Talk:Interpersonal attraction

message: Better clarify/correct the following: "Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, smell, dislike, or hate someone." H15 H16N355 |K1N6 M3 (T47K) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Smell?...''

message: Has anyone noticed that these links are kind of stupid? Ladder theory? Is that mainstream? It smacks of original research. Kultur 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I’m fairly knowledgeable in this area, e.g. I recently wrote interpersonal chemistry, interpersonal ties, and human bonding.  The Project Manhattan link looks stupid, e.g. it doesn’t look like a free content website.  I'll add a good book reference for now.  The bulk of the article reads about right, as a starter introduction.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fastseduction.com would be a free content link that is also more generic than Project Manhattan. Mathmo Talk 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid links

message: A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So do it. >.> MichaelExe (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one word - "proofreading".  You're welcome.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards?? 

message: I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWasp (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Reference 

message: Why is that picture included? Doesn't seem necessary. And it takes up a lot of real estate. And although it appears in the measurement section it has nothing to do with measurement. My vote is to remove it. --1000Faces (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Hi all! I propose to merge Attractiveness into this article, Interpersonal attraction. Both refer to the same subject, attraction between people. The attractiveness article does also refer to a handful of other concepts, but those (to me) seem to be due to poor writing. Regarding the direction of the merge, "attractiveness" could also refer types of attraction so it isn't appropriately differentiated, whereas the name "interpersonal attraction" is specific to the psychology/sociology concept. Also, while we're here anyway, if anyone has any opinions on the merge proposal from 2012, comment on it because we might as well wrap that up too. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support both merge proposals: Interpersonal attraction, because its a near synonym, and Chemistry (relationship) because its a subtopic best discussed with the context of the broader topic. Klbrain (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Attractive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Attractive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   talk 06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attractive" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article is not very generous to asexual perspective which could give some more informative substance to it. Pingijno (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allosexual perspective