Talk:Cuteness: Difference between revisions

Archives Archive 1

Here lie the bones of cuteness

This used to be a great article. One of the few that got worse over time. Where did the dogs and the cats go? Where, indeed, did ANY PICTURES WHATSOEVER go? I know that 90% of wikipedia editors are autistic and so cannot appreciate cuteness, but really this is just pathetic. --81.97.195.36 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos as POV

To all the self-appointed POV Nazis: It’s ludicrous to describe “infant-like physical traits” as cute, and then claim a photo of the same is POV. If the photo is POV, then the description is just as damn well POV. In fact, the whole topic of “cuteness” is POV. --Mactographer 07:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With all my respect, I suggest this image as a factual, encyclopedic depiction of cuteness:

Change of head proportions as a function of age

Robert Illes 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest including position of eyes at midline or below in the list of contributing factors to perceived cuteness (too high looks reptillian, detracting from cuteness) - Manfred vW

The article

What exactly happened to the pictures and the Psychology section? Will someone put it back? - Garsha

This article is getting worse and worse. Why don't we just scrap it and say 'Apparently wikipedia cant agree on what's cute so we got rid of htis article, as part of our owngoing efforts at devolving into a mess'

And because it's getting worse and worse, it shall be deleted. ANNAfoxlover 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Either someone does some major renovation, or we delete the article. --EdB777 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Move?

Instead of wasting time trying to force pictures into this article to promote a POV we should be trying to improve the real content of this article. For one, I need to resolve the apparent discrepancy between "cute" and "cuteness," as I believe that this article should be moved to Cute. This belief rests upon the observation of WordNet's treatment of the two words. From my comment in the AFD:

BTW, comparing the two WordNet entries [1] v. [2] shows that "cuteness" is different from "cute." Seeing that this article appears to cover the "cute" meaning I will make the appropriate move. Of course I will move it back if that screws up the AFD.

So does anybody object to moving this to Cute? After this is resolved the work can begin... for example, making a real introductory sentence based upon WordNet's definition. The Behnam 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo reverted

I added a picture of Knut (polar bear), with 2 references to sources that refer to it as "cute"; the only claim I made was that news media have in fact called this animal "cute", which the sources verify. It is patently obvious that this animal exhibits the quality described in the article, which is why it's easy to find dozens of reliable sources averring as much.

I was reverted with the inscrutable shorthand "POV projection, synthesis" (neither of these terms appear in WP:NPOV). Other subjective topics such as beauty, happiness, affection, grief, hope, jealousy, surprise, compassion, and forgiveness have been illustrated, to the betterment of the articles and without violating NPOV. Could the author of the revert please clarify his/her objection to illustrating the quality described in this article? Thanks. --TotoBaggins 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I removed your picture because the sources did not support the claim... I have explained this in the edit summaries.

In the interest of neutrality and RS only the opinions of academics with a primary specialization in "cuteness" may be considered in the inclusion of photos. Much as we do not base the article on public polls or 'cuteness' websites, the pictures cannot be based on such common opinions but only upon those of specialists.

I also worry that allowing one POV to be included based upon a one or two claims in non-scientific discussions of cuteness will open the door for others to include their favorite POV pictures on similar flimsy grounds, and soon this will article will go back to the warring POV 'cute' picture gallery. Now that wouldn't be very encyclopedic, would it? Of course not.

Overall, pushing one POV because some sources (without RS specialty in cuteness) agree with you is the not the best approach to this article. Right now the actual encyclopedia content of this article is terrible (consider the first sentence), and before I can move on that I need some discussion about my proposal laid out in the section above. So if you do not mind, please drop your POV-pushing image war and try to help out the actual encyclopedia part of this article. Perhaps we can re-discuss images later. If you really need to push your favorite picture, I recommend trying one of the cuteness-related websites in the external link sections for this POV action. Thanks. The Behnam 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that only opinions made by "academics with a primary specialization in cuteness" (such a specialization exists?) are reliable sources is false. There is no such restriction on reliable sources.

Articles are improved by an illustration. I improved the article by adding a well-supported image that widespread reliable sources (New York Times, etc.) have called "cute". You worsened the article by removing a well-sourced enhancement that I made, rather than making an improvement of your own. In fact, I note in your edit history that you have never added anything to the article.

You clearly consider this article to be your personal fiefdom, so I am retiring from this dispute. I look forward to seeing the improvements you plan to make. --TotoBaggins 13:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)