Talk:Cuteness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

I agree. Photos would really improve this article. 65.41.247.154 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LIKE ASHLEY IN BABCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.100.253 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 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)

The image is relevant in showing how the size of the maxilla and mandible change with the age. It's not only in humans that the relative size of maxilla and mandible changes ; it's in almost all species : puppies, kittens, calves, lambs all have unusually small snouts. There's no way that Wikipedia should not have an article on cuteness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.90.92 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2008 (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)

Toto, stay in this dispute. This editor Behnam has given me problems too. I cant beleive this, OMG. First he removes the reference and then removes the picture saying it doesnt have any reference. This is amazing. I could never imagine that anyone could have a dispute over an article like this. God, these people want to find every excuse to create a dispute. Behnam, I'm reverting your changes. Toto, please stay firm next time with people like this. OMG, I still cant beleive that anyone would remove a picture like this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at both sources one-by-one and removed them if they didn't support the claim. Both of them didn't, and in the end there were no sources backing the picture, so I had to remove it. It is really quite simple. The Behnam 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, "primary specialization in cuteness" - in retrospect that is definitely an extreme request. I suppose what I meant are pictures that the actual academics used to illustrate their cases, not pictures that we as editors think fit the bill (smells like synthesis). Being an inherently POV issue there are probably ways to include all sorts of animals and things as cute, but the focus of this article is not to present a gallery of different opinions about "cute" but to take an encyclopedic look at cuteness using the academic discussions. Hence we don't use the cuteness websites to define cute, but instead the works by Gould and others. I'll say more as I think of it. Thanks. The Behnam 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it at all possible that people here actually respond to my proposal in the above section? It is sort of critical to my goal of moving the article content along. The Behnam 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your proposal to move it to "Cute" makes sense. Articles are generally nouns: we have articles on happiness, ugliness, and anger, not happy, ugly, and angry. I do not agree that the sense of the word "cute" is anything more complicated than "exhibiting cuteness".

Part of the conflict we have had stems from there being two topics here: "psychological explanations for human perceptions of cuteness", and "description of cuteness, as commonly perceived". Both topics are appropriate for this article; my feeling is that you are more focused on the former, while my bear illustrates the latter.

The article is indeed a mess, and I would encourage you to improve it by adding content that satisfies your own sense of what sources are reliable, rather than acting as a watchdog on sourced, relevant content added by others. This article needs gas, not brakes. --TotoBaggins 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While it may be more appropriate to discuss it in the above section, according to the dictionary "cuteness" and "cute" are quite different. I'm wondering which one this article should be. The Behnam 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you make. Gould and others have studied "cuteness" as it is commonly perceived. Essentially they have tried to understand cuteness from a scientific/psychological perspective, but the cuteness they have studied is none other than that which is commonly perceived. There is no difference. There are no "two topics," just one. I'm not sure what you envision as encyclopedic. If we don't emphasize just the scientific approach towards cuteness this article won't be any more encyclopedic than the cuteness websites in the external links section, and those websites aren't very encyclopedic. The Behnam 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, why dont you start by explaining what these claims are, which you say are not being supported by the sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. For the first source [3], the "cute" concept is mentioned as "Polar bears might look cute and cuddly when they're young, but they grow up to be fierce and frightening predators." This is not equivalent to "Knut the polar bear is considered cute." Essentially he isn't being referred to as cute.
2. As for [4], the word "cute" is only used the title "Cute Knut," and while one may speculate that this nickname/title is given to call him cute, there is no explicit mention along the lines of "Knut the polar bear is cute." To extrapolate from what is merely a title as this article currently does is OR; we need an explicit mention.

Anyway, are you still planning to keep disputing with me here even with the ANI? To continue suggests that you aren't actually learning any lessons or changing your behavior. I really don't appreciate the way you have acted today in following me to a bunch of pages you never edit and undoing my edits. The Behnam 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, the ANI is a resolved matter, please dont bring that up here now. We're discussing the article here. Remember wikistalking is "purpose of harrassing the person". I'm not doing that here. This is a genuine discussion. Ok, now: This news source said "Knut may be a cute bear now". This is a clear statement that Knut is cute. Here he has been called "super cute". Over here, the caption of the 2nd picture says "everyone wanted to see the cute little cub". So what do you think now? I didnt even fully investigate the news sources and this is what I found for just this small amount of investigation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, what do you think of my version now? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While I still need to check the sources for the exact wording (to see if it is OR like previous times), the picture doesn't explicitly illustrate anything. I was hoping that you picture seekers could find a picture that an actual academic study of cuteness used as illustrative. Before this kind of unencyclopedic gallery-making gets out of hand again (as it was before), I'd like it if some guiding principles were laid out to prevent this article from becoming a picture gallery by citing what selected animals have been referred to in the news media. And Matt, why are you still following me here? Again, it is not appreciated. The Behnam 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) This article should be about "the quality known in English as 'cuteness' (adjective: 'cute'), the psychological and evolutionary origins of the human appreciation of that quality, historical and ethnographic information, examples displaying that quality, etc.". Showing examples of cuteness no more makes this article cuteoverload.com than showing examples of source code makes that article Dr. Dobb's Journal, or showing kittens makes that article CatFancy.com. Behnam, why not just be bold and make the changes you're seeking consensus on, and we can go from there? Or perhaps do it in rough form in this talk page? -- TotoBaggins 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on making the changes after some discussion of the discrepancy of definition revealed by WordNet. What exactly is your opinion on that anyway? The Behnam 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should go for it. I don't believe there is any meaningful discrepancy between "cute" and "cuteness", but maybe your contribution to the article will enlighten me. --TotoBaggins 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully concur with TotoBaggins. For The Benham to suggest that a properly sourced, pertinent, and widely recognized image of a "cute" creature to put a face on the topic is somehow NPOV strikes me as absolutely asinine; even if the inclusion of such a picture somehow contravened a Wikipedia policy, in the interest of saving the article (since it's almost entirely worthless without a picture) I think WP:IAR would apply in spades. (ie- "this is an infant polar bear. It bears several physical characteristics widely considered to define "cuteness", including (blah blah). The following two reputable media sources identify this creature as "cute".)

We need to decide whether or not we're going to have to euthanize this article for the love of policy wonkery, or whether we can do what we need to in order to make it both Encyclopedic and verifiable. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

kitty

Can we add this to the page? Sorry I don't know how to shrink it. Samurai Cerberus (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not unless there is a reliable source to verify that this individual animal has been notably referred to as "cute". Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:05, April 27, 2008

Everyone thinks kittys are cute. Samurai Cerberus (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is both original research and untrue to say so. Even if it were true, which it is not, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Dorftrottel (complain) 12:56, April 28, 2008

OK how about pandas? Samurai Cerberus (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, not unless there is a reliable source to verify that the depicted individual animal has been referred to as cute. To explain a bit further, since you seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core content policies: There are many good reasons why the burden of evidence rests with those who want to include material. There used to be a lot of back and forth on this article as people added images of things (mainly animals) they themselves thought cute. Then someone else came and replaced it with another image, which they thought cuter. And so on and so forth. Since it is not only likely but absolutely certain that someone will sooner or later challenge any image added to this article without reliable, third-party sources for verification, we should make doubly sure to observe all inclusion requirements. There is more than enough silly vandalism on this article as is, which is why it is currently semi-protected. On a related note: Wikipedia is not anyone's personal soapbox: Anyone is free to promote their personal ideas of what e.g. cuteness is on their own website, but not on Wikipedia. Dorftrottel (complain) 13:17, April 28, 2008

Witch answers the question I was going to ask. Anyway since the idea of cute is to compare things to human infant, wouldn't an image of one help the page? Samurai Cerberus (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Change of head proportions (especially the relative size of the maxilla and mandible) as a function of age.

An actual photo of a baby would still need reliable sources. However, I've added this schematic to the top of the article, as it has truly explanatory power rather than advancing any POV. Dorftrottel (ask) 19:16, April 29, 2008

What was on here before Kunt? How about Wikipe-tan? She's cute. Samurai Cerberus (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse?

I worked on this article long ago, when it was just a cute little stub. It's nice to see it in its more mature form. And I complement the editors on the decision over photos, which, while controversial, seems to be a reasonable compromise.

I wonder if we might add an image of Mickey Mouse, who is cited by Gould as an example of cuteness. It seems to me like this would be fair use (used to illustrate a scientific discussion which references the character directly.) What do other folks think? NoahB (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TBH, the prospect of people fighting over the cutest = their favourite Mickey Mouse image turns me off. dorftrottel (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can You Say BIASED?!

Hmm... The very concept of putting examples of something like cuteness on Wikipedia is pretty problematic, yes? For example, I know a lot of people- and I agree with them- that think Elmo is ugly, weird and creepy. But he's here as an example of cuteness on Wikipedia, which is know for being non-biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.232.48 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3