Talk:Dating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Family and relationships
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of family and relationships articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 



File:South Indian wedding ceremony.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:South Indian wedding ceremony.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing all the dating advice[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a dating guide. This article has lots of totally random dating advice that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Like advising women to hug their knees "to mimic buttock imagery"(?!!) and suggesting that "dating at a movie is advisable only if followed by a drink afterwards." Just because some newspaper columnist gives some opinions on dating, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I really think the entire advice section should be deleted from the article. Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, others have pointed this out. You are right. You might wish to read the discussion above first. I have been planning to redo entire sections but haven't gotten around to it. And remember that some of the material is still valid and good, but needs to be couched in the right encyclopedic language. The best way to improve it in my view is to get more information, perhaps from anthropology or sociology texts or elsewhere, and redo the tone.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It also appears to be the straight peoples guide to dating. There is one small section about gay men, but little else. SarahStierch (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 :) Yes, perhaps true, but the whole idea of not having any guides is I think applicable, and it takes work to re-do this, and I encourage people to work on it if they feel so inclined; I have other stuff on my plate at the moment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done revamped the etiquette section, removing or recasting the dating advice so it is less advice-y. Hopefully better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a huge improvement. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It still (as always) could use further improving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needs a revamp?[edit]

Does anyone else think probably the best thing would be to rewrite from the ground up? This is terrible uninformative and misleading at present. Turkeyphant 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wondering what you find uninformative and misleading, and why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Last century" --> a term to avoid[edit]

The term "last century" has been used on this page.

I think that the terms like "this century", "our century", "last century" and similar should be avoided in written material, at least a written material which is deprived of any contextual information which would clearly indicate in which century it was written.

The article has probably been written in the 21st century and, therefore, the term "last century" should be probably understood as "20th century". However, this term might have been simply copied from a book written in the 20th century without rethinking its meaning. (We don't have a way to verify if something like that did or did not happen.)

88.207.1.16 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Damir Dukic

Good catch. Fixed it. Yes check.svg Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about "Operation Match"[edit]

The early computer dating service "Operation Match" opened in the Boston area in 1965. It is well-linked by Bing at least. --71.174.166.180 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions in the "Technology" section of this article[edit]

Recent additions about the use of smartphones, texting and such with dating -- there is some good information, particularly a good reference from the NY Times article, but much of the rest of these new additions strike me as original research almost to the point of an essay, going beyond the topic of this article, ie Dating, to discuss how relationships in general are changing because of new communication technologies -- an example of too much weight being given to a part of the article. The reference to the abstract is an example of a primary source and should be removed. My suggestion is to please trim the additions down substantially or else the new additions should be reverted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

how was the day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.205.56 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation[edit]

Second paragraph makes no sense. Danielle Crittenden agrees with herself?

Notes[edit]

The Notes section is garbled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.255.22 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

The tone of this article makes it very hard for me to take seriously.

"In The Guardian, British writer Hannah Pool was cynical about being set up on a blind date; she was told "basically he's you but in a male form" by the mutual friend. She googled her blind date's name along with the words "wife" and "girlfriend" and "partner" and "boyfriend" to see whether her prospective date was in any kind of relationship or gay; he wasn't any of these things. She met him for coffee in London and she now lives with him, sharing a home and business. When friends introduce two people who do not know each other, it is often called a blind date."

Just one example. This is not an acceptable style of writing for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.177.24 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain further what is meant by your sense of "appropriate". The example above, regarding Hannah Pool, was about a blind date, which is clearly relevant to the article's subject, which is dating, and how she went about trying to remove some of the 'blindness' (ie googling her date's name ahead of time). I think the tone is appropriate to the subject, and appropriate to Wikipedia, and the article is well-referenced and covers the subject well, but of course could always use further improvement. Would you prefer the entire article to have an academic-sounding tone (eg, "Studies show conclusively, based on double-blind comparative analysis, that first dates tend to last 2.3 hours, on average") ? A research-y tone (eg, "X% of women on a first date received a followup contact Y days later, with Z% probability of it turning into a second date") The tone of the current Wikipedia article, in many respects, picks up the same tone as used by newspapers and magazines, which treats the subject as a human-interest type story, a study of social customs and behaviors, which it is, often with anecdotes and mini-stories, which works in this context. My sense is trying to make this article too clinical, by examining dating with some kind of scientific microscope, is headed in the wrong direction. In many respects, dating is a light topic, needing a light touch, mirroring how dating in real life should happen, that is, a person on a date, taking the date too seriously, won't do it properly. Dating, as well as studying dating, or writing about dating here in Wikipedia, should not be done too seriously, if you catch my drift -- seriousness and dating are antithetical, mutually exclusive almost, in the sense that trying to be too serious about dating gets it wrong, while treating the light topic of dating in a light way, gets it right, if that makes any sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)