Talk:Muffin top

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paper casings[edit]

That phrase should be eliminated. Muffins were baked long before lazy asses made the use of the paper baking pan liners common. Really. I are an old. I have seen muffins baked without them. No kidding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.101.14 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Also WHAT?[edit]

Camel Toe and Breast Clevage? Are you serious? Come up with just one reason that belly fat due to tight jeans has to do with the camel toe and the breast clevage (or are we just dealing with some interesting perverts?) Mercer5089 04:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

muffin tops r eww

Will try to work this into the article. Thanks--Mrtea (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't muffin tops usually the result of women buying jeans which are too small to satisfy their vanity? For many women, a small jeans size is a source of pride. Rintrah 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a muffin top girl would be helpful to the reader. I don't think most readers will find it gratuitously sexual. Rintrah 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this example On an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, Stacy London (host of TLC's What Not to Wear) noted the muffin top as the number one jean-related fashion crime. because it is not notable — at least, no one has proven to me that it is. Even for a fun topic like this, non-notable examples should be excluded. Rintrah 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what?!?! you are telling me oprah isn't notably?? :o Mathmo 09:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. To anyone who doesn't live in the USA, she isn't. Moreover, her shows are not, and a reference to a slang term in one of her shows is even less notable. Rintrah 14:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are way off the ballpark here, her shows are replayed all over the world. she is at times regarded by various media sources as the most influential women and richest (as a side note i'll point out I totally hate her shows and don't watch them) Mathmo 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia her shows are played as B-grade television. She only has a small following here. I assume it is the same in other western countries other than America. She probably doesn't have a large following in any one country other than America, but has a large following overall when all countries are considered together.
the point is in australia her shows ARE played there. Same as over here in nz, sure it is showed during the day time along with the rest of the day time tv rubbish but they are showed. and as you are said this pattern is repeated all over the world with her shows shown in many many countries. this all puts her waaaaaaaay over the notable threshold by far with complete ease. Mathmo 12:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mX is also notable by your criteria. Should I randomly add references to it in culture, fashion, pop-culture, and world events articles? The question is not, is she notable? It is, is she relevant? Although Neighbours is notable, because it is a successful show, I am not going to add a paragraph to the Hostage article because there is a hostage situation in one of the episodes. Let us not satisfy Oprah's already immense vanity by pretending she deserves plenty of space in encyclopedia articles. Rintrah 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, to answer the OPs question, camel toe demonstrates a name of something about the body that resembles another non human object, you could argue that the camel toe has little to do with actual clothing, but you could also argue that the actual muffin top has little to do with clothing also JayKeaton 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

This article should be renamed/moved to "Muffin top" because there is no reason to make the subject plural. Wikipedia prefers singular subjects for articles. Additionally, the article only uses the term in the singular. -Phoenixrod 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal. The curious reason the article refers to the subject in singular is I made it do so, but I second your reason nonetheless. My preferred title is "Muffin Top Girl", because it is the only term I have heard for a muffin-scuplted girl. Rintrah 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rintrah 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has no one ever heard of the southern expression "Belt Overhang?" 66.108.144.49 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but on first impression it seems to have sexual connotations. Is the word applied to men or women? Men's fat hangs over trousers differently to women's. With men, it is gross; with women, it looks silly. Rintrah 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, it's gross for both. Forteblast 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld[edit]

I first heard the term on the show Seinfeld. It was used literally there, not idiomatically, but it may be the first use of the phrase as a discrete term. The term may have afterward been used in the metaphorical sense by someone who was familiar with it from the show. (speculation)

98.106.91.252 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tyra Banks uses the term muffin top in this interview.[edit]

And here is the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That link is now defunct. Forteblast 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?[edit]

The photo and caption, while highly amusing, seems a little too flippant for an encyclopedia. --Soultaco 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps... but I challenge you to find a better one. Forteblast 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hilarious

There's nothing that says Wikipedia can't be flippant, as long as it's being informative as well. The muffin-girl comparison pic is hilarious, but apt. I'm reverting 67.84.166.169's removal of the pics. --Lode Runner 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the second picture is appropriate (even if it does happen to meet all Wikipedia standards). The person is easily identifiable by her tattoos and I daresay she looks rather familiar. If I were her and came across this article I'd be deeply hurt. RedAugust 09:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change[edit]

"An additional derivation is "Split Top Muffin" to describe seeing the "Muffin Top" from behind with the jeans so low as to expose the top of the gluteal ridge."

That's the most roundabout way of saying 'when you can also see the top of their arse' I've ever seen. WikiReaderer 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to get a muffin top?[edit]

First, can men get a muffin top? If so, how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by • contribs) 9 August 2007.

Yes. Try eating. -Phoenixrod 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
real professional pics btw--68.9.193.246 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try eating alot and my stomach is still very flat!!!!!! what do i do!?!?!?

Don't move... ever. Maybe gloating about your high metabolism isn't the way to go either. RedAugust 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too tongue-in-cheek.[edit]

I feel like this article needs to be re-written. It sounds almost like it's supposed to be a comedy piece (but fails miserably). 75.15.239.38 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refer to any specific parts? To me, the text itself seems quite serious and informative. The only funny thing about the article is the term (which we can't control, if indeed it is the prevailing term), and the picture. And as I've already stated, hilarious or not the picture is still informative. If someone has never seen a muffin before (perfectly possible--consider people who've grown up in a culture with vastly different foods), the picture illustrates the similarity perfectly.
The proposed merge into central obesity is another matter entirely. I'm tentatively opposed to the merge, because "Muffin Top" is a result from the combination of clothes type and body type (similar to Cameltoe--warning for those who're not familiar with the term, link is not work safe) and there seems to be enough references in the media to merit a separate article. --Lode Runner 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting[edit]

I split the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.255.21 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second image[edit]

What does the second image, with the obese woman, contribute to the article that the top image does not? The top image is more illustrative of the topic, and having two images seems unnecessary crowding of the article. I am thus going to be bold remove the second image. — Swpbtalk|edits 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

Why don't people remember that? There are other far more widely used terms that don't have articles for this reason, like "disappointment".--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment appears to have an article now. I thought for a moment your comment was ironic, but it's a newish article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously disgraceful to Wikipedia[edit]

And no one better dare touch it, ahahahahahaha! 74.135.100.99 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cumulus Clouds wanted to merge this article to Central obesity, whereas I feel the phrase deserves its own article. I've added this section to the talk page to prompt a discussion. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is well-sourced, the phrase was awarded "Top Word of 2006" by the Macquarie Dictionary and has received extensive coverage in the media. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article was merged because it was word for word identical to the information in Central obesity. You undid this merger without explanation, so I had the page protected to prevent the removal of this redirect. You're going to have to come up with some better reason than it's "well sourced" to fork it out of central obesity. Not every neologism deserves its own article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this edit you said you reverted the article to its "previous unmerged state" , however, this is the "unmerged" state of the article, with the information identical there as it is here. I don't appreciate the implication that I had misrepresented the states of either of these articles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise. I will remove the Muffin top text from this article but leave the Love handles section.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't my point. I'll go ahead and readd this section to Central obesity and pursue page protection one more time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the Love handles article with sources, so I've also removed that text, and added a merger discussion.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything it should be merged into gluteal cleft not an obesity related topic. geesh.CholgatalK! 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone displaying muffin top is not neccessarily obese whereas someone who is obese will most certainly display muffin top. they are related but not the same. merging is like saying a cow (or central obesity) is an animal (muffin top) therefor all animals (muffin tops) must be cows (centrally obese). Groninger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.86.127.74 (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

The Muffin top article survived an AfD nomination in May 2007. Cumulus Clouds merged this to the Central obesity article with no evident discussion. When I restored the articles and removed the text from the Central obesity article he reverted. I split the articles again and suggested a discussion, yet the article has been reverted again. I would like the articles to remain distinct until a proper consensus can be reached-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody else is opposing this merger -which you opposed largely on procedural grounds- so I would propose it be remerged shortly. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't object more clearly to the proposed merge. This is a separate and distinct subject from Central obesity, with reliable and verifiable sources and passed AfD as keep. There is no one else other than yourself pushing for these mergers, which makes the claim that your opinion carries the day all the more disingenuous. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a slang term for fat that collects in people's mid sections. That article is titled Central obesity and the information is already there. So far I've only heard procedural objections with nobody actually objecting to the content being confined to Central obesity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess I'll echo my own argument that everything this term describes falls under Central obesity, so there's no reason to fork it. In fact, for its entire life, this article served as a mirror for that one, so I don't know what's changed since then. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What amazingly flawed argument - "Nobody else is opposing this merger". Nobody else is supporting the merger in reality. And, while this is not a straw poll, three editors have opposed it already. A muffin top is a matter of fashion disasters (especially with the advent of the low-rise jeans), obesity, and evolution of dialects. How would you merge this into three or four diverse articles at the same time? Or, why would you prefer to have one article prevailing over the rest? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would merge this into one article, Central obesity, where the information already exists. I would do this because "Muffin top" and "Love handles" are terms which describe a phenomenon that's entirely contained under the topic of Central obesity. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already made that argument, and it's been rejected. What will it take for you to accept that you are in a minority of one? Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're pretty good about being rejected; Why not another AfD if you're sure that the previous AfD's keep result has no bearing on the current article? Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is not immutable, Alan, I would have thought the AfD for Al Gore III would have demonstrated that to you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I admire the grit and determination of those who disrupted Wikipedia eight separate time on the Al Gore III article until they got the result that satisfied them. Disrespect for consensus is a rather unfortunate problem. When will the next AfD be kicked off? If you schedule the AfDs a few months apart, it makes the "consensus can change" crap sound so much more plausible. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reduced indent) "I would merge this into one article" and "Rejected by whom Alan?" and "Consensus is not immutable" - that's real diligence in taking forward the logic of I don't like it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

syndicate networking and elicited words and phrases[edit]

When demanding potentially-publishable "reports" about specific incidents, any victims can be simply assigned a word or phrase elicited -- such origins are not real slang, which has its origin in group consensus rather than 'penciling-in'. "Muffin-top" is one such example, where a post-incident demand-call elicited the term as multi-description of hair-style, customer physiques, and available snacks prior to the real tragic incident. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot 66.239.212.82 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Savers[edit]

No mention of the Life Savers commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.245.98 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? I don't know what commercial you mean. Has it received significant attention? -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Image.[edit]

This may just be my overprotective side showing itself, but isn't it bad to practice using images taken without permission from a playground of children playing? That just seems a little creepy and totally unnecessary. Perhaps someone could contribute a photo of themselves, with identifying marks photoshopped out, instead of others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.126.214 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the photo is highly inappropriate. That is clearly a photo of a child. Young girls do not need to see insulting photos of themselves on wikipedia. I could only imagine how damning to a young girl's self esteem it would be if they saw that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.44.97 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but Wikipedia is not here to boost the self-esteem of young girls. It is an encyclopedia. There is no reason to be purposefully hurtful or cavalier, but the determination of appropriate material should never be based on helping young girls (or boys) with their self-esteem. The possibility that some girl might identify herself and then her self-esteem be effected is very remote, and given the difficulty of obtaining some images for Wikipedia, it seems silly to get rid of a good photo for that obscure possibility. Besides, many young girls don't have any problem showing a little muffin top.Supertheman (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is NOT a muffin top. We need a better image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.215.251 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate emphasis on overweight people[edit]

I've changed the wording of the first paragraph to more accurately reflect where muffin tops are more commonly seen. Mostly they are seen in normal-weight people wearing pants that are too tight; it's very true that it would be more noticable in overweight people, but overweight people don't tend to wear those fashions as much, so one sees them less frequently in the wild. Thus it is not primarily an overweight thing, and I've bumped the mention of obesity into the next sentence to emphasize that the primary cause is pants that are too tight, not the person's weight. Also, the person in the example photo is not overweight, so that would be inconsistent with the prior wording.96.50.106.54 (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't fat, but there is some junk in the trunk. Skinny people cannot obtain this effect no matter how tight their clothing, and this effect is much less noticeable in normal-weight people. We can try to dress this one up as best we can in order to not hurt feelings, but this phenomenon requires extra fat to manifest itself. --AntigrandiosËTalk 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Use in Popular Media[edit]

Before adding additional information here, please make sure that they follow the guidelines for "in popular culture" sections. The text I removed does not meet any of these conditions:

  1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
  2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
  3. Did any real-world event[clarification needed] occur because of the reference?

Please only add this text back in if one or more of those conditions are met, and properly cited. --Daveblack (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muffin_top&oldid=1199690616"