Category talk:Emotion

message: The Emotion template really ruins the layout of this page, and it's redundant.  It should be merged into the category structure, and then everything will be nice and happy. --Beland 06:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I suggest that you  very be clear about the criteria for inclusion  in this category, as there are people unfamiliar with the situations adding categories. Regards, --Mattisse 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your involvement in bringing some order to the category emotion. I see that you are removing many articles from the category, but please remember that the present meaning of 'emotion' as a category is as a matter of fact 'anything closely related to affective states and processes'. As you must have seen, the category might soon be renamed, and several new subcategories might be created. So, your work could probably be more useful now if you would take part to the discussion going on about the category emotion, rather than removing inappropriate links: we need to create more appropriate ones, like perhaps :Category:Religion (affective aspects), if you see what I mean.... Robert Daoust 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no problem if the Category:Emotion did not automatically dump articles into Psychology. Psychology is a recognized discipline and those articles are totally inappropriate. If the Category:Emotion were totally separate and left Psychology out of it, I would have no problem. "Emotion" is not a term used that often in Psychology anyway, but when it is used, it is very specific.  --Mattisse 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working psychologists almost never use the word "emotion" (which is considered subjective) and use the term "affective" (which is observable) instead. So there probably is no need for a Category:Emotion under Psychology. --Mattisse 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it clear that character disorders do not belong in this category 

message: From my point of view, the new version proposed above is just as bad and includes terms that are behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology, like Condolences -- that is more Etiquette or something -- not a term I have ever heard used in Psychology. Can you not come up with some other category for all the non psychologists to use?  Engineering would never put up with that sort of thing, people throwing junk articles in,  nor would Architecture, Mathematics, or most other fields of study.  --Mattisse 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need category Psychology science or Psychological science... as well as category Psychology! Robert Daoust 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version seems just as bad 

message: It really has no business in Psychology anyway. And from what you are saying, there is no way to keep junk out. You seem to be advocating junking up Psychology. You do not take Psychology seriously, as noted in your comment above. And I will add the appropriate !!!!! just to show you I am serious.   --Mattisse 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This category needs to be removed from Psychology 

message: Why do other disciplines get to maintain the structure and dignity of their subject matter, but for some reason everyone thinks Psychology is up for grabs? Psychology and Psychiatry are distinctly different. The similarity lies in the DSM system which both psychiatrists and psychologists must follow. Why do you ask me to join in when you have already decided on a list that has nothing to do with Psychology? I will do everything I can to get around being forced to do things your way. --Mattisse 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there some way to influence the categories used by the WP Psychology Project rather than introducing a non-WP-like control over the categorization process? Also, there are a couple of worthwhile exercises to be done in the emotions area to support the categorization effort:
* documenting (in a table, say) the basic emotions according to the various authorities (psychologists, psychotherapists, philosophers, neuroscientists, pharmacologists)
* documenting the criteria used (where explicit)
* fitting all the popular and literary emotion words (e.g. petulance, rage) into one or more basic emotion categories
Does anyone have thoughts as to which article would be the right home for each of these?
DCDuring 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Over on the Talk:Emotion page, it seems as if many are making a philosophical argument. My objection is to its use in Clinical Psychology because it is not a formal term there. Its use in that context confuses people. Terms in Clinical should relate to diagnostic categories to be useful.  If Research Psychology or Philosophy or some interdisciplinary forum is interested, that would be great. --Mattisse 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are making Psychology into junk - do not remove my comments just because you don't like them 

message: Finally, a request for renaming :Category:Emotion to :Category:Affective states and processes has been made at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12. It appears that such a renaming is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System, a novel, theoretical approach to the unification of psychology developed by professor Gregg Henriques. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. --Robert Daoust 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failure to agree

message: Hi, I'm trying to figure out why there's two category, Emotion and Emotions, since I'm trying to interwiki one of them to :id:Kategori:Emosi. Any informasion would be helpful. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As best I can make it out, this category is for all articles related to the general subject of emotion, while :Category:Emotions is for articles about specific feelings or emotional states. I've added some description for each to clarify this, and I'm moving several articles to the sub-category. --RL0919 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Emotion and Category:Emotions 

message: I am wondering/suggesting that for each emotion under the emotions category, that there should be some consensus/agreed-upon standardized template for the subtopics (but also adding extra topics for variation/nuances, as well). I believe that if we (the wiki community) can create a standardized template approach for each emotion, than one day natural language processing is going to be a lot easier for the emotions wiki-content (and maybe easier for viewers to expect as well). Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized Templates for Each Emotion Article?