Talk:Teat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Veterinary medicine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

consistency

This article is not self consistent. In one paragraph it says that the number ranges from 2 to 19. In the next it says that sows have up to 30. And which animal is it that has the odd number?

Revert

User:Tregoweth, why did you revert my addition of the frau image? Please don't do things like that, especially not without explanation. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the hullabaloo in Talk:Breast is showing, the photo is generally considered inappropriate for the article. Further, I'm writing this in a library, and if I were to open the main page, I would probably be kicked out of here for downloading porn. I agree that it shouldn't be considered offensive, but Wikipedia isn't the place to try and make that point. —tregoweth 22:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I simply can't believe a library would kick you out over that... This is an encyclopedia, for crissakes... Ask around, I'm one of the most conservative wikipedians there are, and I just can't comprehend the censorship angle... Would you say there is no article on the wiki where this would be appropriate? Don't you think every article is better w an image? I am frankly convinced that this image adds to this article... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since "teat" is more commonly used to refer to non-human breasts, a picture of an animal teat would make more sense. Also, one could nitpick that the teat is not actually identified in the picture. —tregoweth 01:42, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I can agree w that so long as an animal teat photo is procured. I will ask again tho, do you think this image would be acceptable on any article? I've already tried it on the two I thought appropriate, w little success (Teat and breast). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a user page? :) Also, I've removed the photo again for the reasons stated above and in Talk:Breast. —tregoweth 03:28, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

The reasons stated above involved a superior image. Since a superior image has not been presented, its a bit hard to understand the removal of an illustrative, on-topic image. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear lord, man, what is it with you and this "breasty" woman? It's not a picture of a breast, it's not a picture of a nipple and it's certainly not a picture of a teat. If you like it so much, by all means, put it on your user page. But until a wikipedia article is created for nude, breasty woman, it's probably not going to find a suitable home in the article namespace. -leigh (φθόγγος) 09:30, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous comment: I have seen this picture and I think it is suitable for woman at the very least. Knowledge does not need to conform to taboos and cultural standards to still be knowledge, and in some cultures it is custom for such frontal nudity to be present.

Worthiness of an article

Does this really deserve an article of its own, anyway? Most of the content here is more like a dictionary entry, and anything encyclopaedic I can think of that might go here would probably do better folded into Breast --Khendon 07:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think this article passes the "could it ever grow larger than a stub" test. — Matt Crypto 07:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would if it was allowed to have a few images to fill it in a bit ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to agree there. I don't see any reason to keep this as a separate page when it's just a synonym for Breast with different common uses. The image does already exist on the Udder page but could be reused near the "Mammals have between 2 and 19 nipples" part when it's moved to Breast should a better picture not be available. --Ssokolow 08:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article doesn't make too much sense, because anything here either is already in or should be in either breast or udder. --Delirium 07:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full frontal nudity discussion

Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? [1] Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 12:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page?

This line from the article seems suspect:

The medical Latin term for teats is papilla pussy penis likey pussy.

65.83.137.34 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (Phil)[reply]

Someone trying to prove a point?

I just undid a strange line on the bottom of the page, said "titi/niple". I think someone was trying to prove the point of wikipedia being publicly editable. NeoGenPT (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

IPA: /tiːt/

Synonyms

(mammary nipple): tit
(artificial nipple): nipple

- Pawyilee (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-redirected

This may have been merged and redirected previously but it has been edited to provide well-referenced content to readers who may want more information on this topic. Bfpage (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes...

...finały, tits 31.182.229.99 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox says "boobies" instead of "teat"

I tried to add a screenshot of the current (4 Sep 2023) infobox for illustration purposes, but no dice. The bolded word in the infobox is "boobies" where the actual page says "teat" -- not only is "teat" the actual name of the thing the page is about, but it's also much more appropriate for a formal encyclopedic register (I don't know why or how "boobies" got there in the first place, but it seems incongruous and weird). Dazeofglory (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're seeing that. This article doesn't have an infobox, and doing a Ctrl + F for "boobies" isn't showing anything. It looks like the last two edits back in July were changing the lede to and back from that, but there have been no edits since then. Were you looking at an old revision of the page? bojo (They/Them) | talk 03:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm really new -- I thought "infobox" was the name for the box that pops up when you hover over a link to an article (which is what I was actually referring to). Having just checked it from a link on another article, that pop-up box for this page does still say "boobies". Dazeofglory (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just for your future knowledge the infobox is the box you see on the right-hand side of an article (on desktop) or below the lead section (on mobile) that shows some of the key facts (additional reading here if you want). I've never run into the issue you're describing, but it sounds like that preview is pulling an old version of the page for some reason. I purged this article's page cache to see if that helps. What article are you seeing this on, and if you look now are you still seeing it? (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 10:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the Udder article -- just checked from there again and it looks like the right version now. Thank you! Dazeofglory (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]