User talk:Avery127
Welcome!
[edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Emotion navbox
[edit]Hi Avery127
I noticed your recent addition to the Template:Emotion navbox. In my view very relevant, but I was wondering whether PAD, Lovheim, Plutchik and Circumplex (now added under classification) are not also emotion theories. And that brought me to the further thought - given that the 'related' section is getting overly bloated whether it would make sense to add a 4th category to the navbox "Emotion theories". We could populate that with the Theories bracketed list (which you added relevant topics to) and much of the classification. What do you think? If you agree I am happy to go for it. Let me know. Best Arnoutf (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, go for it. I have been thinking about it myself, because it is getting quite bloated, and additional categories would make it easier to read. I have also been thinking about categorizing emotions themselves within the template, because of how they are all mushed together. For example, by valence and arousal: high valence+high arousal, high valence+low arousal, low valence+high arousal, low valence+low arousal, making 4 rows within the emotion section. However that would probably cause a lot of editing wars over the exact classification that is being used, for example, whether they should be classified according to Russell or Plutchik, and whether or not each emotion would belong to high/low valence and arousal so that is just something to think about. Anyway I support your idea, it should definitely be implemented, go for it. Avery127 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)