Talk:Attractiveness

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecdaniel. Peer reviewers: Upton.brooklynn, Sonnaj12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylarsmith08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carissacantu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Heading
In the last section, I changed "partly scientific" to "partly biological". Flies 1 (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Something much less than concrete information
"people have criticized developers who rely on eye candy too much" - I don't think this sentence is very wikipedia-like. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

just take it out entirely, its very badly written and even misleading on the main topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.58.38 (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to dredge up something worthwhile
Have tried to rework existing comments/input to elaborate on the topic in a rather less emotive fashion. Amendments welcome - this definitely appears to be in need of further work. Thanks - infrequent contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.202.63 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this article needs a total rewrite.
You do realize that humans aren't the only things that can be perceived as attractive, correct? A general article on attractiveness, with humans being but one [perhaps insignificant] example, should instead be here. Either that or just delete this current mess of an article. Thank you. --71.255.72.36 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This article duplicates most of Physical attractiveness
Except this one is worse. It should be merged.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex attraction "unstable"?
Why must findings call this attraction "unstable"? Is there another word to replace? --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This edit contains a lot of plagarism from  this paper. Thus reverted. See for further info. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Eye Candy
This edit
 * 16:24, 25 November 2014‎ Arthur Holland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,051 bytes) (-1,503)‎ . . (→‎Eye candy: This whole section is totally trivial and superficial (not to mention speculative and rambling) and barely deserves a mention let alone a section to itself - removing)

breaks the section link, as used on pages such as Bond Girl. Please fix. CapnZapp (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we're considering adding to this article for our human sexuality module Drey02 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC) --User:hhammam --User:psuneh --User:r.g.rooney25
 * I'd suggest refraining from that. This is a crappy article (see next section) that doesn't know yet what it's actually about, i.e. it's yet to find its footing.  The article isn't (and shouldn't be IMO) about "human sexuality".  Before yesterday, it had a lot of off-topic POV digression about marketing of childrens' clothing (?!), which is at best a side side side topic of "human sexuality", which itself is a side side topic of "Attractiveness" (whatever that is).  The bulk of that POV digression is now removed, so how it pertains to a "human sexuality" module is now less clear.  It will be even more unclear once the article is fixed up so it doesn't focus so much (WP:undue) on "human sexuality".  98.216.245.29 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * An IP editor (correctly, IMO) removed a large amount of excessive detail there. I made a dummy edit to endorse the IP editor's action, so vandal-fighters hopefully will discuss before re-adding that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks (man). Excellent move.  So often, crusaders don't even look at an edit.  They just see it on a list of large removals made by IPs, and summarily revert without the slightest edit summary, or they revert with a summary that indicates they examined neither the IP's changes nor the associated edit summary.  Then I have to revert them with a few nasty words on the side telling them to pay attention to what they're doing.  That reverting without looking is pretty disruptive editing, yet it continues as part of WP culture.  98.216.245.29 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Horrible so-called "article".
Yeah, this article needs to be done right, and soon, or just deleted. It would be a WP:OR personal essay but for the fact that it's so incoherent and without direction. It's as if one editor had a POV idea somewhat linked to the subject, started writing, then gave up after a few sentences. Then, a few other editors did the same thing with different ideas. It's sourced, but the selection of sources only serves the POVs, which change every few sentences. Nobody's bothered to integrate the disparate ideas or to insist on a proper notable secondary-sourced coherent theme, if that's even possible given the squishy subjective nature of the subject. Put this article out of its misery. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've explored the recent edit history a bit, I think it would be well to revert to Revision as of 04:21, 26 September 2017. It had a few fewer inline cites then, but it was so much less unencyclopedic before the POVs started being added and mixed around. Some bits have been partially removed, but much remains making it the mess I described above. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Psychology behind attraction
Suggesting adding information about the psychology of attraction Colenyj (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible Future Resources
Pallett, Pamela M, et al. “New ‘Golden’ Ratio for Facial Beauty.” Vision Research, vol. 50, no. 2, 25 Jan. 2010, pp. 149–154., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814183/.

Jones, B.c, et al. “Facial Symmetry and Judgements of Apparent Health.” Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 22, no. 6, 2001, pp. 417–429., doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00083-6.

Anders, Silke, et al. “A Neural Link between Affective Understanding and Interpersonal Attraction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 16, Apr. 2016, doi:10.1073/pnas.1516191113.

Lewis, David M.g., et al. “Lumbar Curvature: a Previously Undiscovered Standard of Attractiveness.” Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 36, no. 5, 2015, pp. 345–350., doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.007.

These sources can all support the science behind attraction, which is a major missing component in this article so far. What makes someone attracted to someone else? Attractiveness may be seen in traits that mean the person has good genes (such as health skin or thick beautiful hair). I will add this component to the article. Ecdaniel (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)ecdaniel

Suggestions
This article seems to be lacking a lot of science and anything that could back up why attraction exists and why people are attracted to certain characteristics. The section on Eye-candy almost seems pointless unless expanded to include different terms and "slang". Visual attractiveness is much too short. There are a lot of things that make someone attractive to someone visually and theories that could be included such as the symmetrical face or health, body shape, genes, etc. Another good thing that makes people attractive is their scent and aroma like mentioned but it's not really explained other than it's because of pheromones. When someone is showing a lot of skin and why people find people wearing fewer clothes as "hot" could be a good add too. Maybe add on why certain animals pick their mates and how they find them attractive (males that are bigger or more colorful, sing better).

Here is an article that could be a good read to take notes and add to the article you're working on. http://open.lib.umn.edu/socialpsychology/chapter/8-1-initial-attraction/ - Sonnaj12 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would elaborate more on each of the sections, especially "see also" sense all you have is links. Upton.brooklynn (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Upton.brooklynn

Potential Suggestion for Improvement to two headings:

Article 1 under "Visual Attractiveness"Italic text Heading. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390982/

Article 1 under "Physical Attractiveness"Italic text Heading. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704916631614

Kylarsmith08 (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Kylarsmith08

Editor's Note: Overall, I have made several changes to the "Attractiveness" Wikipedia page. I rewrote sentences previously written by other Wikipedia users, also rearranging sentences to put them in under their respective heading. I added additional citations that needed to be included. Also, I rephrased some of the heading titles to sound more appropriate. Additionally, I added a new heading/section, "Additional Attributes" and contributed that paragraph myself - excluding one of the sentences which was just moved over. Overall, I made at least two changes to each heading (except "Eye Candy") by either adding citations or additional sentences, rewriting sentences, placing previously written sentences under different sections, etc.Kylarsmith08 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I've proposed a merger of this article over at Talk:Interpersonal attraction. I've given the reasoning there. In order to keep the discussion tidy, please give your thoughts over there. Cheers!