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)

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)
  • Protection can only be applied by admins. Template removed. See WP:RPP or contact an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 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)

[edit] "Fugly"

At present, "fugly" redirects here. If we're not going to have a separate article (and I see no reason why we should), we need a line explaining the term. I was going to write one, but couldn't decide where in the article it should go. Thoughts? Lawikitejana 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Append it to the introduction, i guess. Not much choice there imo, seeing as fugly is hardly a reference in pop culture. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What does the term "fugly" mean? The specifics, nuances, and implications should be spelled out in a separate section (self-titled), or there should be a separate article. 72.227.6.34 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew what "Fugly" meant, I think it may not be in here because of the foul word it connotates, basically its combining 2 words "F*****g" and "Ugly" to make "Fugly" meaning really really ugly.

As Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR) there's no problem with including the word. But I do think that it's a non-notable neologism. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) RENETHA IS REALLY UGLY C