Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles C‑class(Level 2)
WikiProject iconEmotion has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joseph Tejada Vera.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amaryhaw21.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduce a new theory about emotions[edit]

   Information to be added or removed: Emotional Theory of Rationality - ETR. An evolutionary approach to emotions as functional elements to optimizing brain functioning as a whole. It explores the structure and dynamics of emotional system, linking it with attention and cognition through a new architectural model. According to ETR theory, emotions are the mechanism to optimize the balance between the interdependent variables that define the quality of responses that living beings deploy before challenges, including survival and reproduction. The model sets a framework to scientifically define and better understand some psychological and behavioral phenomena. 
   Explanation of issue: This is a new architectural and transversal approach to explain emotions, which integrates different casuistics into a more general model. It has already (recently) been published in a JCR journal and received more than 8.000 readings and almost 900 downloads.
   References supporting change:

Mario Garcés (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply 20-SEP-2019[edit]

  1. Although it wasn't stated in the request where this particular information is to be placed, the Theories section may be where the COI editor intends the information to be placed.
  2. Looking at that section shows that more than one reference is given for each different theory offered. Nowhere in the article is there a particular theory offered with only one substantiating reference.
  3. I think a good idea might be to require additional sources for this theory before adding it to the article. But as the request was just made, I'll leave the request open so that other local editors more experienced in the article's subject can weigh in.
  4. I'd also note that the COI editor appears to have a connection to the offered reference based on their username being the same as the report's author — although the spelling and grammatic errors in their proposed text do raise questions about that connection.[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  08:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ If the COI editor were using a cellphone with predictive text to make their posting here, that might explain the issues with grammar in their request.

thanks for the remarks[edit]

Thanks a lot for your remarks. I have corrected some expressions you pointed out. Please let me know any other change you think can improve the quality.

Mario Garcés (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloekesssler (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Chloekesssler (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should short footnotes be banned in this article?[edit]

One of the editors opposes use of a particular template (SFN) in this article. Is there consensus for a ban on using this template? It has been used in this article for the last 11 years. J JMesserly (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a strange way to frame the question. This is not about a 'ban' on a template, but about consistently using the inline style of citations already used by ~98.7% of the existing cites. MrOllie (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I misunderstand? You do not want Sfn to be used in this article any longer, although it has been used for the last 11 years. Does anyone else support your proposed change of practice? I don't. Is there some benefit to having all inline references that users see? If so what are they? J JMesserly (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a "change of practice". Adding more {{sfn}}s would make the article's citation style less consistent. Changing all the citations to {{sfn}}s, as you propose to do, would be a unilateral imposition that clearly violates the relevant community standard. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the article should move towards a consistent style, regardless of which style individual editors prefer and that there should be consensus about what that style is. Where is the decision what that style should be? J JMesserly (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J JMesserly (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile, upon a quick examination I found a crackpot source, a misrepresented and misplaced source, a reference with broken formatting and missing authors, and multiple failures of text-source integrity. The introduction was full of incomprehensible phrasing, like The content states are established by verbal explanations of experiences, describing an internal state. What does established mean here? Is this saying that verbal explanations are necessary to create a content state within a person's mind? No, it's taking a typically dry and academic description of self-report studies and making it even worse, stripping out any detail. It's just a well-nigh impenetrable way of saying, "If you want to know how someone feels, you can try asking". XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that there is a lot of cruft in the refs which are difficult to identify without rigorous examination. If the article moved instead towards a central repository of sources, identification of dubious material would be simpler. By scanning the alphabetized list of sources, a subject matter expert can easily spot authors they do not recognize or who are widely considered to be promoting discredited theories. An unsorted sources list makes it easier to hide such shenanigan's.J JMesserly (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rigorous examination" means looking them up and reading what they say. One can do that in the order that they appear. Alphabetizing a list of sources before deciding which ones are worth including at all would be doing things the wrong way around even if Wikipedia's community standards looked kindly upon wholesale changes of citation style, which they don't. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahem. Rigor means being careful to understand what you are doing. This includes not deleting page numbers which you did when you removed the sfn. I strongly recommend you revert that edit.
To your continued theme about "wholesale changes" Once again, let me emphasize I am not proposing wholesale changes without reaching consensus with the community of regular contributors to this article.
You think the article is now more consistent by banning SFNs. But you in fact erred when you removed the SFN and the well regarded textbook from the further reading section. The style of many articles is to mix both inline and end of article citations. To your way of thinking, that makes an article inconsistent. Presumably for all articles with such mixtures, both you and Mr. Ollie you would remove the lower frequency sfns in a similar fashion you did the when you moved the fox reference inline. Yet you have not understood the structure. It is common for many articles to list a core set of authoritative texts variously described as "Further reading" eg: Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Recommended reading", or "Bibliography".
Consider the Wittenstein article, both sfns and inline <ref>s are mixed in the article. But consider how they are being used. It would be incorrect to conclude that the contributors are being inconsistent. In that article, when a contributor makes a reference to an authoritative source in the Further reading section, they use an sfn. When they make a reference to a newspaper, journal article or any other reference to a source not in this section, they use inline ref. The style insures that a readers do not infer a false equivalency, which can be the case when mixing all sources in the same section. As far as I can see, contributors to this Emotion article hold the sources in the further reading section in high regard and would remove any new sources added to the section which are not of the highest caliber. So consider the situation when a contributor cites from one of those sources. As recommended in the guidelines, rather than redundantly copy the same citation inline, they used an sfn, they could have used an alternative template like rp or harv but the point is that the former contributors wanted to have an end of article list of sources.
You seem to be ok with contributors elevating the quality of some sources above others. Yet if anyone actually cites from one of them, you insist the reference must be removed from the recommended reading list.
So let's step back and consider the damage you have done to this article. Setting aside the trivial errors with page numbers and dates of publications, on what basis have you demoted the well regarded text "Emotion Science: An Integration of Cognitive and Neuroscientific Approaches" from the recommended reading section? J JMesserly (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why this discussion is still ongoing; it's about the most clear-cut case of going against WP:CITEVAR that I have ever seen.
On Wikipedia, items listed in "Further reading" are supposed to be further reading. They are not references. Making a reference to an authoritative source in the Further reading section is bad practice. Any item in a "Further reading" section that is actually cited needs to be promoted to being an actual reference. I haven't demoted anything or damaged anything, just brought the article closer to compliance with community standards. XOR'easter (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also hard for me to say that contributors to this Emotion article hold the sources in the further reading section in high regard when they haven't even bothered to provide ISBNs for all of them. The default state of a "Further reading" section is an unmaintained pile that attracts self-promotion and other drive-by additions of dubious merit. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]