Template talk:Infobox Paranormalterms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry. Didn't mean to call you guy's box ugly. Actually, it was Wikidudeman who called it ugly when he took it out of precognition, so I came and made it look.... ummmm.... ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Recent changes 2 Usage box 3 Move to a proper template? 4 Signature 5 Template's scope 6 Recent changes

[edit] Recent changes

Perfectblue seems to be trying to widen usage to cover any kind of kookery. That is a problem, in my view, in that it leads to a box which is even more prone to in-universe descriptions of things with (for the most part) little or no basis in reality. Per WP:NPOV, it might be defensible to have a box for all terms, mainstream or not, but not one for fringecruft only. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have gotten the wrong end of the stick. I'm the other person, the one whose trying to get pursuade people to ensure "correct framing", I'm not the user reverting the changes. Please check the edit history. You may or may not be aware of this, but a recent arbcom ruled that paranormal terminology was a cultural artifact. This means that it has a set meaning but that meaning does not imply truth or acceptance, but also that it must be correctly framed. I am attempting to comply with that ruling by ensuring that this box enables users to correctly frame the terminology. Doing otherwise could put the template in breach of the arbcom.

As per the Arbcom

1) Paranormal terminology is a cultural artifact. Its use does not imply scientific acceptance or even existence *. It would only be POV pushing to describe something as being real rather than paranormal.

2) Describing kookery exactly as it is is not only acceptable, it is required. The line is only crossed if you strop describing kookery and start implying that something is real. * Describing a term used by ghost hunters as being a term used by ghost hunters does not imply that ghosts are real, or that the term is scientific. Only that the term is used, and "this" is what it means.

3) An "in-universe" description forms part of the epistemological status of a topic. If a term was coined to mean one thing and one thing only, then the reader must be told that in order for them to have a proper understanding of the topic. * It is irrelevant whether the term is scientifically valid so long as the entry frames it correctly. In brief, you must include a clear description of what a term "actually means", regardless of whether it describes something that is plausible. failing to include a description could potentially put an entry in breach the arbcom.

4) Kookey is perfectly acceptable so long as it is notable and properly framed. * *

5) An unscientific topic must be identified as such by using correct framing. Describing something as being Paranormal or using a related term is sufficient to do this. * *

6) "it might be defensible to have a box for all terms, mainstream or not," See above, it's not me that's restricting it, it's another user. I'm arguing that this box should span all areas relating to the paranormal, including hoaxes, debunking, and popular culture. It's not me that's changing it. It's somebody else.

7) Per WP:NPOV (from a second arbcom ruling with a 6,0 majority). In order for an entry to be WP:NPOV all significant perspectives must be covered. This mandates that the perspective of people who believe that "kookery" is real must be included in order to ensure that an entry is balanced. *. This backs up the first arbcom when it said that an entry should be to discuss controversy and to explore the different perspective, not to reach a correct conclusion on the topic. *

I'm trying to comply with the arbcom rulings, not trying to POV push. An entry about "kookery" is permissible, it must describe the "kookery", describe all significant opinions about it, and be correctly framed as "kookery". In this case, describing "abductee" as it was coined. The primary alternative to this infobox would be to use a science based infobox. Which would be unacceptable to many users. Including myself.

Please stop trying to drag fringe science in to the issue. In 99% of cases this is popular culture. Bringing fringe science into the mix is just confusing. It might even be considered POV pushing: to try raise the status of a paranormal term to a scientific term by implying that it is accepted by a fringe movement within mainstream science.

perfectblue (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you create an infobox for "paranormal terms" and then decide to extend its use to non-paranormal terms, and that's OK, because defining the terms in-unioverse is not a violation per your interpretation of correct framing, yes? Only every time I've seen you discuss the issue of framing it has been to promote the paranormal POV, whereas the N in NPOV is rather closer to Normal than to Paranormal. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but whatever gave you that impression? The instructions for this box clearly state that it is for use with paranormal items only (it's even got "Paranormal" in it's name). If somebody has been using this template otherwise you should take it up with them. If you look at the top of each page there is a link marked "Page history". Go a disputed page and click on the history link. It will tell you the name of the every user who has edited that page. This is, always has been, and I believe always should, be a paranormal only template. This is made clear in the instructions. I have never said anything to the contrary.

At this point I also feel obliged to point out that the application of WP:NPOV to paranormal entries has already been ruled on by administrators, twice. I believe that the second ruling said it in the clearest possible way. To paraphrase: In order for an entry to meet WP:NPOV it must cover a topic from both the perspective of a believer and of a skeptic. In brief, WP:NPOV does not mean that an entry has to follow the mainstream POV, it means that it must discuss all POV. * This means that in oder to meet WP:NPOV an entry must tell the reader what believers believe, even if what they believe is total and utter bunk with no foundation in science.

perfectblue (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While I often agree with your approach to addressing out-of-place fringe theories in science articles, in this situation the ArbCom findings make it clear that as long as an article does not pretend to be science by using effective tagging, there is no problem describing cultural artifacts that are not mainstream. An infobox is nothing more than a convenience device for navigating and summarizing the the articles of related topics; just because it looks authoritative does not imply it is presenting science. Especially with the appropriate heading in the infobox for effective tagging, there is no issue of WP:FRINGE at all. The N in NPOV does not stand for Normal, it stands for Neutral. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage box

Would users please stop adding Paranormal/Parapsychology back into the heading.

1) Parapsychology is the study of certain paranormal concepts. Having them both together is redundant. 2) The title is too long. It's unsuitable for all screen sizes. Especially with so many people using portable web browsers these days. 3) This infobox is now being used for ufology debunking and skeptical terminology. The title is no longer suitable

It's best just to get the user to add Ufology or whatever to the title themselves.

perfectblue (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments here, even though I had added those words previously, I no longer think they are needed. The main thing is that to fit with the ArbCom finding on effective tagging, the infobox does need a topic heading for clarity. I concur that can be added by the editors who use the infobox, and that the documentation on the template should indicate that the parameter for the topic heading is required. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why "exactly" are people opposing this? So far nobody's given a clear explanation what's wrong with allowing variable framing words. Even my attempt to update the instructions was reverted. I asked for this to be taken to the talk page but so far that invitation has been declined. - perfectblue (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a solution that might work. I made a new template, at this link: {{Infobox Topicterms}}. It's the same as {{Infobox Paranormalterms}}, with one additional parameter at the top to add a heading specifying a topic-area for the infobox to cover. That way, the subject area "Paranormal", "Ufology" or whatever can be added, to satisfy "effective tagging", indicating clearly that it is not intended to be a "science" topic and is instead a "cultural artifact". This also means the infobox can be used for other kinds of more general terminology too, like fiction or dog training or whatever, without interfering with the usage in the paranormal-related topics.

If you like this idea, you can probably just edit {{Infobox Paranormalterms}} to change it to a redirect to the new template and all the existing pages that use it will automatically use the new one. A note will appear in the infoboxes on each page, alerting editors that they need to add a topic heading to the infobox. They can substitute that note by adding whatever topic-area they choose.

What I like about this plan is it takes the discussion out of the realm of the infobox template being particularly "paranormal" and the decisions can be made on the talk page of each relevant article if anyone disagrees with using the infobox in a particular situation.

I'm not a template expert so if you want to use this idea and it doesn't work right, a post at Village Pump-technical usually gets a fast response. If you don't want to use this idea, no problem, just a suggestion. Good luck. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfectblue, I told you why I oppose this. The template is used for in-universe descriptions of paranormal terms, and paranormal means paranormal, so widening it to apply to thin gs other than the paranormal would make it just "infobox terms". Guy (Help!) 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you keep saying. However, you have yet to explain why you are afraid that this might happen. Have admin suggested forcing Project Paranormal to open up its templates to other projects? - perfectblue (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to a proper template?

Have you guys are considered moving this to a proper template, e.g. like {{paranormal-terms}}?

I'd be hapy to help out drafting it if there is some consensus.

Personally, actually, I do think iti s pretty harsh on the eye. Black and Red (the sense deprivation image) from a graphic artist's point of view have very ahrd connotations and are just too beloved of totalitarian dictators the world over ... ;-) ! it could do with being softened and made smaller/less intrusive.

My 2c --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

I think the "signature" element needs to go. The definition is contentious enough, being in most cases a definition used by believers and missing the crucial qualifying terms for NPOV (i.e. ability to do X rather than the NPOV purported ability to do X). The signature is, in most cases, a restatement of the definition in even more POV terms, and the term signature is not likely to be accepted by mainstream commentators. I see no evidence that anyone other than true believers asserts that so-called psi abilities have such "signatures", and all are stated in terms which imply the objective reality of the thing - please do point out any uses of this infobox on terms which have any objectively provable existence. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The box is clearly labeled as being about something paranormal, thus about something that isn't real/scientific, there is no way that the reader could possibly mistake this for something scientific. Describing the signature of a paranormal phenomona is no more POV than having an infobox describing superman's super powers or how fast the original starship enterprise could fly. It's part of the mythos. - perfectblue (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, this infobox is also used to describe debunked phenomona, and debunked or discredited phenomona, and they have clearly definable signatures. - perfectblue (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template's scope

Hi – Is this template used to address only one term per instance, or sometimes groups of terms? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I've had to revert the recent changes made to the formatting of this info box.

Firstly, this is a project infobox, all changes really should be discussed on the project page before they are carried out.

Secondly, the formatting changes introduced a couple of errors in the infobox's structure, both of which related to optional fields. Boxes that didn't include pictures ended up having a double depth black header instead of the original single depth header. Info boxes should only have a single depth header otherwise they become unbalanced (basically, the infobox had a huge black block at the top, double the depth of a normal infobox). The user defined field at the end of the page was also damaged and it ceased to show up. This field is very important as it is used to display key information that could not be displayed under the edited version.

perfectblue (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)