|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dating article.|
|Dating has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A Wikipedia contributor, Jimsafka (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
- 1 Removing all the dating advice
- 2 File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion
- 3 Article needs a revamp?
- 4 "Last century" --> a term to avoid
- 5 Nothing about "Operation Match"
- 6 Additions in the "Technology" section of this article
- 7 Evaluation
- 8 Notes
- 9 Tone
- 10 "Dating" as euphemism for "sleeping with"
Removing all the dating advice
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)
- 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)
File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion
|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
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.
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)
Article needs a revamp?
- Wondering what you find uninformative and misleading, and why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"Last century" --> a term to avoid
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.)
Nothing about "Operation Match"
Additions in the "Technology" section of this article
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)
Second paragraph makes no sense. Danielle Crittenden agrees with herself?
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."
- 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)
"Dating" as euphemism for "sleeping with"
The article accurately describes the phenomenon known as "dating". But as I am sure most readers are aware, at some point in history, at least in coverage of celebrities, the term "dating" morphed into a synonym for "sleeping with": a story about a celebrity previously thought to be heterosexual but who now reveals that he or she is actually bisexual will be worded : "X admitted that (s)he has dated several [members of the same sex as the celebrity] in the past". Or an article about a celebrity's recent love life will say "After being in a relationship with so-and-so for ten years, Y has now been dating Z for the last six months".