Template talk:Emotion sidebar

message: 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)
replies: text: The study of the psyche has nothing to do with emotions? What could you mean?--Keerllston 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to this template  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  about wikipedia 

message: What about lust? Does that fit in there? 121.45.183.59 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reference, otherwise this whole template is original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lust 

message: 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)
replies: text: Preferably a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for Inclusion?

message: 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)
thread_title: References???

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Template change

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Empathy 

message: 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  (talk • 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)
thread_title:  Zest 

message: As it is actually redirected to the article "Fear".Huhu9001 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suppose that the item "Dread" in this template should be removed 

message: 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  (talk • 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)
thread_title:  The use of "hysterical" in this context is offensively sexist. 

message: - 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: Is there any reasoning for there to be items in bold but not all of them?
Aisteco (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is social connection an emotion? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Added! Thanks for the suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determination