Talk:Attractiveness

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Disambiguate, 26 February 2022, see discussion. keep, 30 August 2018, see discussion.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Sexology and sexuality This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Philosophy: Aesthetics This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Attractiveness was merged into Interpersonal attraction with this edit on 25 September 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

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

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Except this one is worse. It should be merged.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This edit contains a lot of plagarism [1] from this paper [2]. Thus reverted. See [3] for further info.

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[reply]

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)[reply

]

• An IP editor (correctly, IMO) removed a large amount of excessive detail there. I made a dummy edit to
  π, ν) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

Yeah, this article needs to be done right, and soon, or just deleted. It would be a

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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