Talk:Ugliness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page seems to be a vandalism magnet that's unlikely to move past stub level anytime soon. Does anyone else think merging it somewhere might be a good idea? To beauty, or is that too weird? Aesthetics, maybe? -GTBacchus 04:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Merge it, redirect it, or transwiki it to Wiktionary. This article has existed for a year with no expansion except for tons of vandalism. HollyAm 04:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe semi-protection would be an option, most of the vandalism seems to be by newbies or anon IPs -- Astrokey44|talk 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it would have to be just about permanent, which really isn't the idea with semi-protection, as I understand it. I'm for merging it, but not sure where to merge it to. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- It could go at Beauty if you start by saying "The opposite of beauty is.." Also it could go at Human physical appearance.-- Astrokey44|talk 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- But ugliness isn't restricted to humans! —Home Row Keysplurge 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- It could go at Beauty if you start by saying "The opposite of beauty is.." Also it could go at Human physical appearance.-- Astrokey44|talk 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it would have to be just about permanent, which really isn't the idea with semi-protection, as I understand it. I'm for merging it, but not sure where to merge it to. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose merging to beauty. How about Physical attractiveness? --Brand спойт 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ugliness is the opposite of beauty... they would have to rename the article if you merged it.. It defeats the purpose of the article beauty.Zach 05:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- (sprotect) added to prevent IP's and new users vandalising. Matter should be resolved. LordRobert 12:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Um. It says "the predominant view in the scientific fields is that human ugliness is part of sexual selection and an indicator of poor genetic or physical health." The OED is the only reference for the page. I don't see that in my OED. It seems a fairly big claim for no real citation. 12.4.238.25 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Kirsty
[edit] Long term semi-protection
This article is routinely vandalized by new or unregistered editors who add apparently add the names of living people as examples of ugliness. It is hard to find any constructive edits admist all of the vandalism and rollbacks. Due to the defamatory nature of these additions, I think that we should keep this article on long-term semi-protection. Any other thoughts? -Will Beback · † · 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- More than happy for this to take place. I certainly haven't seen any constructive edits here for a while. SparrowsWing 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
