Talk:Camel toe/Archive 1

Disagreement on the cause of CT

Everybody thinks CT is caused by chicks wearing their pants too tight [A cameltoe caused by tight jeans and a central seam dividing the labia.] but as a pattern design engineer in the apparel industry (25 years), I can tell you it is *usually* caused by a flaw in the pattern design process. To whit, I wrote two posts on the topic which I'll include as reference if somebody wants to change this entry. You can use whatever text/images with attribution etc. I also include info on "wongs", CT's "big brother". http://www.fashion-incubator.com/mt/archives/anatomy_of_a_camel_toe_pt1.html http://www.fashion-incubator.com/mt/archives/anatomy_of_a_camel_toe_pt2.html Pattern maker 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about this ages ago and it makes sense. Mathmo ^Talk 05:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of the most notable cameltoe images come from catwalk models in bikinis. Bit tough to say that it is a "clothing engineering problem" in that case. The primary cause in those situations surely must be the complete shaving/depilation of the vagina. This allows the vaginal cleft to be far more obvious than a vagina covered in natural pubic hair. Surely this should get a mention. Stray 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

College Humor

Well, this page was listed on collegehumor.com. Let the vandal watch begin... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poisonouslizzie (talk • contribs) .

Asian cameltoe

Japan tends to have a large cameltoe fetish, with photos, manga illustrations, and anime. Subjects are often schoolgirls wearing skirts or bloomers/PT shorts. Also used as a form of censorship, by outlining genitalia without showing it. Often combined with a frontal wedgie for maximum goodness.

Removed POV

I removed this sentence:-

"However, while is it not necessarily always the case, most often girls and women are aware when a cameltoe is displayed."

It's clearly POV and cannot be verified, and just sounds like a male fantasy . . . I cannot verify this either except for myself but . . . we do not actually spend all day gazing between our legs to check for cameltoe, it can easily appear with us being aware of it. And wow I never thought I'd be talking about cameltoe on wikipedia :P GhostGirl 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mooseknuckle

In parts of Canada, Camel Toe is also known as Mooseknuckle.

This page is also short on links..May I also propose a link to a Camel Toe site: http://ctoe.bolt.com/ Commking 9 November 2005

I've heard the male version of Camel Toe refered to as Mooseknuckle.

Actually a Mooseknuckle refers to a fat woman's camel toe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.6.90 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate Names" section is getting out of control

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary, and anyway I doubt most of these are actually used in speech, except as jokes. —Keenan Pepper 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You could be right (and don't forget to add "Gammon Goalposts")

I removed the entries that I'm pretty sure are frivolous, and left the ones that seem to be regionalisms. The Crow 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is the job of Wikipedia to collect and organize information, up to and including slang terms. Look a the list of ethnic slurs. merrend 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entry "Zebra Hunting (Mexico)". Clearly, this is English and any slang is Mexico is in Spanish.

I would like to say that Fasolo is not an italian word, but is a sicilian word and means bean ArmyDuck 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

New images

is it really necessary to have so many images of cameltoes? also, there is no license information on any of the newly added images. - Stoph 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it look to much like porn, the only image that provides anything more than entertainment is the spandex one, and at a stretch the butterfly thong. I have removed the new images except for spandex to here. I suggest we wait on the other on to see if we get some copyright info. AntiVan 01:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, most of these pictures are obviously not created for the purpose of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I have removed another picure featuring an almost bare woman.Sycthos 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a photo of someone in a tight outfit most represents the "iconic" camel-toe without being gratuitous, so I'm taking out the extreme close-up vulva shot and leaving one with the spandex outfit. Really I think a person wearing jeans or slacks would be more representative. Also removing some image spam on this talk page The Crow 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The close up, whilst explicit, does illustrate the source of the term more clearly. I agree the spandex clad girl demonstrates the common experience, but the image arrived at the same time as a heap of porn, and I suspect we will lose it in the copyright cleanup. I have restored the original. AntiVan 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with AntiVan. There are two pictures of cameltoes on the article page, while many articles only have one photograph. Also, the close-up is a bit explicit and may be offensive to some people. Sycthos 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Offensiveness is not a criteria for removing content from Wikipedia (see what wikipedia is not), although I agree if something could be offensive and it doesn’t contribute to the subject of the article then it should be removed. My argument is that the explicit image contributes to the understanding of the source of the term better than the spandex image.

A second argument is that the explicit image is in the public domain, whereas the spandex girl is a probable copy violation and will be deleted in a few days. AntiVan 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The main problem I have with the photo is that it's a see-through panty shot, which really is not illustrative of the whole camel-toe ethos. With the camel toe, you get only the contour, not the finely detailed color, shading, and texture. What we're looking at here is essentially a bare vulva. There's already a vulva article with explicit photos, as it should be. This photo doesn't really help the reader recognize the cameltoe in the wild, as it were. The Crow 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Spandex girl is really an example of a cameltoe formed by a seam, whereas the image you do not pefer was more of a classical cameltoe. I do take your point about the see-throughness being unnecessary however. Perhaps you can source a suitable public domain image that is a classic camletoe, but no so revealing as the old one. We will need it in a couple of days when the spandex girl gets removed. AntiVan 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this discussion back. I found that new image of a cameltoe already uploaded, and added it to the page. In my opinion it better shows a cameltoe, per The Crow's comment above. - Stoph 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • [[[comment]]] I feel these images are a bit too graphic for research purposes and seem to fall into the catagory of fetish images. There is certainly no reason to show the actual vagina unless to show what a camel toe is. It seems more that this is a case of WANTING to show vagina Pickelbarrel 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Feel free to provide better images and/or file an image request with a more detailed explanation of better images. While there is no competitors, I'd say these images visualise the subject better than no images at all. --Easyas12c 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Having all those images in the article is just in bad taste. The article would do fine with only one (or possibly two) examples. Klosterdev 09:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new image not out of bad taste but only because the existing image was not very clear. I believe the new image shows the concept more clearly.Bobble2 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Manly Version

What's the general opinion on a male cameltoe, i.e., pants pinching between his testicles? If yes, should there be a seperate section on it? Personally, I can't find enough information to make a conclusion either way. Wild one 08:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I would call that a "fruit bowl" but I don't know if it's iconic enough to start a separate article on it. The Crow 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there could be a section within Cameltoe on this, though not a separate article, I agree. I've seen the male version called "moose knuckles" in several places.--220.233.190.26 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In my area, it's referred to as a "mangina" (rhymes with "vagina"), or simply "cameltoe," given that the appearance is quite the same.

Visual Examples

I've added a section for public domain visual examples which I feel illustrates effectively the different circumstances of cameltoes without being pornographic or inappropriate. Please add if possible. Do no delete without discussion. --207.195.242.116 00:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are public domain, since the imageshack terms of service explicitly state that the images it hosts are copyright to the uploader, and I can't see any assertion by the uploader that the images are public domain. In any case it does not matter as Wikipedia is not hosting them, they are just links. They are good examples. AntiVan 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

There is some strange language in this piece. In the intro, from what source are we deriving what is "technically" a cameltoe and what is not? And I removed the words "indeed" and "beloved" from the final sentence in "intentions." Wait, no, I just deleted it for being redundant.

Jordoh 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

This claim of 1 in 25 women deliberately sporting a cameltoe during the decade mentioned is surely pure speculation. This is an encyclopedia, so please substantiate factual statements such as these with a source or reference. Bobble2 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

No, no, that's a well-known fact. Okay, no it's not. Yeah, it needs to be edited. Ehusman 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exhibitionism

There are many cases where cameltoes are deliberately shown during beauty pageants, on beaches, television shows, etc, solely for the reason of exhibiting the shape of the female form.

Very likely true, but the article as written implied this was the norm while I seriously doubt that to be the case. I've modified the language to suggest that it CAN be a deliberate 'look'. --Lepeu1999 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the evidence that this is deliberate? Or is it POV? Bobble2 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

"True" Cameltoe

I love whoever it was who wrote about the "True" cameltoe! It's hilarious. Does he think there is some sort of International standards organisation that officially recognises some camletoes as more valid than others?! Ha ha. Does he think he has some sort of specialist knowledge or something? Bobble2 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Yes what kind of scientific laws are we quoting here? Ah well, who cares.

I think we should all care. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be as factual as possible. That's why there is such a taboo about POV (which is what the person writing about the "true" cameltoe" is actually expressing) Bobble2 09:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wanted to be truly encylopedic in nature, there wouldn't even be an article on cameltoes in the first place.12.5.52.170 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)sv

in media can we not add that korns song cameltosis is based on the term?

Suitable image?

The image Image:Womaninspandex.jpg may be suitable for this article. --Tony Sidaway 11:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I cropped that picture and uploaded it as Image:Womaninspandex Cameltoe.jpg

File:Womaninspandex Cameltoe.jpg

--Tony Sidaway 11:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Arousal

I have moved the following to here from my personal talk page:

please refrain from removing the addition of arousal from the article. We can discuss this further If youd like, but do not remove it again. I have provided information that was questioned, I was told to cite it if i wish it to be included in the article, so I provided a citation from desmond morris's "The Naked Ape". I saw this as adequate as it stated that arousal causes blood to be redistrubuted to the region of sexual organs when aroused, causing some visual changes, including swelling of the labia majora. This to me is clear statement of the fact that it should be in the article. Please stop removing on yout own wishes this is an encyclopedia, not your personal publication. When fact is fact, it stays here. Wether you'd like to believe it or not. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philc, you apparently misunderstood me - I meant that we normally discuss the content of an article on its talk page, not on each others. However, I recommend that you try to be more civil if you wants to discuss your issues with me. I'm seriously losing interest in trying to keep the nonsense out of these articles year after year. Add what you like, my friend - life is too short to be spoken to like that, in public, by you. Good luck in your endeavours. --Nigelj 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Its to late to take the moral high ground after having initally dismissed my CITED additions as rubbish and asked me to stop adding nonsense. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Philc - you seem to miss the point of Wikipedia! It's meant to be a collaborative effort. Nigelj is right. However exciting you personally find the idea of sexual arousal improving a cameltoe, it is clearly nonsense. Desmond Morris is hardly a respected authority. His "anthropology" books are breathless flights of fantasy in which he indulges his more colourful speculations. Witness his latest offering "The Naked Woman" - does he really expect to be taken seriously with this tosh! Bobble2 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

thats your POV something that is not welcome here. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of Morris's comments on Cameltoes, but I would dispute the suggestion that he is not a respected scientist. Certainly controversial in his interpretations, but then so are most progressive scientific thinkers in their time. The Naked Ape is a brilliant and insightful text IMHO. Stray 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

www.cameltoe-forum.com

This porn site seems to be replacing the external links on this page --> http://www.cameltoeyellowpages.com/. Revert?

Pretty much all of the external links that get added to this article are porn. Cameltoe is porn... Chubbles 21:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i wouldnt say its porn. its slang for the crease made by tight fitting outfits. if it is used in porn, thats only by virtue of the fact that it is part of a fetish. the_undertow ^talk 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have said that it was non-cameltoe related porn with links that seem to be paid affiliate ads for other sites. This is the link that was there before --> http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Celebrity_Cameltoe. I won't add it because I have contributed to the site before -- but it is a buzz tracking site that just keeps updated links on various topics and does not have any ads on the page.

Shoudl the article link there? I left it there, while removing two others. Corpx 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, so I have removed it. AntiVan 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Am I the only one to notice that the lead image - of the girl wearing tight blue jeans - does not actually show a cameltoe? What happened to the image of the girl in cords that used to be here? Has anybody got a truly copyright-free image they would like to donate? I'm thinking of deleting the current blue-jeans image soon and putting the bikini shot at the top. --Nigelj 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold ;) i agree with you. The undertow 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Common Circumstances reverts

I see a mini-revert cycle with 75.164.129.30/Chubbles1212 regarding the "Common Circumstances" section. My basis for restoring them is that they do illuminate the article's subject beyond the phrase "tight clothing". I am not particularly swayed by the argument that it is 'obvious' as 'obvious' is subjective: it may be obvious to a cameltoe aficionado, but not to a neophyte. AntiVan 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that are not particularly swayed leaving one to wonder when is clothing tight? Let's see, when its wet, made of spandex, too small, or is in some way is ill-fitting. These are all matters of common sense and are therefore not notable. The section "Common Circumstances" is an amateur addition.75.164.129.30 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not interested in a revert war over an article like this. However, if the article itself is notable enough for inclusion, then the circumstances under which it occurs are notable for inclusion. Aside from that, the external link seems to indicate there's some debate as to what causes it! Chubbles 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaginitis sentence removal

I restored the comment about tight clothing and feminine itching; the statement was supported with two references, both of which mention a possible correlation between tightness of clothing and vaginitis. IANAGYN, though, and if there are good references which state no link between the two, that would be worth adding. Chubbles 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what IANAGYN means. Regardless, the link to the University of Virginia's Student Health Center mentions nothing about either "feminine itching" or tight-fitting clothing. The other link mentions vulvar or vaginal itching, but does not in any way support the statement. This seems like original research and - I suggest finding a source for those claims. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAGYN = I am not a gynecologist.

From the Virginia reference: "The infection spreads in moisture and heat. Keep the vulva as dry as possible. This means careful drying after bathing, wearing all-cotton (rather than synthetic) underpants, and not wearing pantyhose or panty girdles, tight slacks, or other tight clothing. Do not wear underpants while sleeping." I have no interest in getting into a revert war over this silly article (I've spent enough time undeleting large portions of it and reverting vandalism), but I think both of the links support the idea that there may be some sort of correlation between tight clothing and itching. instead of "may cause", perhaps the sentence should be changed to "may be associated with"? Chubbles 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vaginitis is an infection that is not related to cameltoes. It's clear that if a woman has vaginitis she shouldn't wear tight clothing, she should keep dry, etc. But that belongs in the vaginitis article, not the cameltoe article. There is no link between the two. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

cameltoe.org

I am surprised to see that there is no reference to cameltoe.org in this article. This largely humourous site was pretty much the beginning of this entire cultural phenomenon AFAIK. These days the site is a shadow of its former glory, having been sold to someone who did not have anything like the witty writing skills of the site's founder, but back around 2000 the site was legendary and it is only since its popularity grew that the term began to appear in popular culture. Surely this should be referenced? Stray 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You comment "This largely humourous site was pretty much the beginning of this entire cultural phenomenon AFAIK." Is ridiculous. Not sure how old you are, but cameltoes predate the internet. Sorry but your linkspam is not required. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Say, if anyone knows of sources mentioning cameltoe that predate the internet, some history would be a great addition to the page. Chubbles 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of trivia and other unsourced statements

I've removed the "in popular culture" section from this article per WP:TRIVIA. I've also removed the more outrageous unsourced claims and tagged the others as synthesis. If this article doesn't see some serious improvement, it'll go before AfD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For what? the_undertow ^talk 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For being a trumped up dictionary definition with pretty much no encyclopaedic content. --kingboyk (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Images and pop culture lists

There is no need to have more than one image on this page of a cameltoe. It is an easy concept to illustrate and encouraging the addition of more pictures would quickly lead to a dumping ground for softcore pornography in this article.

The list of pop culture references is not necessary to this article and violates major parts of WP:TRIVIA. Chubbles has incorporated the most significant pieces of this list into the body of the article. Including such a list would again encourage editors to insert every cameltoe sighting ever made into this article. We should curtail such a list before it gets unwieldy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having more than one image. If one image is okay, then I don't see how two is going to lead to a dumping ground. There's no reason to expect a slippery-slope here. the_undertow ^talk 08:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I say that based on my experience in other articles. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Id say that my experience with the article on guinea pig, nobody was concerned with more than one image illustrating the subject. That, in conjunction with the fact that you are explicit about this somehow being 'softcore pornography' would lead one to believe that you are attempting to censor something. Why can guinea pig have 7 pictures, but this article cannot? All articles are just that - articles. You cannot arbitrarily decide that one subject you deem to be softcore merits less photography than another. You need to be objective. the_undertow ^talk 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• My concern is largely that Whale tail and other articles similar to it continue to have images inserted which depict unassuming and nonconsenting women in embarrassing or compromising wardrobe malfunctions. I've since had a large number of these images deleted off Commons, but it is troubling that it keeps happening. I couldn't care less if people maintain articles on titties and add twenty or fifty images to illustrate it, so long as those are consenting adults. The same thing happened over on Muffin top, where somebody took a picture of an unconsenting obese woman, uploaded it and used it to illustrate a concept about rolls of fat. So, in that sense, yes I'm trying to censor these people from the unnecessary exposure this causes, but I'm not so puritanical in my views that I'd try to axe these images without good reason. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are imaging issues, not article issues. Adults need not provide consent for their photograph to be taken. the_undertow ^talk 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive me for waxing philosophical, but it's not within the realm of this encyclopedia to illustrate a concept at the expense of someone else's personal shame. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

DicDeff

This article in it's present form is a dictionary definition coupled with a trivia section and some unreferenced original research. Since it has an entry at Wiktionary already, I don't see the purpose of this article, but perhaps it should be discussed here before moving to an AfD. Thoughts? Beeblbrox (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblbrox (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Guess I should have looked a little closer and noticed that this already survived an AfD in December. Although consensus was reached on notability, I'm not sure the other issues I've brought up were really explored.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is where the argument of notability for slang terms gets kind of ridiculous. The word "fuckstick" has 93,800 results in Google, so it would probably pass the notability requirements as described on the AfD for this article. It is obviously unencyclopedic, however, and clearly doesn't deserve an article. This term is much the same. Though it's used in culture often enough, it doesn't make a very good encyclopedia entry since there isn't much to say about it, other than how often other people say it. This, and all other slang terms like it, could easily be merged into one article about slang terms for the human body, but I'm sure that there would be objections from many corners about the shame that such a move would bring to Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The same nonsensical arguments all over again: other, even worse articles could be created; this should be merged into something else; what about "fuckstick". There are sources that use the word "fuckstick" (or "fuck stick", as two separate words), and if you can write an article about fuckstick, I'd support you 100%, especially if you could include a picture of a "fuckstick". Until then, WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is an exceedingly lame argument for deletion. Given how little success you've had with deleting this article and those of other supposed neologisms, I think that it's time to relax dude, this isn't that big of a deal. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Calm down Alan. Your inclusionist crusade loses credibility when you start blasting every single person who disagrees with any point you've ever made. The fact that I didn't respond to your (somewhat insulting) messages on my talk page should have indicated that I didn't want to continue this conflict on that page, and certainly not on this one. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relax dude, this isn't that big of a deal. You may want to look at all of these polls you've been taking and see who it is that feels the need to regurgitate the same failed arguments over and over again no matter how clearly anyone is that they disagree with you. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well so far I can see that you certainly feel like offering your own opinion on the issue as often as possible. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Far less than yours, and I've even managed to squeeze in about 700 other edits in the past week. I thought this issue was settled after the AfD, but apparently not. I would hope that the lack of any positive response to your pleas for merger would provide the impetus to move on. After all, this isn't that big of a deal. Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid our efforts to try to needle me into a conflict aren't working. The number of edits you've made is irrelevant and I don't know why you would bring that up because that doesn't at all influence the concerns I and others have about the uselessness of this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• You guys really aren't addressing the issues I've raised, you're just ripping on each other. I think you both need to take a break from this page and each other. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple images

So why is it that we need two images? The second doesn't really add anything in addition to the first. If the is a consensus that we really need two, that's fine with me. I'm just sayin'. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already a similar conversation up the page a bit, although it just kind of ended without consensus. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with multiple imaging. Both seem to be accurate depictions. the_undertow ^talk 06:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OhNoitsJamie - Image:Miss Desiree cameltoe.jpg doesn't illustrate anything that Image:Rebecca.jpg doesn't. I would even go so far as to say that Image:Rebecca.jpg is the better picture. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning. Does policy prevent 2 distinct images? the_undertow ^talk 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:IMAGES does say that "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general." Given the relatively short length of the article, two images that are very similar are redundant. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What about camel toe shoes?

I had never heard of this phenomenon being called by this name. I was looking for information on camel toe shoes and found this. There's not even a mention of the far more common use of the phrase "camel toe" on Wikipedia. I think this is just sad. -- 76.104.45.99 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)