Template talk:Emotion sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emotion sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Human quality?

Isn't empathy a human quality and not an emotion?? =D, categorizing empathy as an emotion is deceptive as empathy is the interpretation of emotion more than an actual "emotion" Nrlight 13:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I second that interpretation (Inherimage 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)inherimage 4:40pm 18 Sep, 2007)[reply]

Sarge Baldy, why add jealousy? I don't see it listed among the basic emotions, by any scholar's opinion (not just Plutchik's)... --Shallot 22:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Isn't jealousy a combination of anger and fear? Agreed, it is not itself a primary emotion. - (Inherimage 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)inherimage)[reply]

Noisy now also added guilt and remorse (also without any mention of it in the log message). Same comment as the above. --Joy [shallot] 13:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was just going by entries in the Category:Emotion. I can't imagine that guilt and remorse shouldn't be considered emotions: if there are a 'classical' set of emotions, then perhaps there should be separate – more exclusive and prescriptively named – category and template? At some time in the future, I may look at this sight it is very informative and will make you laugh! What links here and add any others I find.

Guilt and Remorse are simply Fear when considered in specific circumstances (Inherimage 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)inherimage)[reply]

It's okay, but the template started with a canonical short list (emotion theory). I agree that its name is too generic. I just want to make sure we have some plan WRT this whole thing, and not just keep expanding it in a random manner. --Joy [shallot] 19:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Plan? I leave that to the project manager! :-) Noisy 20:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to why I forgot to mention their addition when I was rejigging the template, I was just carried away with trying to get it to look pretty, and forgot the original reason for going there. :-)

The entries were all run together to try and eliminate the blank lines at the top and bottom of the list. Noisy 15:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never saw those blank lines...? --Joy [shallot]

Seems it's browser dependent: the blank lines aren't there under MIE, but they are under Netscape. Noisy 20:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See also: {{Emotion-footer}} for a more extensive list. Rfrisbie^talk 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The excitement link goes to the excited state of an electron article, not the excitement emotion article

Just as a suggestion: Curiosity is not on the list at all. It is a primary emotion, and the opposite of Fear (Inherimage 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)inherimage)[reply]

No... I don't think that's exactly true. Courage is the opposite of Fear - according to "common sense"... --Keerllston 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the discussions above, I would like to offer my thoughts on this template. As I understand the situation, having read a substantial amount of psychological literature (and the emotion article, of course), there is no definitive - or even commonly used or agreed - taxonomy of emotion. I'd venture that in the interests of completeness, it is justifiable to include all of the emotions disputed above (empathy, guilt, remorse, jealousy, curiosity etc.), and any future additions, on that grounds that there are strong, often published and peer-reviewed arguments for each of them being identifiable, discrete emotions, and not reducible to compounds or opposites that some would believe.

The 'basic' and 'other' sections, although they bear and show the limits of emotion research, seem a reasonable way of keeping the list both useful to the casual browser, and complete for those seeking a more exhaustive catalogue. The simple, alphabetical format we are using now seems valuable, and certainly acceptable, as a resource. Whitespace (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this template

It automatically sticks a whole lot of things into Psychology -- emotion. This articles and words have nothing to do with Psychology. If you do not change the template so that it does not reference Psychology, I will propose that it be deleted. --Mattisse 21:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The study of the psyche has nothing to do with emotions? What could you mean?--Keerllston 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other template

Is it possible to link the list in this template to the footer template? Or do they need to be manually kept in sync? Whitespace (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about wikipedia

i am really impressed with the wikipedia crew.its a wonderful coordination which contributes to the fully fledged information page.keep on the spirits.you are already being acclaimed for your exceptional work (deepti,mauritius) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.27.88.136 (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lust

What about lust? Does that fit in there? 121.45.183.59 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought exactly. Lust/desire is a distinct emotion, a type of excitement, often with aggressive (or submissive) overtones (undertones). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.52 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference, otherwise this whole template is original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Inclusion?

On the Lust topic, it seems to me you want criteria for inclusion. For example, "included in the WordNet English semantic network for 'emotion.'" --Which doesn't include "lust," but does include "sex" and the "sexual urge."

Whether you pick WordNet is another question, but it seems to me you'd want some standard to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.163.56 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References???

There are no references, not even on this talk page. The classification of psychological states as emotions is far from agreed upon in the literature. This template arrives at a list without any references or argument. These should be provided promptly, otherwise I will propose this template for deletion as original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template change

This template is to long, it should be moved to the bottom of the articles using a horizontal table instead of a columnar table. Green Squares (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree more. I removed this template in favour of the bottom one in the emotion main article. The discussion which template to use, is one for the articles, not here though. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to merge these two templates, based on this thread and the thread at Template talk:Emotion-footer#Merge from Template:Emotion. Please use that talkpage for any further discussion. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy

I am having the ambivalent thought about my action of responding to all of the sections you all have added. My section would be about empathy. This is why it is ambivalent.

I want to be able to understand what all of you are seeing and feeling, and I am sure it is retroactive. But to make actions based on irrational thought (i.e. jumping to conclusions because you are unable to empathize) I feel is a complete travesty. I want to illuminate this point to the select group of people who will read this. But I have mixed feelings about it. I have selected all of my typed words, deleted them, and retyped them over and over again due to my insecurity about saying what I am saying.

Everybody has their emotions. And everybody needs to express them. This is something I understand. But when I see these chain reactions, not just on these specific pages but also on facebook, youtube, and whatever else, it just makes me sick. First off, it is not even clear whether or not anybody at all cares remotely about what we have to say. But that is irrelevant because most people are sociopaths when it comes to presumptions. Or most people just do whatever they want.

Granted that people may indeed want to listen to you, there is an almost 0% chance that anybody reading what you have typed actually understands what you have written to the point where they can make an intelligible reaction. I, in this comment, am not even reacting to what you all have written. I did not even read it. I just saw what the template was, and decided to post this for all to read. I think that in the end of it all, everybody says that they do not care what people think of what they may or may not type on this emotion wikipedia page. But I am not saying this for me. I am saying this for all of you. (This is probably not true, I am just trying very hard to illuminate a point, so I may say whatever my subconscious tricks me into saying.)

Everybody does this as well. They say that it is not for them. It is out of their hands. Well I may be saying this for me. But I do not know.

What I do know is that empathy and complete understanding is impossible. The irony of this page makes me very uncomfortable, but I still want to share that with people. So now I have these conflicting thoughts, a sort of constant state of cognitive dissonance.

I love it. I hate it.

Why do we do anything? We are all alone. Black is white to somebody else, but what they see as "white", they call "black". Everything is a series of coincidences, misplacements, and rash decisions without the input of anybody.

I am suffering from a severe case of major depression. So I want more than anybody else to be able to give help and to get help. But as it stands there is no recognition or proof of anything of the sort.

Am I typing in gibberish? An illiterate person might think so. The idea of knowledge is useless. It is used to deceive ourselves into thinking we are making a difference or that there is a connection.

There isn't.

207.172.133.144 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Adam[reply]

Talk pages are no blog, or forum and should be used for practical suggestions for improvement of wikipedia. Can you give a brief explanation why this is relevant for the improvement of this template? Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zest

Wouldn't Zest be consider as an emotion? To take interest in something seems like an emotion to me. Could be wrong, which is why I wanted to talk about it not just edit it. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Probably Zest is not an emotion. Please provide a reference from a scientific journal to support inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add coherence/heirarchy?

1) Not all of the things on this list are emotions according to their pages, for example: depression/despair is a mood/medical condition, which the article on emotion itself says is not the same thing distrust maybe could be but its page isn't about it as an emotion hope is an emotional state (according to the article about it), not an emotion in itself hostility is a response to emotion, not an emotion hurt/pain and shock are physiological responses shyness is a personality trait

2) The template is too long to be optimally useful unless it is structured: for example, have a section which just lists the six "basic" emotions for starters, then below that split between positive and negative emotions, then another level of grouping (i.e. worry, terror, panic, anxiety, and angst are all in a "fear" family)

Making those changes (especially the second) would make all emotion articles more useful, which is important given that "emotion" is a vital c-class article.

Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, I agree this is an unwieldy mess... However, editors think they can basically dump everything they like into templates, and erroneously consider templates exempted from core Wikipedia guidelines like WP:OR and WP:RS. I have tried to clean this one up a few years ago, but have abandoned that at that time as for every non-emotions I removed, other editors added three others within days.

I did manage to keep the (less used) Template:Emotion-footer somewhat coherent, but even there editors do not care about sourcing, about changing sourced lists to things that are in no way related to source etc etc. Efforts to list this template as unsources (using the fact tag) where quickly removed as people felt offended that each and every page that included the (unsourced information of the) template became automatically listed as having unsourced information (although that is of course the case), so apparently red flagging messy templates is (or at least was) a no-go area; making quality management of templates like these a nightmare (to put it mildly).

Perhaps finally the time is here to start bringing some quality to the template wildwest of Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the item "Dread" in this template should be removed

As it is actually redirected to the article "Fear".Huhu9001 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "hysterical" in this context is offensively sexist.

As well as duplicative. Panic, rage, and fear ought to cover it. It redirects to a very poorly written article that is also duplicative. The history of the psychological theory is covered elsewhere (and it is not an "emotion", it is a crackpot theory from over a century ago.).— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Thanks. But don't hope too much it will not be re-added. For some reason much of the reliable source discussions seem to bypass template space, and original research in the form of implied synthesis by adding stuff to template lists appears accepted and even actively promoted practice fortemplates. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

includeonly

@Paine Ellsworth: - Looking in Category:Sidebar templates it doesn't seem like its consensus (i.e. "standard fmt"), and I havn't seen any guidelines for that either. <includeonly> is really annoying when you want to compare different versions of the sidebar (or navboxes), and imho it should not be standard at all. Template namespace isn't for readers anyway. Christian75 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Christian75: I would like to know more about this annoying aspect of using the includeonly tags. ~~For one thing, I haven't noticed any navbars/navboxes where these tags have been used, and for another,~~ (I think I get that you meant that you want to compare the sidebars to similar navbars/navboxes; however I still don't get how includeonlying makes that annoying, nor the following...) I'm not sure I understand to which "different versions" of sidebars that you are comparing them? I remember a discussion many years ago that ended with the suggestion to make sidebars appear only on their /doc pages, which means they should be transcluded to their /doc pages while the templates themselves should be includeonly'd. So I've been working on these sidebars off and on now for 7 or 8 years; however, there are still quite a few of them that need to be updated. You're the first to raise an issue, so I would definitely like to hear more detail. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Some readers are also editors, aren't they? PS left by Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

Is there any reasoning for there to be items in bold but not all of them? Aisteco (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bold ones appear to be the most generally recognised basic emotions. But since I have given up the quest for getting any kind of reliable sourcing into this template, I do not know following which qualification of emotions. Apparently template space is a free for all to create classifications of constructs and redefine whole branches of science; as everyone agrees in words that the claim any of this words is indeed an emotion should be verifiable; but will happily engage in an edit war if you start removing non-emotions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is social connection an emotion?

Is socially connected is an emotion? Even if it isn't a canonical emotion, does it deserve a place on this list? I just updated the page on social connection, and define it as the experience of feeling close and connected to others. This might be a range of feelings, but I think it is at least as much an emotion as rejection. Would love to hear what you all think! Laurisela (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hi, could someone add this to Category:Psychology sidebar templates? I don't know how to. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising to match Plutchik's wheel of emotions

As a heads up, I intend to re-organise this sidebar to match Plutchik's wheel of emotions. I don't have any preference for that classification system over another, I'm simply choosing it because the images on the template currently are of Plutchik's. The list is currently very very WP:OR and very unwieldy, so it needs to be tied to some theory. If anyone has an argument for why we should instead follow another model, please raise it. Please ping me if you respond. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Plutchik's is a nightmare to replicate in a list form. I'm going to base off Parrott's emotions by groups--Xurizuri (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurizuri

I found this source for emotions, which I prefer mainly because neither Plutchik's nor Parrott's models contains Determination as an emotion: https://emotiontypology.com Ninjaspelaren (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Determination

Is not determination an emotion? Let's add it! If my contribution is not sufficient, please let me know what else is required, I'm new here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determination Ninjaspelaren (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added! Thanks for the suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]