WikiProject Psychology (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Older discussion

Why are a few of these links external rather than Wikipedia links?? Georgia guy 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some words don't have encyclopedia articles, so they're linked to dictionary articles. Rfrisbietalk 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's fixed. Jmlk17 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template links are to link to Wikipedia articles, not otherwise. Dictionary links do not count. In fact, if the dictionary definition is enough, you don't need the article. --Mattisse 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is repentance really an emotion? Does it belong on this template? Aleta 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; maybe it depends on the definition of it to some people. Jmlk17 10:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These words are mostly not emotions - template needs to be changed or deleted

I object to this template and will propose that it be deleted if you do not change it so that it does not reflect the field of Psychology. --Mattisse 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it be deleted if you do not change it so that it does not reflect..." Are you perhaps meaning to ask that it's changed so that it does "reflect the field of Psychology"? As far as I know, there is no definitive, complete taxonomy of emotion. The template is expedient, and so I think it should stay and be developed further. Whitespace (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic emotions

Since the very distinction between basic and other emotions is highly controversial (see article on emotions for instance) I suggest that this grouping is removed. I am going to incorporate the basic ones into the main group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talkcontribs) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jcbutler has replaced the basic distinction. Whilst I note the usefulness and the agreement in psychology about these basic emotions (but only the kind that is reported by New Scientist), there are some extremely prominent theories that disagree (e.g. Ekman, Prinz, Solomon). Secondly, the list is culturally biased, since not all these terms have equivalents in others languages. Thirdly, the very notion of 'basic' is highly theory laden, where there is no consensus that emotions have such innate emotion specific systems (e.g. a fear system rather than simply dimensions). Fourthly the term implies that non-basic emotions are built from basic emotions which is again not agreed.

Perhaps some sort of compromise is possible here? We could have a list of 'common' emotions (no more than ten) and then a second list of all the rest (including ambiguous candidates like lust, interest etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this template and immediately thought how ridiculous it is. Who has determined this hierarchy of emotions? Are all other emotions supposed to be based on some mixture of these four "basic" emotions? What is the formula for ambivalence? Patience? Surprise? Also, the link from the template to the basic emotions (Emotion#Classification by basic emotions) is broken. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Template:Emotion

I suggest a merge from ((Emotion)) to here, to prevent redundancy, and because the larger list seems more worthwhile, and because it is not an Article series hence it makes more sense to present these links as a navigational footer template. Any thoughts/objections? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense to combine them, but it's also handy to have two different sized templates. The side template is easy to see right away, but the footer template is useful when there are a lot of pictures and other templates in the article. I would agree to making them identical in content, but I oppose merging them into a single template. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jcbutler. The contents should be identical (and generally very inclusive) but it's worth keeping both formats. I think the side bar is most appropriate for the main emotions article at least. Meanwhile I think the psychology template should be a footer as it is less relevant than a list of emotions to this page. Remember that despite its importance, emotions are not just a psychology topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talkcontribs) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having 2 identical-content templates, except for their design, would be the very definition of redundancy. They need to either differ in content, or get merged into a single template. There are currently 52 items in ((Emotion)), and 68 items here.
If we decide to retain 2 templates, we could make ((Emotion)) into the list of "basic emotions" and this one into the "full list of emotions". Or something else, if anyone has any suggestions?
If we merge them to a single location, the format/design is less relevant, and can be changed anytime in the future. Whether sidebar or footer, can be determined in another thread. – I prefer using footer nav-boxes, until a set is well-enough developed to be called an "article series". And, 68 items is a lot to squeeze into an unorganized sidebar navbox. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sidebar must have a very good reason to be put in the heading of an article. Given that any list of emotions, even 'basic', is controversial, I cannot see an 'article series' on emotions. An emotion footer is quite enough, as far as I am concerned. --Robert Daoust (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a sidebar need to have a "very good reason" to be put in the heading of an article? Many psychology articles use the psychology sidebar, which is typically located on the right side of the beginning of the article. This is very useful, and there is even advertising research indicating that right-hand side bars are more frequently noticed and clicked on than boxes in other locations. I would wager that templates located at the bottom of the page are less frequently used, though they still may be useful, depending on the article. What's the big difficulty in using both? Their functions are not redundant and I hardly think we are taxing the storage capacity of Wikipedia by keeping both types. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Research also indicates that the heading or first viewed part of an article is the best place to put what you want to be seen first and foremost. When people go to an article, they want info on that topic, not a list of apparented topic. I agree that depending on circumstances a sidebar or a footer may be preferable. In the case of emotions, a footer seems more than enough to me because emotions do not form a well defined group according to reliable sources, such as someone would likely want to get info on each of the listed items. I think there should be templates, list articles, infoboxes, and categories for linking together in some ways affective or emotional topics: for emotions, a See also link to List of emotions would be enough for me. --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to merge the content of these templates to here, and deprecate the use of the sidebar ((emotion)), based on the feedback in this thread, and Template talk:Emotion#Template change. I'll also confirm that it is included on all the pages that it links to.

Please discuss any problems here. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The footer template is small and easy to overlook, and I don't think there was ever a consensus to merge. As a compromise, I advocate using the footer (alone) in all articles except for the emotion article itself, where the sidebar can serve as a useful supplement and conveniently visible reference point. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Common emotions?! I know some of us didn't like the term "basic" but at least it has some usage in psychology. Common doesn't mean anything except "common" and unless there is evidence showing that anger actually occurs more frequently than affection, let's just call the whole thing off and have a single list already! --Jcbutler (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should merge the "basic" in, and have a single list. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Supposing those four are, in fact, the "basic" emotions, then are the others the "complex" emotions? Are they combinations of the "basic" emotions? Ambivalence = 1 parts happiness, 1 part sadness; Patience = -2 parts anger, 1 part fear; Surprise = 2 part fear, 1 part anger, 1 part happiness. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I agree, it was a rubbish compromise! --Thomascochrane (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like where this is going. I can't believe there is no comprehensive taxonomy of emotion. You would think one could explore its evolution through its expression during developement just as we note evolutionary development through zygote development. -- xtss33 17:02, 16 June 2008 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

It's not completely unresearched. [1] -- Scarpy (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desire is a dab page

The current link to Desire in this template goes to a disambiguation page. This is not technically correct, as it should rather go to an article, but I'm having trouble figuring out which article to send it to. WP doesn't currently have an article for Desire (emotion). Anyone have any ideas? Should I just turn it red? SlackerMom (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these all emotions?

Are honesty and patience considered emotions? --BryanD (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider them emotions. But what is an emotion seems to be very open to question on this template. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposed that irritability be deleted

irritability proposed deleted here and then I discovered this template. Earlypsychosis (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't the emotion "relief" be added? Maybe I'm just missing something. But I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of cleanup

I just finished removing a number of items from this list because they are not, in fact "emotions" -- and I'm sure I've missed some. (I also considered a number of items that I left on the list because I was not entirely certain they should be removed.)

This template is NOT supposed to be a list of "things that have something to do with emotion", but that seems to be the standard that some editors have used. I rather doubt that there is actually anything left to be added to the list at this point, so please think it over very carefully before adding a new item to the template.

Here is the list of items I removed: *Acedia * Calmness *Epiphany *Fanaticism *Inspiration *Kindness *Melancholia *Shyness. Cgingold (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work, I agree this list has been expanding with all kinds of things vaguely related to emotions. Reliability and verifiability seems to be not as strictly upheld in templates.
In this case it is rather complex as lists of emotions are rather difficult to come by; you would have to look in top end pyschology journals to find anything of relevance. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed OR tag

Not really appropriate. Dicdef or categories will say something is an emotion. Although category:Emotions might make the navbox redundant. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The taxonomy of emotions is still the topic of academic debate. Wikipedians tend to add whatever they like to this template. We need a reliable reference for the list, and for each and every term added outside the listref. Without that I the list is not sourced and should be deleted altogether; or second best be tagged as lacking sources. Arnoutf (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mr. Farmbrough.
Equivocations don't need to be displayed in a footer.
Varlaam (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above the taxonomy of emotions is an ongoing scientific debate. This template has a history of editors randomly adding terms to the template, and a blunt denial of all to provide sources.
I know of no guideline that explicitly exempts footers from WP:V.
Simply put, the compilation of this list IS original research and therefore the warning to the readers MUST be in this list per WP:V.
Of course I would be happy to remove the unsourced information AND the tag, but that would leave an completely empty template as it stands now. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, navboxes and footer templates are apparently part of the wild west of Wikipedia where people can add stuff without citations, and where quality control is not appreciated. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sea of dablinks

Check out this tool. Each link in red is a disambig link that must be fixed. Anyone want to help? --JaGatalk 05:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red names

The emotions with no existing articles should either redirect to their synonymous articles or be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Stress an emotion ? - Or just some catch-all related term ...? - (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]