Talk:Cleavage

Do we honestly need this page?
I know the idea on the Wiki is that every item is fair to go for a page, but I do genuinely have to question the necessity of this page. Yes, we may run by the idea of explicitly being NSFW but what is the justification for a page dedicated to this point? (I would also be open to arguing the same of a few other pages but one thing at a time...) In what situation would we need to document the outfits of women and whether or not their cleavage is visible? Especially when it seems in large part to merely be editors noting it for reasons I cannot fathom. The only instance on this page that seems to be an explicit point made is the TATM point, because that's River writing in the Melody Malone book; "and I was packing cleavage that could fell an ox at twenty feet." Everything else on this page feels to me like totally unnecessary writing that is neither informational - I'll leave aside my difficulties to think of reasons to need this as is - or actually relevant to the purposes of the Wiki. JDPManjoume ☎  16:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as you'll have seen by now I have indeed exploited T:NO RW, I think quite cleverly, to cut down the vaguely creepy list of instances of on-screen cleavage, leaving only the one DWU source which explicitly uses the noun. Also, restricted editing of the page to admins, to prevent trolls bringing it all back or otherwise messing with the page.


 * However, we can't really do more than that on a talk pag. The long-awaited deletion of the N-word page has set a precedent that we can come to community decision to delete specific pages that are in especially poor taste — but that would take an actual community decision, not just a request and one admin's ruling. Ideally it'd take a forum thread. If we can get enough momentum on this specific page behind the position that this page is tasteless and offensive in the same way that the N-word page's existence was… then I think I could delete it, even so.


 * But until then, it's simply not in my power as a rank-and-file admin. Sorry… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, very glad you have done that. Much appreciated - and yes, I understand that unfortunately until we get the forums back or more people note the same position, that it is as much as can be done. JDPManjoume ☎  16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well to get the ball rolling on the necessary momentum, I support this page’s deletion. In my view, it serves no purpose and just damages the reputation of this wiki. SherlockTheII ☎  16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to get rid of this page. Plain and simple. The Doctor Who universe does not use the term in a transformative nature, so from my perspective even if it wasn't offensive it doesn't have a need to exist. The one line on here could be on River Song's page if we wanted it to be, but even then I would consider it in poor taste. The only real justification for allowing this page to keep existing is to avoid setting precedent for inclusivity debates --but if that is the only reason to keep a page around, then not only should that page definitively be removed, we should be considering how to change policy because it's ass backwards. The fact that there was a creepy list of character's whose actresses showed what an editor considered to be "ample cleavage" is absolutely insane and offensive. Having this page around (and our general policy revolving around inclusion of real world anatomical pages) invites and encourages these kinds of pages. And from the perspective of women, good god can you not see how this page would upset women? It's perverted. This page needs to get deleted as soon as possible.


 * I understand why the admins are in a particularly precarious position regarding deletion --but the fact that an admin could genuinely get in trouble for deleting a page like this is disgusting and speaks to the culture of this wiki. We have positioned ourselves as the OFFICIAL DOCTOR WHO WIKI. If you type in "doctorwho.fandom.com" it redirects to us. We have to be better than this. NoNotTheMemes ☎  16:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for what it's worth, support the deletion, but please, @NoNotTheMemes, refrain from using words like "perverted" to characterise the editor who created the page. As I already told User:NatalieRobyn812, that's arguably a T:NPA violation. I won't block you for that, obviously; where you're coming from is quite forgivable. But you've been blocked for a T:NPA violation and I'd really advise you to be careful with your tone.


 * Also, the policy that any noun can get a page is really not in question here. Pages like Human or even Motorbike have their place on the Wiki. Not only are they fun and harmless, but they can very much be useful — for example, the latter page is what you'd check out if you wanted a quick overview of "bikes in DWU media" so as to ascertain, for example, when the Doctor was first shown riding one, and how many times this has happened on TV, or in the novels, or… you get the gist. Either way, T:BOUND would apply, but I truly think the bad rep this policy gets on Twitter is unwarranted.


 * However: to have this policy comes with a duty to use it responsibly. Pages like the slur ones, or, arguably, this one, besmirch the whole enterprise. I would absolutely support a Forum proposal, some time this year, to create stricter "offensivity standards" for the real-world topics we give pages to. Probably this would come in the form of formalising what we're doing right now: make it an official part of the Wiki's policy that a brief discussion on a talk page can be enough to warrant the deletion of a page for being offensive and generally in poor taste. It is enough that we have well-structured, contextualised overview pages like Sexuality; we probably don't need the option to keep every dirty word known to Torchwood writers as independent pages, if they're going to do nothing but make people uncomfortable while adding little independent information. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * How about we redirect this page to breast? That way, the page would be less likely to cause offense, and the only piece of information currently on this page can be moved over to breast  .  📯 📂 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be in agreement with that - means the one explicit TATM reference is noted on that far more informational page and means that said page also preserves this statement for anyone trying to look into the nature of how Moffat sometimes would write certain pieces of dialogue regarding female companions. (A point that I know is often raised within fan academia) JDPManjoume ☎  17:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The previous rendition of this page was creepy, gross, and damaging to the wiki's reputation. The current rendition of this page seems ... fine? Treading carefully: "Cleavage" is weird and sexualized and offensive, but afaik it isn't a slur comparable to the N-word, so I don't think that precedent is really relevant here. And this page isn't of no interest to anyone: for instance, I know quite a few people who would be very interested in retaining a resource for recalling which Steven Moffat episode sexualised women in this way. People love to complain about the wiki's lack of notability standards, and maybe that rule is indicative of a problematic culture, but in my view the swift admin action here was a sufficient correction. – n8 (☎) 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * *dramatically slaps forehead*


 * I appreciate User:NateBumber's cautious defence of the reduced page's existence, but User:Epsilon the Eternal's proposal seems like a startlingly obvious solution and I feel silly not to have thought of it at once. If the people you mention want to find the one DWU usage of the word, they can ctrl+f it on Breast, and there, sorted.


 * If by some weird stroke of fate people come pouring in supporting this page's independent existence in the coming days I'll recreate it, but for now I'm going to implement this compromise, at least temporarily, to quiet things down. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)