Template talk:Hypnosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You absolutely must include Vladimir Bekhterev in this section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bekhterev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmedeoB (talkcontribs) 14:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Size of bar[edit]

I would like to request that the creator(s) of this bar narrow its width. It is so wide that it creates very poor formatting in articles that contain it, especially if it is placed near the top of the page. Such bars are supposed to assist the reader, not disrupt the formatting of the article. As an example of a more restrained template, see Template: Psychology (sidebar). Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but why does the text size have to be so small? The very purpose of this template is to serve as a navigation bar. Right now, most users won't even be able to read the links in it. The text size of the psychology sidebar (which, mind you, is larger than the text size you've actually set on this template) practically constitutes the smallest visible text size (80%). In my opinion, we shouldn't opt for any text size that goes bellow this, as it gets harder to read. Remember that this template will be shown on every page on which there is a {{hypnosis}} tag. It seems a bit far-fetched to request wikipedians to use a magnifying glass simply because you want to preserve one article's layout. After all, the template isn't really that wide. Perhaps it simply ought to be placed in a better spot? --m3taphysical (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
We also shouldn't opt for a sidebar that is disruptive of an article, because that is not the purpose of the sidebar. Someone with some expertise in such formatting needs to fix this bar. Apparently it was created by someone who did not completely understand this process. I believe it is possible to enlarge the text a bit (perhaps by wrapping long entries so they take up two lines) without widening the bar. Template: Psychology (sidebar) has larger text, but the bar is not as wide. But I (and apparently the creator; not sure about M3taphysical) don't know the technicalities of doing that. As the bar was originally created (and changed by M3taphysical) it is so wide it botches the format of articles and is very distracting. So I think if we are going to have the template, it needs to be done by someone who knows how to properly format. It's not good to leave it oversized simply because the creator(s) don't know how to format it properly. Let's suppose hypothetically that an item is added to the bar that is much longer than the longest item currently there (right now it's "Post-hypnotic suggestion"); suppose someone adds an item with about a dozen more letters; do we just let the bar get wider and wider until it takes up most of the right side of the page? I don't think so. If it is impossible to make it into a properly sized sidebar, my opinion is to change it into a template that goes at the bottom of the page, such as Template:Psychology. That basically accomplishes the same purpose but without disrupting the formatting of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know of, there is no general policy on sidebar width limitations. I understand that sidebars are not meant to disrupt an article's content – however I cannot clearly see how this sidebar can really be disruptive. Do you have any visual examples of articles where the layout is actually harmed by the template width? Perhaps a simple rearrangement would suffice. When compared to other sidebar templates, such as those for sociology and Marxist theory, it can't really be considered to be excessively wide. Are you implying that these sidebars are also disruptive to all the articles they are displayed on? In any case, whether the sidebar width really constitutes a problem or not, I believe that we should not display a text bellow 80% of its normal size (the current text is 60% of its normal size). If we absolutely need to reduce the template width – something I currently do not see as being necessary – then I believe this will have to be done some other way than just reducing the text size. --m3taphysical (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert without consensus. My opinion at this point is that this should be converted to a template that goes at the bottom of the page, like Template:Psychology. If we can't come to an agreement, there needs to be an RfC. Ward3001 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Even with my inadequate wiki skills, I created the template below in about 15 minutes. Someone may be able to improve it, but it already works far better than the current template. It is easily readable, it contains all the same information, it can be expanded without additional formatting problems, and it lets the article flow without a distracting interruption. I think we need to choose between the two templates unless someone can come up with a better idea. Ward3001 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting edits so quickly. I still do not see how a template that is merely 150 pixels wide can cause such harmful disruption – especially if we consider that many commonly-used sidebar templates are much wider than that. In any case, my point was that the template should be readable. Whether it is a sidebar or a bottom template, anything is fine as long as the text can be read with ease. Thus I believe we can temporarily settle on the bottom template you made. --m3taphysical (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No apology needed. Thanks for your comments. I'll wait a bit to see whether others comment. In the mean time, feel free to expand the text on the current bar until something is decided about which template to use. Ward3001 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I designed this bar, based on the NLP one already in use. It's not a big deal if people want to resize it but my honest opinion is that it is perfectly fine as it stands. I can read the text perfectly well, and the size doesn't seem to disrupt the format of the articles in my view. I appreciate others might disagree, that's just my view on things. It looks pretty similar to the other sidebars I've seen. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ainslie Meares[edit]

I'm not sure about the inclusion of Ainslie Meares here. My impression is that he's not, e.g., in the top 20 most important figures in the history of the field. The new Oxford Handbook of Hypnosis, a major reference book on the subject published last year, lists roughly 1300 people in its Name Index but Meares isn't one of them. I don't remember ever having seen him referenced in any other textbook either. I'm going to remove him for the time being, until we can establish he's one of the top 20 or so figures in the history of the subject. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not Dave Elman?[edit]

Dave Elmans book on hypnosis is considered the bible by many (mostly outside of acedemic circles..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.113.125 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)