cute si claire
I think interesting (external links, creation) with one, but your context must be I'm not English native, and the subject is:
What exactly does 'cute' mean? ( Which is the most attractive people ? ), and I've found interesting: hot & cute, cute & hot. See the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831232156AA2eLWW
{{editsemiprotected}} This edit should be reverted because... I am almost unwilling to state the obvious. But ok, the source (NOT merely of the image, but of the rationale to include it, mind you) is this flickr page. The reference in the article says, I kid you not, " The comments on the Flickr photopage show typical human reactions on cute animals." This has got to be one of the more ridiculously blatant violations of OR I've seen in quite a while. To be very precise: The edit should be reverted. It is not enough to simply remove the image, since the edit also placed the image of Knut above the one image with true explanatory power (as opposed to mere decorative value). 78.34.98.95 ( talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not add any images without providing reliable sources. Any image added without reliable sources to verify that the depicted animal or other object has been notably referred to as cute will be removed as Original Research
I think that in the cultural section, the attraction of Western men to Russian, rather than British or American girls, is due to the pedomorphic, 'cute' faces of Russian women in comparison to Western women. A lot of Russians from the northern part of the country belong to what physical anthropologists designate the East Baltic type of the European race. 81.129.119.136 ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Cuteness can also be based on personality. How he/she flirts and holds a conversation.
Gmeezyjr ( talk) 22:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"That is, humans prefer animals which exhibit pedomorphosis. Pedomorphosis is the retention of child-like characteristics—such as big heads or large eyes—into adulthood. Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas.
The use of the term pedomorphosis is wrong , and should be removed - giant pandas do not have pedomorphosis. It's conflating two different concepts - animals which look child like (big eyes, round head etc), and a biological term which means retaining infant characteristics of it's own species. 87.102.94.154 ( talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Those three sentences should be removed according to the above reasoning. A link to Pedomorphosis should be added to the sentence following those to be removed; or alternatively a link to the more specific subform of pedomorphosis which is relevant here, Neoteny. -- 87.79.51.197 ( talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done I removed "Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas." that seemed to be the biggest problem there, the other sentences fit with the rest of the paragraph after removal. Jamesofur ( talk) 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Being that the various example species being discussed in this section are all mammals, are there not some juvenile characteristics (large eyes, skull shape) that all mammalian species share in common? -- 96.251.9.196 ( talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ Edit semi-protected}} Please undo this edit. It is the epitome of what should be avoided in this article: a random image, chosen by an editor, without any source to back up the bold assertion in the caption. It is pure original research based on one editor's private opinion and it is thus unacceptable. The reason I am placing this here instead of approaching the editor who made the edit is that someone who makes such an edit in the first place is (speaking from years of frustrating experience) quite unlikely to open-mindedly reassess their own edit, regardless of any arguments presented to them. -- 78.35.212.131 ( talk) 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This article needs more of them
300px -- 1sneakers6 ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.204.198 ( talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to this article? It used to be half-decent when I referred to it once before. Now it doesn't even define what cuteness is or what features are considered cute, just sends you off to a page on neotony. There used to be a good image showing human head proportion changes with age, now we've got Betty Boop, which is justified by saying it's an example of neotony?? If all this article is going to do is send us to Neotony, it might as well be merged.
Please can we put in a proper definition of cuteness and some actual science that's not just copy-pasted from another Wikipedia page? ~ Kimelea ( talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, please add:
Melanie Glocker used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [12]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema [13]) may act as a "releaser" of caretaking behavior.
The references are: 12. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PMC 2690007. 13. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. Daniel19104 ( talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
answered=no
to relist the request
Illia Connell (
talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1) To the first paragraph of the article, after "....Konrad Lorenz", please add: Lorenz proposed the concept of baby schema (Kindchenschema), a set of facial and body features, that make a creature appear "cute" and activate ("release") in others the motivation to care for it [13].
2) To the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, after the sentence "The research suggested that the caregiver's response to the perceived cuteness of infants corresponded to higher levels of motivation to care for the infant", please add:
Melanie Glocker and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [13]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema) [12] may motivate ("release") caretaking behavior.
3) To the References section, please add: 12. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. 13. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PMC 2690007.
Thank you. Daniel19104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel19104 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about Caretaking: 1) Replace Glocker (2008) argued ... with Melanie Glocker (2009) argued .... Note the correct the publication year of this paper is 2009, not 2008. 2) Insert period after "....reward" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.196 ( talk • contribs) 13 September 2012
I personally think the little frog is not cute to say the least. I propose, unless there is a reliable source that says that particular frog is cute, to remove the pic and put a kitten there. Moscowconnection ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I came here absolutely assured there would a kitten, or something more universally agreed upon (obviously subjective, but it doesn't exactly take an empirical cross-sectional study for the strong assumption to exist that a kitten would win out over a frog) would constitute at least one of the images.
Other inevitably subjective opinions but posited nonetheless: the sketch of the human head is so basic as to obfuscate any feeling of cuteness achieved from a child's profile. Also, the polar bear is some distance away from the camera, and to one side, running a potential for subjugation of the feeling of cuteness that a closer and more direct shot may have evoked with greater intensity. Meanwhile the caption "has been described in news media as cute" straddles the implication such descriptors are rare in news media and that's why that particular image was chosen (news media being numerous and diverse it's difficult to believe a mention of cuteness in this instance is of especial merit). Bringing forth a strong psychological/physiological response to cuteness via images may not be Wikipedia's job, but considering there are countless images to choose, and evoking such a response can only increase, not hinder, clarity of the subject under scrutiny this nameless IP address suggests reexamination of potential image use, if only in a casual capacity. Good day! -- 75.207.26.147 ( talk) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
―I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012‖ Thuynh46 ( talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 1)For the “Caregiving Correlates to Cuteness” I will be using Melanie Glocker’s(2008) Study of "Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults" to expand on her study. 2)Under the Section “Gender Differences” I will be using Sprengelmeyer’s(2009) study on "The cutest little baby face: a hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces" to explain the difference in cuteness sensitivity according to different genders. 3)I will create a new heading labelled “Hormonal Impact” and use Sprengelmeyer’s(2008) study to explain that the difference in cuteness sensitivity can be affected by hormone levels in women. Thuynh46 ( talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.58.11.58 (
talk •
contribs) 13 September 2012
Reason: Because the current sentence is grammatically incorrect and misses one key point of the experiment: these were adults unrelated to the babies.
Because this sentence has redundant verbs following one another and it makes no sense. This paragraph is wrong both grammatically and content-wise. The key difference is between related and unrelated adults. The former care for an infant because they are used to it, i.e. it is learned behavior. The latter exhibit instinctual behavior that is automatic and is responding to baby schema in the infant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.100.209.238 ( talk) 03:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
For the reason laid out in this comment, pictures of animals whose species has been referred to as "cute", but who have not in their own right been referred to as "cute" should be removed as original research.
The problem with including images in this way is that the editor who decides to include a particular image makes a choice of personal preference as to the "cuteness" of the depicted animals. This choice of personal preference constitutes unacceptable original research and private opinion that has no place in an encyclopedic article.
Things like that were the reason I originally petitioned for this article to be indefinitely semiprotected, lest it be flooded by "cute" pictures and possible edit wars over which picture best represents the "cuteness" of a type of animal ("my kitten pic is teh cutest"). I find it interesting to see that the same thing keeps happening because of badly informed registered users. -- 78.35.232.31 ( talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
An article about cuteness should look cute -- Should an article about arachnophobia look visually repulsive e.g. by including close-up images of spiders? I'd say no, and I'd prefer this article to not "communicate cuteness" but to give a sober and straightforward summary of published sources about the topic.
Also, LOL, I wasn't aware of the Lamest edit wars entry, but yeah this has been a thing for years now. That's one of the reasons I would now rather get rid of the Knut image quickly, either by replacing it or by just throwing it out. Wouldn't that be a more sensible interim solution? I mean, I get where you're coming from when you say let's leave it in for now. But it's such a sorry placeholder and has led to so much ultralame back and forth on this article and talk page.
So, I dunno. If you think it makes the article more appealing, why the heck not. However, I'd remove the Knut image since there is evidently no longterm consensus to include it over other images. Instead, I'd put a challenge to every interested editor to find an acceptably licensed picture of something that more universally represents cuteness, as evidenced by reliable sources.
Ditto on the one week "respite" to remove the frog and the kitten images, no hurry. -- 78.35.246.58 ( talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: LOL'd again @ Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Arachnophobia. They finally decided against including an image that might trigger arachnophobic reactions. So maybe we should do the same and avoid images that trigger attraction to cuteness. This is an encyclopedic article about cuteness, it shouldn't "embody" or symbolize cuteness, it should describe it based on reliable sources. Anyway, I know I'm way too preachy about such things. And a cute image doesn't hurt the article, just as long as it's one representative image, and not the present little gallery which I find very embarassing to be honest. -- 78.35.246.58 ( talk) 02:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alright, one week has passed. Please remove the kitten image as OR, and the Knut image as too contentious to represent the concept of cuteness or to serve as a representative example, despite its acceptable sourcing. Thanks in advance. -- 87.78.5.129 ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
does it really make sense to be judging what a source says when you acknowledge you haven't actually read beyond the blurb -- Has Sarahj2107 read the full source? Has Isarra? Have you? No? Then what are you all talking about? The abstract. You all have read only the abstract, isn't that right, because it's the only part that is freely available. Otherwise, could someone quote verbatim from the full document what they are writing about kittens and cuteness. Maybe they're even citing other studies dedicated to that particular question. We will never know as long as none of us have even read the full source.
More importantly, even if the source establishes on scientific grounds that "kittens are generally considered cute" (highly doubtable), as laid out above, this source couldn't possibly serve to verify the cuteness of some randomly chosen cats.
Does this particular anonIP's logic make sense to your established editor's sensibilities? If you're not done lumping in every single person who has ever edited via IP, please continue in that vein. I don't mind biting and attacks, as long as we're doing proper work here. --
195.14.220.127 (
talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
File:The three faces that are perceived cutest in Alley's study of Head Shape and Perceived Cuteness.png User Jmikkila uploaded this interesting picture to Wikipedia. Currently, it faces deletion. Should we add a fair-use rationale to it and use it in the article? -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 18:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Overall I think this article was well done. The only suggestion I could provide, some of your sentence are to wordy and therefore making it unclear and hard to understand. Although I thought you described the empirical article very well, describing the method and finding. Therefore the only suggestion I would provide, is try to be a little clearer and less wordy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.86.199 ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
in http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/Cute there is no "young" meaning:
adjective
милый
cute, dear, nice, sweet, darling, lovely
привлекательный
attractive, appealing, inviting, lovable, engaging, cute
умный
smart, clever, intelligent, brainy, shrewd, cute
миловидный
comely, pretty, cute, nice-looking, bonny, goodly
остроумный
witty, ingenious, smart, sharp-witted, facetious, cute
сообразительный
smart, quick-witted, bright, astute, cute, quick
находчивый
resourceful, smart, quick-witted, inventive, cute, ready-witted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdinar ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"In the second study it was found that pre-menopausal women discriminated cutness at a highlevel than their postmenopausal female peers."
cutness --> cuteness, highlevel --> higher level.
Why is this article locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.222.53 ( talk) 22:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
cuteness is a word for not only cute things or people but for even hideous people to make them feel better…. so you should consider changing that for the hideous people in the world. Hope that helps!!!!!!!! love, the cute pineapple girls (; Cutepinapples123 ( talk) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the kitten image. We have been through this time and again. Randomly chosen pictures like that are categorically unsuited for illustrating anything, they contribute no encyclopedic information to the article whatsoever, and should therefore not be included. The picture is there solely because someone is of the personal opinion that it exemplifies cuteness.
There is no source that could back up any claim in that direction (e.g. a study that determines that specific image or at least the specific animal depicted to be "widely considered cute" or somesuch). In the absence of such a source, the inclusion of this or any other specific image constitutes POV and (even more importantly) blatant OR. Please spare us the RfC and remove it. Thank you. (To be perfectly specific: I'm referring to the image Cute grey kitten.jpg which was added by User:Gobonobo in this edit.) -- 85.197.43.163 ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'm not convinced this is a productive change. Upon reading it myself, it appears he was criticizing everyone's work, and I don't think it adds to the article to include there were other studies done. Right now, this article is already on a fine line between being to "expert" reading level required, and I don't think that is a good thing. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)A study by Konrad Lorenz in the early 1940s found that the shape of an infant's head positively correlated with adult caregiving and an increased perception of "cute". However a study by Thomas Alley found no such correlation and pointed out faulty procedures in that study. Alley's study found that cephalic head shape of an infant did induce a positive response from adults, and these children were considered to be more "cute".
A study by Konrad Lorenz in the early 1940s proposed that the shape of an infant's head positively correlated with adult caregiving and an increased perception of "cute". After that there were a few more studies of how infantile head's shape impacted adults, but a study by Thomas Alley in 1981 found that the studies had poor methodologies or used poor stimuli. Nevertheless, his study concluded that cephalic head shape of an infant did induce a positive response from adults, and these children were considered to be more "cute".
The original sentence is not supported by the research cited (and is contradictory within the context). The research said "Since 1943 such a pattern of responses to visually perceived physical characteristics of infants has often been cited by ethologists and others as an example of a universal or "innate" human response. Nevertheless, only a few studies have provided evidence of the power of infantile morphology to elicit positive affective or caretaking responses in adults, and several of these have utilized poor stimuli or faulty procedures". He wasn't criticizing Lorenz's work, he was criticizing the works after Lorenz.
Tikmok ( talk) 05:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The restoration of that picture of a kitten with a caption that says, "A kitten shown here exhibiting cuteness." That was the best thing Wikipedia has ever done. -- GenkiNeko ( talk) 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Growth pattern of children" remove the "Main article: Neoteny" header and turn "neoteny" into a link. Also, take neoteny out of the "See also" section. 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.52.132.199 ( talk) 02:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Lola... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.30.186 ( talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) This article fails to deliver a simple cultural commonality represented today, specifically in youth. The term cute has become more of a term to describe a)a relationship which is innocent, and childlike. b)a person when they are simple-minded, or as the article has stated, have youthful appearances c)when Francis Martin Keano C. Cuenca was born cuteness was discovered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.244.130 ( talk) 08:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
creepy cute is an uncommn type of cute
Cute can indeed have a negative connotation by degrading and belittling the person to which it is spoken to. By using the term to describe a teenager or young adult, it is felt to impair that person's self esteem, making them feel like a baby, and child-like
Please consider this, because this is a widely agreed term which hasn't been addressed in this article
Mcleaniechris ( talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Chris Mcleaniechris ( talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC) University of Otago, NZ
Abigail Rose Sisco Sam. .Edwordo ( talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The image is not cute.
We should have a cute image.
Perhaps a kitten.
Benjamin ( talk) 16:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this is relevant. Benjamin ( talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen a more hideous set of cartoon animals in my life. Does anyone really think those are cute? I mean come on here. Finnigami ( talk) 15:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kenta Takada (2016) said that Miyanoshita (2008) said that the design of chocolates made to look like rhinoceros beetle larvae is a design that is both cute and disgusting.[25][26]
3rd or 4th paragraph under cute animals, according to the references the word “chocolates” should be switched to gummi candy or something more along those lines, thank you. 2600:1700:E2C0:1410:39EA:2FDC:E4FC:4781 ( talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
For example, Miyanoshita (2008) discussed chocolates made in the form of rhinoceros beetle larvae as a design that is simultaneously cute and disgusting.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Voice 102.89.33.98 ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need the images of the children and the Golden Retriever puppy? Is there any external source confirming they are indeed cute? If there is no external source, the images should be deleted from the article Sheitan ( talk) 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
For example : Ria : You are a literal example of cuteness overloaded<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ria4539 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This section fails to deal with the fact that cuteness exist outside of human domestication and can be observed in even non-mammals such as birds which does not explain cuteness since it is outside of human action, and pre-dates humans. So why did cuteness evolve in the first place in birds etc? This section almost makes it seem humans selected cuteness in wolves, but wolf pups are cute also, so are baby chicks. Hausa warrior ( talk) 07:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at King's University College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Can we get a new image? The current image is so poorly drawn that I would actually argue that the faces on the right are more cute than the faces on the left, due to how mishsapens and exaggerated the faces on the left are. Finnigami ( talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
cute si claire
I think interesting (external links, creation) with one, but your context must be I'm not English native, and the subject is:
What exactly does 'cute' mean? ( Which is the most attractive people ? ), and I've found interesting: hot & cute, cute & hot. See the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831232156AA2eLWW
{{editsemiprotected}} This edit should be reverted because... I am almost unwilling to state the obvious. But ok, the source (NOT merely of the image, but of the rationale to include it, mind you) is this flickr page. The reference in the article says, I kid you not, " The comments on the Flickr photopage show typical human reactions on cute animals." This has got to be one of the more ridiculously blatant violations of OR I've seen in quite a while. To be very precise: The edit should be reverted. It is not enough to simply remove the image, since the edit also placed the image of Knut above the one image with true explanatory power (as opposed to mere decorative value). 78.34.98.95 ( talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Do not add any images without providing reliable sources. Any image added without reliable sources to verify that the depicted animal or other object has been notably referred to as cute will be removed as Original Research
I think that in the cultural section, the attraction of Western men to Russian, rather than British or American girls, is due to the pedomorphic, 'cute' faces of Russian women in comparison to Western women. A lot of Russians from the northern part of the country belong to what physical anthropologists designate the East Baltic type of the European race. 81.129.119.136 ( talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Cuteness can also be based on personality. How he/she flirts and holds a conversation.
Gmeezyjr ( talk) 22:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"That is, humans prefer animals which exhibit pedomorphosis. Pedomorphosis is the retention of child-like characteristics—such as big heads or large eyes—into adulthood. Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas.
The use of the term pedomorphosis is wrong , and should be removed - giant pandas do not have pedomorphosis. It's conflating two different concepts - animals which look child like (big eyes, round head etc), and a biological term which means retaining infant characteristics of it's own species. 87.102.94.154 ( talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Those three sentences should be removed according to the above reasoning. A link to Pedomorphosis should be added to the sentence following those to be removed; or alternatively a link to the more specific subform of pedomorphosis which is relevant here, Neoteny. -- 87.79.51.197 ( talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done I removed "Thus, pedomorphosis and cuteness may explain the popularity of Giant Pandas and Koalas." that seemed to be the biggest problem there, the other sentences fit with the rest of the paragraph after removal. Jamesofur ( talk) 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Being that the various example species being discussed in this section are all mammals, are there not some juvenile characteristics (large eyes, skull shape) that all mammalian species share in common? -- 96.251.9.196 ( talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ Edit semi-protected}} Please undo this edit. It is the epitome of what should be avoided in this article: a random image, chosen by an editor, without any source to back up the bold assertion in the caption. It is pure original research based on one editor's private opinion and it is thus unacceptable. The reason I am placing this here instead of approaching the editor who made the edit is that someone who makes such an edit in the first place is (speaking from years of frustrating experience) quite unlikely to open-mindedly reassess their own edit, regardless of any arguments presented to them. -- 78.35.212.131 ( talk) 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This article needs more of them
300px -- 1sneakers6 ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.204.198 ( talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to this article? It used to be half-decent when I referred to it once before. Now it doesn't even define what cuteness is or what features are considered cute, just sends you off to a page on neotony. There used to be a good image showing human head proportion changes with age, now we've got Betty Boop, which is justified by saying it's an example of neotony?? If all this article is going to do is send us to Neotony, it might as well be merged.
Please can we put in a proper definition of cuteness and some actual science that's not just copy-pasted from another Wikipedia page? ~ Kimelea ( talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, please add:
Melanie Glocker used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [12]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema [13]) may act as a "releaser" of caretaking behavior.
The references are: 12. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PMC 2690007. 13. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. Daniel19104 ( talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
answered=no
to relist the request
Illia Connell (
talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1) To the first paragraph of the article, after "....Konrad Lorenz", please add: Lorenz proposed the concept of baby schema (Kindchenschema), a set of facial and body features, that make a creature appear "cute" and activate ("release") in others the motivation to care for it [13].
2) To the section "Caregiving correlates to cuteness", second paragraph, after the sentence "The research suggested that the caregiver's response to the perceived cuteness of infants corresponded to higher levels of motivation to care for the infant", please add:
Melanie Glocker and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to demonstrate that baby portraits that contained stronger baby schema features, generated more activation in the Nucleus Accumbens, a small brain area central to the motivation and reward [13]. This work elucidated the neural mechanism through which baby schema (Kindchenschema) [12] may motivate ("release") caretaking behavior.
3) To the References section, please add: 12. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press; 1971. 13. Glocker ML, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, Griffin MD, Sachser N, Gur RC. Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):9115-9. PMC 2690007.
Thank you. Daniel19104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel19104 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about Caretaking: 1) Replace Glocker (2008) argued ... with Melanie Glocker (2009) argued .... Note the correct the publication year of this paper is 2009, not 2008. 2) Insert period after "....reward" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.196 ( talk • contribs) 13 September 2012
I personally think the little frog is not cute to say the least. I propose, unless there is a reliable source that says that particular frog is cute, to remove the pic and put a kitten there. Moscowconnection ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I came here absolutely assured there would a kitten, or something more universally agreed upon (obviously subjective, but it doesn't exactly take an empirical cross-sectional study for the strong assumption to exist that a kitten would win out over a frog) would constitute at least one of the images.
Other inevitably subjective opinions but posited nonetheless: the sketch of the human head is so basic as to obfuscate any feeling of cuteness achieved from a child's profile. Also, the polar bear is some distance away from the camera, and to one side, running a potential for subjugation of the feeling of cuteness that a closer and more direct shot may have evoked with greater intensity. Meanwhile the caption "has been described in news media as cute" straddles the implication such descriptors are rare in news media and that's why that particular image was chosen (news media being numerous and diverse it's difficult to believe a mention of cuteness in this instance is of especial merit). Bringing forth a strong psychological/physiological response to cuteness via images may not be Wikipedia's job, but considering there are countless images to choose, and evoking such a response can only increase, not hinder, clarity of the subject under scrutiny this nameless IP address suggests reexamination of potential image use, if only in a casual capacity. Good day! -- 75.207.26.147 ( talk) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
―I have decided to edit this article for Psych 2410A at King’s 2012‖ Thuynh46 ( talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 1)For the “Caregiving Correlates to Cuteness” I will be using Melanie Glocker’s(2008) Study of "Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults" to expand on her study. 2)Under the Section “Gender Differences” I will be using Sprengelmeyer’s(2009) study on "The cutest little baby face: a hormonal link to sensitivity to cuteness in infant faces" to explain the difference in cuteness sensitivity according to different genders. 3)I will create a new heading labelled “Hormonal Impact” and use Sprengelmeyer’s(2008) study to explain that the difference in cuteness sensitivity can be affected by hormone levels in women. Thuynh46 ( talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.58.11.58 (
talk •
contribs) 13 September 2012
Reason: Because the current sentence is grammatically incorrect and misses one key point of the experiment: these were adults unrelated to the babies.
Because this sentence has redundant verbs following one another and it makes no sense. This paragraph is wrong both grammatically and content-wise. The key difference is between related and unrelated adults. The former care for an infant because they are used to it, i.e. it is learned behavior. The latter exhibit instinctual behavior that is automatic and is responding to baby schema in the infant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.100.209.238 ( talk) 03:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
For the reason laid out in this comment, pictures of animals whose species has been referred to as "cute", but who have not in their own right been referred to as "cute" should be removed as original research.
The problem with including images in this way is that the editor who decides to include a particular image makes a choice of personal preference as to the "cuteness" of the depicted animals. This choice of personal preference constitutes unacceptable original research and private opinion that has no place in an encyclopedic article.
Things like that were the reason I originally petitioned for this article to be indefinitely semiprotected, lest it be flooded by "cute" pictures and possible edit wars over which picture best represents the "cuteness" of a type of animal ("my kitten pic is teh cutest"). I find it interesting to see that the same thing keeps happening because of badly informed registered users. -- 78.35.232.31 ( talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
An article about cuteness should look cute -- Should an article about arachnophobia look visually repulsive e.g. by including close-up images of spiders? I'd say no, and I'd prefer this article to not "communicate cuteness" but to give a sober and straightforward summary of published sources about the topic.
Also, LOL, I wasn't aware of the Lamest edit wars entry, but yeah this has been a thing for years now. That's one of the reasons I would now rather get rid of the Knut image quickly, either by replacing it or by just throwing it out. Wouldn't that be a more sensible interim solution? I mean, I get where you're coming from when you say let's leave it in for now. But it's such a sorry placeholder and has led to so much ultralame back and forth on this article and talk page.
So, I dunno. If you think it makes the article more appealing, why the heck not. However, I'd remove the Knut image since there is evidently no longterm consensus to include it over other images. Instead, I'd put a challenge to every interested editor to find an acceptably licensed picture of something that more universally represents cuteness, as evidenced by reliable sources.
Ditto on the one week "respite" to remove the frog and the kitten images, no hurry. -- 78.35.246.58 ( talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: LOL'd again @ Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Arachnophobia. They finally decided against including an image that might trigger arachnophobic reactions. So maybe we should do the same and avoid images that trigger attraction to cuteness. This is an encyclopedic article about cuteness, it shouldn't "embody" or symbolize cuteness, it should describe it based on reliable sources. Anyway, I know I'm way too preachy about such things. And a cute image doesn't hurt the article, just as long as it's one representative image, and not the present little gallery which I find very embarassing to be honest. -- 78.35.246.58 ( talk) 02:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alright, one week has passed. Please remove the kitten image as OR, and the Knut image as too contentious to represent the concept of cuteness or to serve as a representative example, despite its acceptable sourcing. Thanks in advance. -- 87.78.5.129 ( talk) 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
does it really make sense to be judging what a source says when you acknowledge you haven't actually read beyond the blurb -- Has Sarahj2107 read the full source? Has Isarra? Have you? No? Then what are you all talking about? The abstract. You all have read only the abstract, isn't that right, because it's the only part that is freely available. Otherwise, could someone quote verbatim from the full document what they are writing about kittens and cuteness. Maybe they're even citing other studies dedicated to that particular question. We will never know as long as none of us have even read the full source.
More importantly, even if the source establishes on scientific grounds that "kittens are generally considered cute" (highly doubtable), as laid out above, this source couldn't possibly serve to verify the cuteness of some randomly chosen cats.
Does this particular anonIP's logic make sense to your established editor's sensibilities? If you're not done lumping in every single person who has ever edited via IP, please continue in that vein. I don't mind biting and attacks, as long as we're doing proper work here. --
195.14.220.127 (
talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
File:The three faces that are perceived cutest in Alley's study of Head Shape and Perceived Cuteness.png User Jmikkila uploaded this interesting picture to Wikipedia. Currently, it faces deletion. Should we add a fair-use rationale to it and use it in the article? -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 18:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Overall I think this article was well done. The only suggestion I could provide, some of your sentence are to wordy and therefore making it unclear and hard to understand. Although I thought you described the empirical article very well, describing the method and finding. Therefore the only suggestion I would provide, is try to be a little clearer and less wordy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.86.199 ( talk) 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
in http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/Cute there is no "young" meaning:
adjective
милый
cute, dear, nice, sweet, darling, lovely
привлекательный
attractive, appealing, inviting, lovable, engaging, cute
умный
smart, clever, intelligent, brainy, shrewd, cute
миловидный
comely, pretty, cute, nice-looking, bonny, goodly
остроумный
witty, ingenious, smart, sharp-witted, facetious, cute
сообразительный
smart, quick-witted, bright, astute, cute, quick
находчивый
resourceful, smart, quick-witted, inventive, cute, ready-witted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdinar ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"In the second study it was found that pre-menopausal women discriminated cutness at a highlevel than their postmenopausal female peers."
cutness --> cuteness, highlevel --> higher level.
Why is this article locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.222.53 ( talk) 22:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
cuteness is a word for not only cute things or people but for even hideous people to make them feel better…. so you should consider changing that for the hideous people in the world. Hope that helps!!!!!!!! love, the cute pineapple girls (; Cutepinapples123 ( talk) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the kitten image. We have been through this time and again. Randomly chosen pictures like that are categorically unsuited for illustrating anything, they contribute no encyclopedic information to the article whatsoever, and should therefore not be included. The picture is there solely because someone is of the personal opinion that it exemplifies cuteness.
There is no source that could back up any claim in that direction (e.g. a study that determines that specific image or at least the specific animal depicted to be "widely considered cute" or somesuch). In the absence of such a source, the inclusion of this or any other specific image constitutes POV and (even more importantly) blatant OR. Please spare us the RfC and remove it. Thank you. (To be perfectly specific: I'm referring to the image Cute grey kitten.jpg which was added by User:Gobonobo in this edit.) -- 85.197.43.163 ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'm not convinced this is a productive change. Upon reading it myself, it appears he was criticizing everyone's work, and I don't think it adds to the article to include there were other studies done. Right now, this article is already on a fine line between being to "expert" reading level required, and I don't think that is a good thing. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)A study by Konrad Lorenz in the early 1940s found that the shape of an infant's head positively correlated with adult caregiving and an increased perception of "cute". However a study by Thomas Alley found no such correlation and pointed out faulty procedures in that study. Alley's study found that cephalic head shape of an infant did induce a positive response from adults, and these children were considered to be more "cute".
A study by Konrad Lorenz in the early 1940s proposed that the shape of an infant's head positively correlated with adult caregiving and an increased perception of "cute". After that there were a few more studies of how infantile head's shape impacted adults, but a study by Thomas Alley in 1981 found that the studies had poor methodologies or used poor stimuli. Nevertheless, his study concluded that cephalic head shape of an infant did induce a positive response from adults, and these children were considered to be more "cute".
The original sentence is not supported by the research cited (and is contradictory within the context). The research said "Since 1943 such a pattern of responses to visually perceived physical characteristics of infants has often been cited by ethologists and others as an example of a universal or "innate" human response. Nevertheless, only a few studies have provided evidence of the power of infantile morphology to elicit positive affective or caretaking responses in adults, and several of these have utilized poor stimuli or faulty procedures". He wasn't criticizing Lorenz's work, he was criticizing the works after Lorenz.
Tikmok ( talk) 05:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The restoration of that picture of a kitten with a caption that says, "A kitten shown here exhibiting cuteness." That was the best thing Wikipedia has ever done. -- GenkiNeko ( talk) 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Growth pattern of children" remove the "Main article: Neoteny" header and turn "neoteny" into a link. Also, take neoteny out of the "See also" section. 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
122.52.132.199 ( talk) 02:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Lola... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.30.186 ( talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) This article fails to deliver a simple cultural commonality represented today, specifically in youth. The term cute has become more of a term to describe a)a relationship which is innocent, and childlike. b)a person when they are simple-minded, or as the article has stated, have youthful appearances c)when Francis Martin Keano C. Cuenca was born cuteness was discovered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.244.130 ( talk) 08:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
creepy cute is an uncommn type of cute
Cute can indeed have a negative connotation by degrading and belittling the person to which it is spoken to. By using the term to describe a teenager or young adult, it is felt to impair that person's self esteem, making them feel like a baby, and child-like
Please consider this, because this is a widely agreed term which hasn't been addressed in this article
Mcleaniechris ( talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Chris Mcleaniechris ( talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC) University of Otago, NZ
Abigail Rose Sisco Sam. .Edwordo ( talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The image is not cute.
We should have a cute image.
Perhaps a kitten.
Benjamin ( talk) 16:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this is relevant. Benjamin ( talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen a more hideous set of cartoon animals in my life. Does anyone really think those are cute? I mean come on here. Finnigami ( talk) 15:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Cuteness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kenta Takada (2016) said that Miyanoshita (2008) said that the design of chocolates made to look like rhinoceros beetle larvae is a design that is both cute and disgusting.[25][26]
3rd or 4th paragraph under cute animals, according to the references the word “chocolates” should be switched to gummi candy or something more along those lines, thank you. 2600:1700:E2C0:1410:39EA:2FDC:E4FC:4781 ( talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
For example, Miyanoshita (2008) discussed chocolates made in the form of rhinoceros beetle larvae as a design that is simultaneously cute and disgusting.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Voice 102.89.33.98 ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need the images of the children and the Golden Retriever puppy? Is there any external source confirming they are indeed cute? If there is no external source, the images should be deleted from the article Sheitan ( talk) 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
For example : Ria : You are a literal example of cuteness overloaded<3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ria4539 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
This section fails to deal with the fact that cuteness exist outside of human domestication and can be observed in even non-mammals such as birds which does not explain cuteness since it is outside of human action, and pre-dates humans. So why did cuteness evolve in the first place in birds etc? This section almost makes it seem humans selected cuteness in wolves, but wolf pups are cute also, so are baby chicks. Hausa warrior ( talk) 07:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at King's University College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Can we get a new image? The current image is so poorly drawn that I would actually argue that the faces on the right are more cute than the faces on the left, due to how mishsapens and exaggerated the faces on the left are. Finnigami ( talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)