This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofScience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
First off, I wasn't the one who contributed these images to Wikipedia, I just saw them onRating sites and so wrote this article a few minutes ago. Second, an example of "morphed image" showing that the average is more attractive does not constitute "novel" or "original" research; it was done originally by Galton in 1883, and repeated numerous times.Talk:Bohr model is an example a debate on image uploading, where we had to explain the "methods" behind how we constructed the images, of Bohr's 1914 atom model. Hence, elaborating on how a well-known image was created for use in Wikipedia does not constitute a violation ofWP:OR. Or, maybe you know of some free content morphed images in thecommons that are better than these. Moreover, maybe you would like to join inhere for further discussion. --Sadi Carnot20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as second alternative, we could take out the person's name and change the name of the header, but that would seem to detract from the article. --Sadi Carnot20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean. The images are already in the commons. To utilize them in different articles, as has already been done, someone needs to explain how the images were created. In this direction,User:Quadell found the name of the person, and I added it in for clarity. I don't see the problem here? In my opinion, these images are excellent and are used in a good way to support an historical concept. --Sadi Carnot21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's published on the web, right? On Flicker. Oh, I see, you mean the text. If the text is original interpretation of the images, then I suppose I see your point. If the text is just summarizing what is in the photos, the accompanying text (on Flicker), and the materialhere, then it's not OR. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. (Sadi, you might want to reference thatmetafilter info, and also an interesting links from it.) –Quadell(talk) (random)21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interestingmetafilter discussion; some of the comments, though, were very un-scientific, but, nevertheless, kind of interesting. I agree that we have to summarize what is in the photos; thus if we use the photographer's statement as an outline, then we will have to reference it or else it will be considered copyright infringement or plagiarism. --Sadi Carnot03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys kidding me? I can't give any exact numbers as to how many people LEGITIMATELY rate what they are thinking, but I'm willing to bet it's extremely low. People very rarely (except for maybe new users) go to the site for this. They want to meet new people or just look through a bunch of photos. In that case, they "lock" onto a number like 5, since the x/y of the ratings buttons hardly move in each page. People doing rapid fire on "5" is NOT accurate research. For a page such as Wikipedia, I would count this as original research and illegitimate.
"Averageness" is synonymous with koinophilia, but is currently used almost exclusively to describe the role of koinophilia in human beauty, whereas "koinophilia" covers its broader biological importance. The two articles could therefore, theoretically, be merged, but that would tend to make the combined article almost textbook in nature. There are very many articles in Wikipedia that discuss the ingredients of human beauty and physical attraction. All of them have cross references to this article, which serves very well as a stand alone article on "Averageness/Koinophilia", containing enough information to satisfy most readers sent here via the "human beauty" route.
What I have done (as an experiment) is add a heading on koinophilia, with a brief description of why "Averageness" is an important determinant of physical attractiveness. I think it rounds the article off, as, at the moment, "Averageness" is simply "there", without any explanation of why it should be there, or why it contributes to beauty and physical attractiveness. The authors of this article might like to re-word this section to bring it into line with the style of the rest of the article.
I feel almost certain that some of the claims in the "Koinophilia" section are fallacious. To say that "[i]t makes biological sense that sexual creatures should be attracted to mates sporting a predominance of common or average features, as opposed to extraordinary features" seems to presuppose [a] that reproducing "average" features tends to increase the "fitness" of a species or population over time, [b] that people respond positively to the averageness of other people's appearance because to them, averageness indicates superior "fitness," and [c] that whether or not every individual feels this way, averageness nonetheless indicates superior "fitness."
That entire construction is circular: Take a supposition, say that it's a part of nature, say that "it makes sense" that nature would be that way, then make unsupported conjectures about the supposed survival advantages of having nature work that way.
Supposition [a] is also, I think, based on a flawed understanding of genetics. Mutations are mostly neutral with respect to survival; they are sometimes harmful or even fatal, but they can also have enormous value to a population. "Extraordinary features" are essential to any species' survival as well as to its future development (evolution). Populations with low genetic diversity become dependent on the precise ecological niche to which they have adapted over time. If their habitat changes, there aren't enough individuals with characteristics that are favorable in the changed circumstances; then there's nothing for evolution to "prefer," and the population declines or dies out.
Recessive genes are a similar, vital resource. The word "inbreeding" has unpleasant connotations, but when members of restricted populations mate only with one another over many generations, the results clearly don't enhance "fitness." If God was really smart, He would set Victorian thinking aside and endow us with a varying mixture of "koinophilia"and its exact opposite, so as to preserve already-successful genesand genetic diversity.
--I also feel a certain lack of cultural awareness in the viewpoint of the article as a whole. Even within one country there rarely is a spontaneous, even near-unanimous preference for the looks of any one individual. When there is such a "craze," generally its object wouldn't have been considered so attractive a generation or two earlier--making it hard to blame the whole thing on biology. Also, such people often have a strikingly atypical appearance, one which perhaps has some special meaning for the times.
What is actually being shown by those averaged photos of beauty contest results? Surely they say more about beauty contests--who enters them, who is selected to judge them, and what those judges base their decisions on--than they say about humanity (or all animal life!) in general. To say the least, a huge amount of conformity to stereotypes is built in. The contestants don't try to look as they naturally look; they put a huge amount of effort into crafting their image. To me that invalidates them as evidence for "koinophilia." No doubt the pictures are interesting, but it takes some critical thinking to realize what they are pictures of.
I have taken the liberty to remove the "Method" section as it does not describe any of the methods used by the scientists working on attractive and average faces. Instead it describes an entirely arbitrary "Hot or Not" construction on the internet that has no scientific merit (nor was it intended as a scientific experiment). The other external links take one to inappropriate (and aggressive) advertisements for goods that have nothing to do with attractiveness or averageness.
All the methods used by Galton and Langlois et al. are described fully in the previous section. It could be added in there that a wide variety of other averaging methods have been used (e.g. using line drawings of faces, or faces in profile etc. etc.) always with the same results.Oggmus (talk)09:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is debated please see this source for peer level discussionSexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research[1] There is a great deal of work that could be done here.J8079s (talk)21:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose thatKoinophilia be merged intoAverageness. The core concept of both articles is the same, indeed they already share content; other aspects that the Koinophilia article suggests can be explained by Koinophilia (averageness) will make exactly as much sense here (I make no claim for their validity, and they may need cutting down whether a merge takes place or not, as they seem to wander quite far off topic). The merged article will not become unreasonably long. I note in addition that merger has been proposed before with substantial support, so it isn't clear why it didn't take place; it should happen now. Finally, I note that there is aconflict of interest with an editor who has published research on the subject and has apparently coined the term "Koinophilia", as well as contributing substantially to both articles; his views are of course of interest, but must be seen in context, and like any other editor's cannot be assumed to be definitive.Chiswick Chap (talk)08:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. I also find no suggestion of "research" by Koeslag. There is a lot of work to do (see source above) on the question of "Averageness as a tool of evolution.J8079s (talk)20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance of above remark?
I oppose the move for the following reasons:
1. "Averageness" only describes amethod for generating beautiful and attractive faces. Koinophilia suggests thereason why it works.
2. The term "koinophilia" has repeatedly been used on internationally popular TV shows such as the Discovery TV channel with Nancy Etcoff (from Harvard University)
as celebrity guest, "The Office", and Stephen Fry's BBC program "QI", which was aired less than a year ago. Koinophilia, while not quite a household term,
is nevertheless in current use in popular culture (See Richard Fein's poem entitled"Koinophilia" speculating on whether Helen of Troy's face
really launched 1000 ships or whether her face was simply a composite of 1000 women's faces giving her her legendary beauty).
3. "Koinophilia" and its implication in several different fields is discussed in the following recent scientific press:
Unnikrishnan M.K. (2009) How is the individuality of a face recognized?Journal of Theoretical Biology.261 (3), 469–474. doi:10.1016/ j.jtbi.2009.08.011
Naini F.B. (2011)Facial aesthetics. Concepts and clinical diagnosis. (Chapter: The enigma of facial beauty). Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN: 978-1-4051-8192-1.
Unnikrishnan M.K. (2012) Koinophilia revisited: the evolutionary link between mate selection and face recognition.Current Science,102 (4) :563-570.
Miller W.B. (2013)The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. (Chapter: What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?) pp. 177, 395-396. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. ISBN 10:1-61233-2773.
Unnikrishnan, M.K. and Akhila, H.S. (2014). "The phenotypic differences between carrion and hooded crows across the hybridization zone in Europe are unlikely to be due to assortative mating. Comment on Poelstra, J.W. et al. (2014). The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows.".Science344: 1410–1414. doi:10.1126/science.1253226.PMID24948738.
If a merger is necessary, it would make more sense to do it the other way round, retaining the article "Koinophilia" and relabelling the heading "Physical attractiveness" -> "Averageness". There is nothing in the "Averageness" article that is not discussed more fully, thoroughly and informatively in the Koinophilia article.Oggmus (talk)03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would work only if K. were the senior or far more common term for the concept, which it does not appear to be. I'm glad, though, to note that we agree the two terms are synonyms and we therefore require a merger. Note, however, that BOTH terms will appear in boldface at the head of the article, in the manner (something like) "Averageness, also calledKoinophilia, is ...", and searching on K. will immediately pop up the article, so it effectively will have both names. Hope this helps a little.Chiswick Chap (talk)07:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If priority is the criterion by which this is judged then Koinophilia almost certainly is the more "senior" term. Langlois and Roggman (Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science1:115-121) and Koeslag (Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour.Journal of Theoretical Biology144:15-35) published their first articles on this subject almost simultaneously in 1990. Langlois and Roggman use the terms "composite faces", "composites", "average face", "prototypical faces" and "typicalness" to describe the attractive faces they had produced. They used the term "averageness" in brackets and in parenthesis to explain what what they meant by "typicalness", and once again in passing, with no particular emphasis, when discussing whether movie stars might be rated as being more attractive than the composites they had produced. Koeslag, on the other hand, used the term "koinophilia" in the title of his first article on the subject. S.P. Otto writing in 1991 (the year after the Langlois and Koeslag papers appeared) used the term "koinophilia" instead of "averageness" in his paper "On evolution under sexual and viability selection: a two locus diploid model."Evolution45:1443-1457, as, by then, Langlois' fascinating results were generally being referred to as "koinophilia", and have continued to be known by that name up to the present in popular culture.Oggmus (talk)10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like quite a close call, if this analysis is correct and complete, as K. would be prior and A. seems to be more commonly used. I personally don't mind which way round we do this but theWP:FORK seems well worth removing. What I'm getting therefore is a desire to merge Averageness to Koinophilia. Let's see what other editors think.Chiswick Chap (talk)10:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to oppose this merger. Averageness, while an awkward term, seems to be about the aesthetic phenomenon, while koinophilia in my understanding is a partner selection strategy that is proposed to correspond to it. The way it's currently arranged, with averageness having a subsection about k., makes some sense to me. What I'm not comfortable with is rushing an article through GAN that's been mostly written by the author that is most strongly advocating use of the term and who is the author of the vast majority of papers mentioning the term in their title. We do want expert editors of course, but extra eyes from other people who understand the subject would be good to ensure such an article remains balanced (WP:NPOV). I'm not sure that among the current participants in these discussions, we have anyone that has both the time and expertise for this. Perhaps it makes sense to list this on some relevant WikiProject talk pages to see if anyone bites - I see thatWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology has not yet been listed as a relevant WikiProject on the talk page, although it almost certainly is, so it should be mentioned there if on any WikiProject page, imo.Samsara11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) By all means post it on that Project.
2) There will be no rush to GAN, that is clearly not appropriate now.
3) The terms do appear to be extremely close, and perhaps exact synonyms. Koinophilia does not seem to be purely about looks but can apply to any characteristic, so it is hard to see any difference between it and averageness.Chiswick Chap (talk)12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a bit of reading and to my mind there is a clear distinction in topic and research area between Averageness and Koinophilia. To me:
Averageness is research about the sexual attractiveness of Human faces - exclusively.
Koinophilia is an evolutionary hypothesis based on the idea that animals (including humans) are sexually attracted to individuals displaying a minimum of unusual features (where these features encompass all physical and behavioural characteristics of those animals, not just physical human faces). The other half of the hypothesis is its intention to help explain Darwin's Dilemma, a topic which is unlikely to be addressed in the Averageness research.
From both Pages' Reference sections the first articles on Averageness seem to have appeared in Psychology journals whilst the first articles on Koinophilia seem to have appeared in Theoretical Biology journals suggesting entirely different academic interests.
The wikipedia articles in their current form don't make this distinction at all clear though - I've made a comment at the bottom of the Koinophilia Talk page suggesting why this confusion may have arisen and how we may be able to address it (see the section there titled "Proposal to move the Koinophilia#Physical Attractiveness section to the Averageness page").Ambercritter (talk)18:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThePhysical Attractiveness section of the Koinophilia article seems out of place on a page concerning Evolutionary biology theory. Though the research described in the section lends an ounce of support for the theory in question, the bulk of it belongs elsewhere. To my eye, this section being so large and high up on the page means it is confusing to the reader trying to understand the proposal and intention of the evolutionary idea.
Therefore I recommend this should be moved, and suggest theAverageness page as a destination as there are points made in this section which are not made in the Averageness page and the Averageness page is referenced as this sections main article.
@Ambercritter: Leaving aside where in the article the section on averageness/attractiveness should come, do you not think it necessary to have a short summary of the topic there? You seem to consider K. and A. separate topics, in which case if A. has to be discussed in the K. article, a summary is necessary.Chiswick Chap (talk)09:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThePhysical Attractiveness section of this article seems out of place on a page concerning Evolutionary biology theory. Though the research described in this section lends an ounce of support for the theory in question, the bulk of it belongs elsewhere. To my eye, this section being so large and high up on the page means it is confusing to the reader trying to understand the proposal and intention of the evolutionary idea.
Therefore I recommend this should be moved, and suggest theAverageness page as a destination as there are points made in this section which are not made in the Averageness page and the Averageness page is referenced as this sections main article.
(Aside: It's possible that the merger conversation has come about because of the confusion this section causes. I intend to comment on discussion of the merger of the Koinophilia and Averageness pages on the Averageness Talk page very shortly)Ambercritter (talk)18:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*** The following comments copied from Talk:Koinophilia as they seem relevant here:
Also, I've just noticed that the paragraph in the [Koinophilia] introduction starting 'Koinophilia provides simple explanations for' includes the items 'what constitutes a beautiful face' and 'how the individuality of a face is recognized' which are not in the same sphere as the evolutionary items in the rest of the sentence or paragraph so I would delete those as well (or incorporate them the following paragraph perhaps).Ambercritter (talk)15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These opinions imply that K. and A. are inAmbercritter' andSamsara's opinion separate topics, both notable, but that the Koinophilia article has attempted excessively broad and detailed coverage of Averageness and other topics. In that case (if there's reasonable consensus on that) then we should close the merger discussion with "no" as the outcome, and cut down Koinophilia to reduce overlap with the other articles - it can reasonably link to them, summarize them, and state their relevance to itself, but no more. Is that what people would like to do?Chiswick Chap (talk)10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the initiative and made the moves as we've discussed (slightly pre-emptive, but not destructive, so hopefully acceptable to all).Ambercritter (talk)21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should avoid a great deal of confusion. Moving the "Physical attraction" section to the Averageness page makes a great deal of sense, as long as no information is lost. The introduction to the Koinophilia article contains enough information and links to direct the interested reader to the "averageness" information that they might be looking for. I notice that the "Rate of evolution" section has been transferredin toto to an entirely new article by that name, and replaced by a very reasonable summary, if the diagram of the fossil record of Homonin evolution could be placed back into this section - without it the words don't really convey the main thrust of the section, and what koinophilia claims to explain.Oggmus (talk)16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" I strongly feel against Wikipedia merging Koinophilia with Averageness . “Averageness” is a very strange and inappropriate title for an article of this nature. I became familiar with Koinophilia after reading: Unnikrishnan M.K. (2009) How is the individuality of a face recognized? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 261 (3), 469–474. doi:10.1016/ j.jtbi.2009.08.011. I have been captivated by the idea ever since, and I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and related concepts. The Wikipedia article served as a brilliant introduction to the concept, enabling me to explore deeper into the more technical scientific literature. I realised that the evolutionary significance of Averageness can be understood best when the idea of koinophilia becomes clear. Therefore, I would think that Averageness may perhaps be placed under Koinophilia, not the other way round.
I have not come across a single paper that runs counter to the notion of Koinophilia. On the other hand, I have come across several articles that support the idea of Koinophilia, though without attribution. "Daathri (talk)17:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Daathri[reply]
"Koinoplhilia" is not used by anyone to mean anything that "averageness" does not. There is criticism of averageness as a component of evolution that needs to be included, see Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744016J8079s (talk)20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are about agreed that the merger should not proceed, but it seems clear that K. is a possible cause of A., so it is surprising that the entire section on K. should have been removed. The Averageness article certainly needs a brief section explaining K. as a possible explanation, at least.Chiswick Chap (talk)06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you're quite right. In my enthusiasm yesterday evening I removed more than I should have. I have just reinstated a summary on Koinophilia under a new heading which can contain other explanations.Ambercritter (talk)17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou so much. We can tweak the summary if need be "in slow time". Meanwhile, since it seems people are pretty much agreed, I shall close down the merger proposal now: the articles stay separate.Chiswick Chap (talk)19:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Potential Evolutionary Explanations" section does not reflect the opinions expressed by the workers in this field, as to why the average face is as attractive as it is. I have tried to summarize their interpretations of the phenomenon as completely as possible within the confines of an encyclopedic entry. I hope it finds favor with the workers in this field as it does with the general readership of Wikipedia.Cruithne9 (talk)14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap and I discussed some time ago obtaining an image of an "average face" to complement the present article. At the time I could find no examples that could be used in Wikipedia, either on Wiki Media Commons, the internet, or from laboratories working on average faces.
But now I have found one that is copyrighted by the "Face Research Laboratory" (at the University of Glasgow, Scotland), but the caption states that it can be used by anyone for non-commercial purposes. I presume that it might therefore be available to be used in Wikipedia.
Contacting one of the researchers I was informed that the image we want for theAverageness article is already freely available at [[2]].
But I have no idea how to upload it on to the Wiki Media Commons if it is not "my own work". The jargon, acronyms and abbreviations are totally beyond me! Would anyone with the necessary know-how mind uploading that image for Wikipedia, please? Then, either letting me know, or insert it into the article yourself, with the appropriate adjustment of the text.
It will make a huge improvement to theAverageness article.
An NC license isn't enough for Wikipedia, we need unrestricted access like CC-by-SA 3.0. Perhaps the researcher would give us that for a small version of the image.Chiswick Chap (talk)09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I know, theoriginal paper doesn't mention Jessica Alba anywhere - that part seems to have been added by the Daily Mail journalist writingthis article. PerWP:DAILYMAIL we can't really use the Daily Mail as a source, so would it work if that claim is sourced tojust the paper?applecuckoo(he/him)04:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Oppose. I had the same initialhuh? but the overwhelming majority of Google and Google Scholar hits for "averageness" refer to this concept. The mathematical concept ofaverages is not commonly referred to as "averageness" and readers searching for the mathematical concept are unlikely to use this term. The current title appears to reflect both the common name for the subject and the primary topic by usage for the noun "averageness". It would be reasonable to add hatnote here pointing toAverage for the minority of readers who might land here on accident.—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)23:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Attractiveness of averaged human faces" seems, to me, too verbose; so even in the case of a move, I would be opposed to it and would prefer something shorter, such as "Averageness (appearance)", "Averageness (beauty)" or similar - so that "Averageness" is still the first word and the primary search term. This nomination is notWP:CONCISE! Moreover, per @Myceteae, "averageness" as a measure of physical appearance seems to be theWP:PTOPIC from a cursory Google search. I alsoStrongly oppose makingAverageness a redirect toAverage, if the article is moved, I would keep the current name a redirect to the same article, in particular since it'd break multiple links (though, even if that is fixed, I still think this subject is the primary topic, and would keep it regardless.)Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC) edited 17:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of other concepts about attractiveness of appearance and beauty, so I don't think "Attractiveness (appearance)" or "Attractiveness (beauty)" would be adequate titles. It also seems important to make the distinction between the attractiveness of averaged appearances versus the average attractiveness of individual appearances. — BarrelProof (talk)16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could perhaps get behind this line of thinking. Maybe change the article title to something likeFacial averageness and keepaverageness as a primary redirect here. Such a change might increase recognizability or a general audience. I'm not yet convinced such a change is warranted and I'd need to look at sources. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Edit: Upon further consideration, I do not support a change in this direction. See subsequent comment(s) below. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, this article isn't even about facial averageness, though... it's specifically about attractiveness of average faces.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)16:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having put some thought into it, I would say I actuallyOppose the move, per @Myceteae and Google searches. Averageness as the physical beauty concept is the PTOPIC and is as concise as the article title can get. I would not be opposed to adding a see also hat, however.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)18:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Agreed. And as noted in the replies to my comment above,Facial averageness and related possibilities are no better at describing the topic especially for those totally unfamiliar with it. The current title reflects the common name and is the primary topic for this title. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)18:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Inviting comments on more concise alt proposals and if disambiguation is truly required, if anyone has the time to look at sources.Alpha3031 (t •c)14:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Averageness (beauty). Credit toDrunk Experiter for this suggestion. Though she withdrew it, I'll promote it now.
I first think the status quo servesWP:PTOPIC poorly. I had no idea averageness was the term for this concept until I found this on the list of requested moves. I've dealt with mean, median, and mode far more in many different life contexts.
However, the first proposal was notWP:CONCISE. A five word title shouldn't be used unless those words are frequently used together, like withPresident of the United States.
Relisting comment: I'm suppressing the urge to close this with the sole description of "huh?", but it doesn't appear ready yet. We may have consensus to move perWP:NOTCURRENTTITLE but possibly need more discussion first. I do agree the more concise title may be a good option, but there isWP:PTOPIC to contend with.ASUKITE15:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that Isupportkeeping the current title in case that is unclear. While I have entertained alternatives, I find that the current title optimal in terms of primary topic,WP:CRITERIA, and other applicable article title P&G. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)15:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also here to say that I don't think the status quo is bad nor do I think change is necessary here, same asMyceteae.Definitely against the nominator closing a non-unanimous RM as well.Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk)06:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asukiteis not the nominator andis not an "involved" editor in this discussion. They have expressed no opinions here (except tentative observations made in a relisting comment). If they chose to close the RM rather than relist it, that would have been fine as far as I can tell. The nominator was Zxcvbnm. Asukite is merely a relister (who notifiedWikiProject Science about this discussion in a neutral manner). — BarrelProof (talk)07:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support to the effect that this suggestion is both better than the status quo by providingWP:NATURALDAB and it's also moreWP:CONCISE than the original proposal. While certainly moreWP:NATURAL than the status quo, this proposal still violatesWP:NOTNEO if the exact phrase is not heavily used inWP:RS. Sure, I'd rather have aWP:NOTNEO violation than the total confusion of the status quo, but I thinkWP:PARENDIS provides the best of both worlds and sidesteps theWP:NOTNEO policy issue. I'm open to otherWP:PARENDIS options, includingAverageness (appearance) (also proposed and subsequently withdrawn by @Drunk Experiter), orAverageness (psychology). I disagree with your reasoning because the content of the article is specifically that beautyis the resulting effect of averaging of facial dimensions, but perhaps the otherWP:PARENDIS options would help if the focus on beauty were imbalanced.Ilvekset (talk)09:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEO addresses creating articlesabout neologisms but I take your point to be in line with the last paragraph ofWP:TITLECHANGES:
Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
I don't know if I would go so far as to call "facial averageness"extremely uncommon but it is way, way less common than simply "averageness" and is therefore against policy. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not a neologism; a name in use is a name in use, even if rarely in use. Moreover, if disambiguation is required (which it seems it is, since use of the word "averageness" is clearly not predominately associated with statistical averaging of facial features), then a natural disambiguator is better than an awkward and somewhat arbitrary parenthetical disambiguator.BD2412T01:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy pasted by @Myceteae against "extremely uncommon names" guides Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia policy doesn't generally consider parenthetical disambiguation to be awkward.WP:PARENDIS says, "Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title."Ilvekset (talk)02:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you understood what I was trying to communicate—that a different policy statement (WP:TITLECHANGES) addresses some of the issues raised. As for PARENDIS, it is basically a last resort. Natural disambiguation is preferred unless the naturally disambiguated title is "extremely" uncommon or is otherwise more problematic than the PARENDIS option. It's a subjective assessment at what point a naturally disambiguated term is too uncommon in reliable sources to be a good article title candidate. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Averageness (beauty) is immediately problematic because it implies plainness, a middle spot between low attractiveness and high attractiveness, when this article is actually about averaging of facial features yielding high attractiveness.BD2412T22:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While titling decisions are made most often with reference to usage in reliable sources (i.e.WP:COMMONNAME), I would like to first establish elements oftitling policy relevant to this discussion. As few of the proponents of the move have made reference to usage in sources, I will start by examining the remaining sections, most notably theWP:CRITERIA:
While brevity could be considered the soul of wit, it is nonetheless true that taken to extremes, that such wit can be hard to identify or establish. I will, however, make my best attempt by linkinghuh?, expressed by the nominator and two others, torecognizability,a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
A related criterion isprecision, which our guidance for disambiguation and primary topics also fall under, and thus appears to be item most closly linked to the rest of the nom. As overprecision is is discussed under this criterion, I believe it appropriate to fold our consideration of concision also into this point.
A third criterion considered be said to benaturalness, however, our policies offer little guidance on how to evaluate this criterion, and I would propose to fold this under consideration of COMMONNAME.
Consistency does not appear to have been brought up, so I don't think we would necessarily need to discuss it in detail.
As I have little desire to screen the hundreds or thousands of results in an unrestricted search, nor format and post all those that pass screening here, searches were restricted to the last twelve months (since recent sources are preferred anyway), and further limited to abstract only or similar where required. Google Scholar returned about 386 results with the year restrictions, down from (supposedly, about) slightly over 10 000, and 19 when restricting to abstract only by using the "sort by date" option. Screening down the results a bit more, number 8 is removed due to date, 2, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18 I'm going to dump as not quite being RS. 9 I'm screening for language. That leaves 1, 3, 15 using the term as as mediocrity, 6 as average in the mathematical sense, 17 something about big 5 personality traits(?), 4, 10, 12 for this topic. Not a majority, hoever, consideringWP:SMALLDIFF, I would reject the mathematical sense for consideration at this title, and mediocrity or good-enoughness is easier to NATDAB in my opinion. Besides, isn't it a bit premature to DAB for an article that doesn't exist yet? As an additional note, "averageness" AND "attractiveness" returned (reportedly) about 236 results while "averageness" AND ("good enough" OR "mediocrity") returned only ("about") 29. Those results were not individually screened, because again, I do not want to do more than a hundred of them, but based on my current view of the sources, I cannot support a move at this time.
As the proponents of the move have apparently decided to work from theleast preferred dab options upwards, I do not really have any strong alternate names to evaluate for a prevalence comparison (as per our usual method of deciding on names,WP:COMMONNAME). I did see "typicality" used once or twice, but that appears far less precise, and would without a question require a dab. "Average face" appears to be another option, but while there are 22 results on GScholar Abstract-only, and those results are more specific tofaces (for obvious reasons) a quick look (without full text screening) indicate those results are not as specific to attractiveness studies. I would lik[e to return here to the point that we optimise for a title that someonefamiliar with (i.e., notunfamiliar with) would recognise. "Facial averageness" is probably the best NATDAB option we have, with alternates like "averageness theory" used far less frequently (though not exatlyobscure in the field), and somewhat less precise at the same time (the "cognitive averageness" in Atiyeh et al. appears to be used only there), however, though preferred over the later dab options, it is still roughly 10 times less common than "averageness" alone. I do not believe it has been established that any such disambiguation is at all required, and the base nameis in fact used in literature.Oppose.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: I think Google Scholar is very much the wrong data set to consult to determine the common meaning of a word when read by the typical Wikipedia reader, which is who we are writing for. Try Google Books for that.BD2412T01:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the titling policy makes reference to the typicalreader, only the typicalreliable source covering the subject, and I chose to use scholar because I believed scholar results were more likely to be stable (though of course, if I wanted it to be fully reproducible I probably should have used something like Scopus). I will take your point and conduct the review of books results also, though. As there were no results for the cutoff dates of my previous search, I have chosen to extend the search to two years (i.e., the following query:?q="averageness"&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:11/14/2023,cd_max:11/14/2025&udm=36 ). As the number of results were much fewer, I'd consider that evidence that the term is significantly less prevalent in book sources than journal sources (keeping in mind this is also a full text search, not abstract only). Of the thirteen results, 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 appears to be on this subject, thus slightly over half, with #13 being about the hand instead. I am inclined to decline the considerable time investment to do a more detailed writeup because I do not believe it answers a useful question (that it is a majority instead of a plurality unlike earlier does not really make it more likely this is the COMMONNAME).Alpha3031 (t •c)07:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is something about predicting missing bits of a face image.[18]
References
^Kukleta, Jan F. (29 October 2025)."Guest Commentary: The Robotic TAPP from the Perspective of the Laparoscopist". In Kudsi, Omar Yusef; Dietz, Ulrich A.; Fortelny, René; Beldi, Guido (eds.).Robotic Hernia Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 341–343.doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71630-4_44.ISBN978-3-662-71629-8. Retrieved2025-11-14.I believe that inadequate academic recognition of hernia surgery coupled with lack of motivated mentoring, acceptance of averageness and neglect of the importance of quality of life are the real reasons for suboptimal performance.
^Yamaguchi, Mayu; Ikeda, Kazuhiro; Kawasaki, Yayoi; Sugimori, Eriko (2025). "Role of Dynamic Facial Expressions in Judgement of Attractiveness: AI and Human Analysis".American Journal of Applied Psychology.14 (1).Science Publishing Group:1–13.doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20251401.11.ISSN2328-5672.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
^Krampač-Grljušić, Aleksandra; Kolak, Ante; Markić, Ivan (2025).Jesu li daroviti učenici uspješni u prijateljskim odnosima? – kvaliteta međuvršnjačkih prijateljskih odnosa darovitih učenika [Are gifted students their successful in friendships? – The quality of peer friendships among gifted students]. Visoke strukovne vaspitačke i medicinske škole u Vršcu. pp. 107–118.ISBN978-86-7372-327-3.ISSN1820-1911.Pregled empirijskih istraživanja pokazuje različite nalaze – od izoliranosti i odbačenosti darovitih učenika do njihove prosječnosti i popularnosti u vršnjačkim odnosima. [A review of empirical results on the friendships of gifted students has shown their controversial nature, with some findings indicating isolation and rejection, while others suggest averageness and popularity among peers.]
