Talk:Beauty
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
While there were many excellent points made regarding how beauty is observed in different cultures and the general impact it has in society, I believe there could be information added on how the term "beauty" and its expectations has changed throughout the years and how these changes have impacted society's view on beauty. Jdo pharmd (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Pic in Lede
Hi all, again. In my notes I recently came across the enlightening discussion about the lede pic in the archives, which I first mentioned in 2017. The pic of the rose window is still there, although the caption was suitably modified. I still have considerable difficulty with the pic. We discussed a number of possible alternatives, but as usual in such philosophical matters, there was no satisfactory conclusion to suit all parties. I still feel that the rose window from Chartres cathedral (however aesthetically pleasing) is particularly off-putting to non-christians, and has no meaningful place as a defining image at the top of the article, which is mostly about the aesthetics and philosophy of beauty.
I would suggest that there is no possible image which might seem suitable to everyone, given the vast voids between various world cultures: and that instead, no image should appear at the top of the article, since any picture tends to validate a particular world view. MinorProphet (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm not a Christian (although part of a historically Christian culture) and that image looks like a cluttered mess to me. I have no doubt the actual window is rather awesome to see, in the literal sense of that word, but our image doesn't show it. Even when I click on it and expand it to its greatest available magnification, I still can't tell what the detail of the image is. This is showing the fundamental problem with photographs in a place like Wikipedia, not any judgement on my part on whether the subject of that pic is beautiful. And we obviously also have the problem of the subjective nature of beauty. So yes, unless we can agree on a pic with a caption along the lines of "Beauty as perceived by church architects in the 12the century in France", no picture would be the best solution. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- There were already several lengthy discussion in the archives without consensus. MOS:LEADIMAGE says It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image and the lead image should be a natural and appropriate representations of the topic. I'm open to using a different image or possibly a multiple image. To avoid culture-specific conceptions of beauty, one could use an image of natural beauty, like a landscape, a sunrise, a flower, a field of flowers, etc. This would probably be better than having no image. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class Aesthetics articles
- Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
- Aesthetics task force articles
- C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
- WikiProject Gender studies articles