Talk:Buttocks

Images of buttocks

Why are they there? XXl0sermanXX (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored, and there is an encyclopedic value to the images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 That's way too much pics of butts IMO and WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse for us to host all those pics. Like, why do we even have two galleries? I'm pretty sure the infobox image is enough 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no encyclopedic content added by this gallery so I have removed all the images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this (quite understandable) sentiment, for the reason that a generalization must be drawn from many exemplars. If you're trying to get a handle on what buttocks generally look like, two photos — even fairly typical photos — will not suffice. In fact, all Wikipedia pages about visible things would ideally have galleries. You can't tell how much the appearance of things varies unless you have more than one or two examples. Although, of course two galleries may have been overkill. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I went back and checked and one gallery is of artistic depictions (eg paintings) and one is of real examples (photo). So that's fine. However, looking at them now, I agree that it seems out-of-place how much of the article real estate is taken up by the galleries (although I still do think they are valid encyclopedic content). Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Gallery

Why is there a gallery of art and a gallery of buttocks 2806:10A6:12:1655:E489:5596:F76B:F869 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

"most mammals"

The page currently claims, in the lede, that "The buttocks are two rounded portions of the exterior anatomy of most mammals". I don't think "most mammals" is true. My impression is that most mammals don't have buttocks, and the buttocks are in fact a result of the characteristic large glutes of humans that are responsible for their bipedal locomotion. The source we cite for the lede, later https://archive.org/details/generalanatomypr0000norm/page/16/mode/2up, makes no mention of the subject, and contains the ambiguous phrase "(creating the unique form of the human buttock)" (does that mean human buttocks are unique among other buttocks, implying there are other buttocks; or that the buttocks are an anatomical form unique to humans?).

It's not clear to me if ischial callosities actually count as buttocks. Actually, every wikipedia mention of these as being buttocks and not rears seems to be uncited. — The only real citation we do have, on callosity#Ischial callosities (which does not claim they are buttocks, by the way; rather, that they are on "rears"), has many mentions of ischial callosities but only one mention of buttocks, and that in relation to humans. There is also another source that claims they are "butts", but that's not coextensive with "buttocks", as a term.

The online dictionaries and so on I have consulted about this seem to imply only humans have buttocks but are kind of ambiguous. I'm going to remove the claim as uncited and probably false, on the balance. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Booty (sexual slang)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Booty (sexual slang) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 25 § Booty (sexual slang) until a consensus is reached. Nayyn (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)