrons, THEY'RE MINE!! 16:27, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
            • [Redacted by administration]Korsa3 16:38, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
              • To Gnost-Dural: just so you know: if you have canonical sources for reproductive organs article, and even some images to have in it, I see no reason why we shouldn't go for it. And yes having some "less provocative" image as you put it would really in my mind to be nothing but obscuring, hiding the very fact what this article is about. We should use the best image describing the article contents, and a hairy chest which has less details is not that. If you desire to put up a vote about this (around this same topic again), please do, but don't feel disappointed if it doesn't end up the way you expect. –Tm_T (Talk) 18:00, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
                • [Redacted by administration]Gnost-Dural | Hands off the holocrons, THEY'RE MINE!! 11:17, June 29, 2011 (UTC)