Talk:UK research indicates big bums are healthy

Review of revision 937436 [Passed]

Revision 937436 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 937436 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Image

Doesn't the image illustrate a relatively small bum? How about File:Vintage nude photograph 9.jpg or File:Three polish girls.jpg instead? --SVTCobra 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it has the curves required, as opposed to the flat backsides that are less healthy. Partly, I picked the image not just for the curves but also because it is simply a better butt image than anything else we had. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it. GChriss (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Perhaps we should be using the word buttocks instead of bums? The latter is more ambiguous, most people in North America take that word to mean "hobo" or a homeless person. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine the image would clarify things ;). If just reading the title, I could see the potential for confusion, but buttocks seems kind of formal. buts perhaps would be better. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Something I never thought of. Perhaps a simple wikt link in the article would suffice? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

People might think it was a wikipedia link, like most of our ELs are. Plus, people who are just scanning the headlines or our feeds might be confused. I think we should use the most unambiguous phrasing possible. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout a link to Fat Bottomed Girls? --SVTCobra 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted that in the title, which was unambiguous, but ShakataGaNai stopped my rockin' world from going round :P Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of homeless people first. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)