Talk:Aesthetics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture in the lead is not very representative[edit]

Hello Johnbod, I removed the recently added picture from the lead because it is not very representative of the topic "aesthetics". It shows 3 people from the back. It is not seen what they are looking at: are they admiring art or an ancient fossil, or are they just bored? It also shows one apparently unrelated person from the front. Being representative of the topic is a requirement for images in the lead, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I saw that you restored the picture with the justification that "well we want something in the lead. find a better pic if you like". There is no requirement for an article to have a picture. And there is also no requirement for an editor who removes a problematic part from an article to replace it with something else. I'm not against having a proper picture here. But this particular picture does not constitute an improvement to the article. So I suggest that we remove this recently added picture again. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, clearly we disagree about that. Let's see what others think, or if they have better images. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you specify with what you disagree and why? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think we need an image at the top, as the vast majority of articles have, & I thought this one acceptably "representative", whatever that might mean in this context. Perhaps you could share your insights into what you think might be "representative of the topic". Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being "representative of the topic" implies that the image is easily associated with the topic in question and is a good representation of it. I already gave the explanation of why I think this is not the case here. If there was not an unrelated person in the foreground and if it was obvious from the image alone that they were looking at a work of art, like a big statue at the center of the picture or a painting spanning the whole background, then it would be representative. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll go ahead with the removal since it has been a while and there are still no objections to the arguments presented here. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I was just going to revert you since you clearly don't have consensus for this. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picture 1
Picture 2
Phlsph7 and Johnbod, you guys should have notified me for this... Anyways, which of these two images are better?
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we shouldn't have notified you! Why? You should keep an eye on your watchlist. I prefer the first new image, but images are also needed lower down. Japanese schoolgirls (from behind) aren't perhaps the best "representation". And why not a person reading or a concert audience? Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I should have saved this article to the watchlist :). I would prefer a picture of someone looking at physical art, as images are a visual medium and it is harder to distinguish between, for example, a book and an user manual. I do like the idea of being inclusive with all forms of arts though, but as evident by the arts article, there are lots of art forms. Look at the article human: you just need 1 image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? That must have about 50 images. Anyway, do you have a preference between the new ones? Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally like picture 1 more, but I am searching for higher quality images at Commons: [1] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CactiStaccingCrane and thanks for joining the conversation and for bringing in new suggestions.

For picture 1: it seems that the cube is standing in the background and the person is just walking past it. If that's the case then the same objection applies here as well: not very representative.

For picture 2: I agree with Johnbold that this is not the best representation either, but at least it manages to get the basic message across: two people looking at art. I would suggest that we keep this until something better comes along, unless there are other suggestions.

As a side note to Johnbod concerning the removal: the talk page is for keeping up the discussion to work towards a consensus. If arguments are presented and no objections or responses are raised within a reasonable amount of time, that constitutes silence by consensus, see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense. I put forward arguments; you failed to do so. And, as you will find as you become more experienced, on talk pages "a reasonable time" is often quite a long period (say at least a week), not a matter of hours (in the middle of my night). I wouldn't cite Wikipedia:Silence and consensus myself, it is only an essay, not a guideline. And don't assume everyone is in an American time zone - another rooky mistake. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you are right that I am not in the American timezone, in fact, to you guys I am literally on the other side of the globe! Anyways, here are a few of images that I found of high quality: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like 1, 2 & 4 of these. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order to not bring about an adversarial atmosphere, I think it's in everyone's interest to avoid implying that other editors are unexperienced rookies. And while I would be excited to get into the nitty-gritty of whether in this particular case the appropriate amount of time has passed for consensus by silence, I suggest that we curb our enthusiasm and focus instead on the boring issue of choosing a picture for the lead. Of the second batch of pictures, I think pictures 1 and 2 are good representations. I prefer them over the first batch. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the second image the best, as it can be easily visible in low resolutions. I would see this as a consensus and add it in; if you guys have any objections please let me know. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine with that, but this article is long and under-illustrated, so at least two more would work. Thanks for doing the picture research. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

aesthetic philosophy[edit]

english 115.147.53.244 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aesthetics[edit]

Beauty in form of art makes us appreciate it 105.113.19.163 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machine aesthetic?[edit]

we have a red link to Machine aesthetic. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also discovered a red link Maschine aesthetics (related to neofunctualism?) Estopedist1 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]