This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
They call this a stub, but I think it's nicely done. It would be hard to expand on this without making it a laundry list of things that touch on Elegance but are not elegance in and of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Its says all that needs to be said, in a simple, effective way. It's really..um, what's the word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to take the time to comment on how elgantly written the article is, and unsurprisingly I'm not the only one.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I heard an elegant explanation of elegance that might fit in this article, "Something is elegant when no part of it can be changed without making it worse."J P M7791 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be a definition of perfection, not elegance. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Different applications of the term are not fully isomorphic in the sense described by Douglas Hofstadter as follows: “The word ‘isomorphism’ applies when two complex structures can be mapped onto each other,...
There are ten different meanings given for isomorphism, this specific, (often) contradictory one is likely to induce confusion in those who 1) use a different definition, or 2) are utterly unfamiliar with that jargon. It's distracting, and may read like gibberish. ...and it's extraneous, not needed, inelegant. While this might have relevance below, it hardly belongs under General concept.
--184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
I concur. This article is an absolute disaster, and fails to capture the essence of elegance altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the addition in this edit, while referenced, is too close to the source. I've removed it. If someone feels the concept is worth including, please feel free, but ensure it is in your own words. possible source--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)