Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Perfectblue97 (talk | contribs) at 09:42, 23 June 2007 (→Why black?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Wikipedia articles related to the paranormal.

Template:WikiProject Paranormal navigation

WikiProject Paranormal

The current Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is Cottingley Fairies.
Please improve the article any way you can.
Every month a different Paranormal-related topic is picked.
The candidate with the most support as of 31 March 2007 UTC
will become the next Collaboration of the Month.
The current time is 06:12, Sunday, November 17, 2024 (UTC).

The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

Loch Ness Monster anagram

I'm trying to find a source for the origin of the joke anagram "Monster Hoax by sir Peter S" - unfortunately my books don't mention it, and websites either name "the London papers" or Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn. Any answers? Totnesmartin 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching Google Books? I have been finding that very helpful lately in sourcing articles and claims within articles.LiPollis 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in the New York Times archive:
"London, Dec. 18 (Reuters) - A Scottish member of Parliament has discovered an anagram for Nessiteras rhombopteryx, the name applied to the fabled Loch Ness Monster by a United States researcher, Robert Rines and a leading British naturalist, Sir Peter Scott.
Nicholas Fairbairn, the MP, announced the anagram in a letter to The Times: 'Monster hoax by Sir Peter S.'
Sir Peter, a long-time believer in the monster, said last month that its existence was proved by underwater photographs. Others remain skeptical." ("Loch Ness Monster Shown a Hoax by Another Name." New York Times 19 December 1975. p. 78.)
Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to the Times of London. Hopefully, though, this is enough to point you in the right direction. Zagalejo 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks! I'll put this in as well as the book cite that I'm trying to tell myself I didn't travel 20 miles to find... Totnesmartin 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

  • can we just list the code for the template instead of showing both the code for the template and the actual template itself, it seems to take up alot of space on the main page and I have found that to be very annoying (could just be me though (:OP ) ... i rather just list the code (saves a lot of space) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the template:- just needs to not be used so the whitespace to the left of the sections on the right is removed. I removed it but then the tasklist moves next to the member infoboxes (on 1440x900 resolution and "simple" skin anyway), which isn't that bad but there must be a way to force just that section to not be overlapped without having to wait until the end of the right-side sections. I tried other "clear" templates but no luck. OK, I used a nested table and it seems to work now. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the templates on the main page allows users to see what they are about. The names themselves aren't very clear. For example, ParanormalPeople is about people who work in paranormal fields (ufologists etc) not about people who are intrinsically paranormal in themselves (Harry Houdini, for example). - perfectblue 15:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can take advantage of are collapsable sections. I'd recommend using them for the to-do list, infobox templates, and I'm trying to find a sortable+collabsable table for the deletion nominations. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Heeled Jack

Spring Heeled Jack has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Resurgent insurgent 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet another AfD: Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another AfD: Mel's Hole

They just keep a comin'. Please look at the artilce and consider weighing in with an opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's Hole The nomination asserts that it is unsourced. it IS sourced to the best of our abilities. SInce the sources are all radio shows and a few newspaper articles, we did the best we could. All other references are from rabid hole-searchers message boards which we can't cite. - LiPollis 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was mentioned a couple days ago a few entries up, actually, but thanks anyway. :) ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully it survived but in a greatly truncated form. Still, a small and well-sourced article is better tha no article at all, right?LiPollis 10:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to some of us; if this were international politics, nuclear war would've been unleashed long ago. --Chr.K. 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd compare the treatment of the paranormal around here to ethnic cleansing and Witch trials, but anything that I said would likely be deleted under WP:something that wasn't originally intended for this purpose but is not being used to stifle the fact that belief exists regardless of science. - perfectblue 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a mainstream publication. As such it will never be a good source for the paranormal. Thats neither bad nor good... it's just how it is. I've long ago accepted it... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't accept that the mainstream can't cover the paranormal. While there might be disputes over the existence of phenomona, it is undeniable that unscientific phenomona have been defined in terms of terminology, that they are believed enough to make them notable, and that there has been research into them (even if it is sometimes flawed). All of these things are perfectly eligible for inclusion. To deny them because science doesn't believe them is tantamount to going into an art gallery and destroying all of the impressionist paintings because they aren't photographic representations. - perfectblue 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Day

Project Bot

Users interested in maintaining and improving articles that fal under the project might be interested in This. It lists articles with our label that have been listed as needing verification etc and can help us to better target our efforts to improve the quality of coverage of the paranormal.

It would be great if somebody could transclude it onto the main project page so that it will be easy to see where we still have work to do.

perfectblue 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Exopolitics#Education

Talk:Teslascope#Article_rewrite

collaboration of the month

Hope you don't mind me putting your name on your comment, Nima. Anyway, I second this proposal. The article was awful when I came across it months ago, and it still is now. Totnesmartin 09:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:ScienceApologist

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. J. D. Redding 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see one, are you suggesting that we make a complaint? If so, please please take a a look at what I wrote on the Rfc for the Paranormal as I included several examples there of his/her behavior in that. Particularly when it comes to making impossible demands.
perfectblue 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They removed it ... after a brief time. J. D. Redding 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Having had several articles AfD'd recently (many on grounds of there's no such thing, make it go away), should we set up some notability guidelines for paranormal articles? Perhaps looking at relevance/impact of topic, usefulness of sources etc. Any ideas? Totnesmartin 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that many of the people who want such entries deleted have a fixed mindset that goes "It's not considered real by anybody that I consider important, it's not notable". - perfectblue 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Perfectblue97. J. D. Redding 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think establishing notability guidelines would make no difference? Possibly, but perhaps it could help, when starting new articles, to know what's likely to make the cut. Not all AfD's lead to deletion. Totnesmartin 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a few exceptions, I can't help but feel that the notability Afds that I've seen relating to thing project have basically been people wanting things that they don't personally believe in out of Wikipedia.
Personally, I think that as soon as we produce a notability guide, skeptics will jump on it and use it against us. On one hand we will be slammed for "writing a charter to publish non-notable bunk", and on the other every time we try to do something that falls outside of our guidelines we will be accused of breaking our own standards. On top of this, users certain users whom I will not name here ("cough" hyperskeptics "cough") will demand that they get a say in proceedings and will try to steer the guidelines in such a direction that it will exclude sources that we consider valid and will create a cutoff point that we consider far too high. No, I think that notability guidelines will be another big headache and an argument waiting to happen.
perfectblue 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to become the first Wikiproject to create a Notability Rating Scale alongside Quality and Importance, if it hasn't already been done. If it has, do what whoever it was did, only better. --Chr.K. 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This raises one all important question, "Notable to whom?"
For example, Nordic Aliens are highly notable in Europe and in Britain (where they are said to show up and to tell people that we need to stop polluting the planet and to quit fighting with each other if we want to make it as a species) and have been so since the 50s based on the percentage of abduction/contact claims that they are referenced in. However, in the US they are rarely if ever mentioned, and are often only spoken of by the looniest of the loons (who seem to believe that they "sometimes show up alongside greys", and that they have a fetish for raping women and seducing men). In Europeans (thus non-English language) terms they are probably the most notable group, in the US they are not really all that notable.
Equally, from our perspective something is can be considered to be notable from a cultural/social perspective alone. If X million people believe it, or are interested in it, then it is notable. While from a skeptics perspective it doesn't matter what everyman thinks only what scientist think. For example, the Grey shows up in about 70-75% of all US abduction reports and was made famous by Fire in the Sky and the X-Files, making it notable to us. However, most scientists dismiss them as being biologically unlikely, and lacking in empirical evidence (and so not worth consideration as anything other than an exercise in human psychology), making them not notable to a skeptic.
How would we balance these opposing views in any notability guidelines?
perfectblue 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image for use

Found this Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png .. thought I'd post it here. J. D. Redding 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of WikiProject Paranormal

I think that one of the parameters for the scope of this project should be reconsidered. I found that the article for the Kensington Runestone has the tag for this project, and I really don't think it could be classified as paranormal. However, under the stated guidelines, it could fit in this category on the basis that it is beyond what is considered to be scientifically plausible (see below).

"Paranormal phenomena * An umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena, including any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed possible/plausible under current scientific understanding."

I think the "plausibility" criterion should be taken out. Being implausible doesn't make something impossible, and I really think that only phenomena that are impossible under the current understanding of scientific principles should be allowed here (ruling out the Kensington stone).--Tabun1015 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, our scope has always been a little hazy. Personally, I don't see anything paranormal about the Kensington Runestone. Zagalejo 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is important that we keep the plausibility criteria in for one simple reason. There are things that come under our scope have which are "hypothetically possible" but are discounted by science/scientists as being implausible by virtue of Occam's razor. For example, the existence of aliens is possible, and it is hypothetically possible that they have been coming over here and probing rednecks, but it is highly implausible.

As for the specific example that you cited. I'd be OK with you de-tagging it. It's more of an archaeological issue than a paranormal issue. Are there any notable myths about it having paranormal properties, or having been created through paranormal means?

perfectblue 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case

Been out on a case. The people in Arkansas had claimed that some UFOs are demons, The Devil, that kind of thing. My primary witness, a former USAF NCO said it was some kind of military training. Still here from time to time. Martial Law 01:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say about people from Arkansas, don't you?
perfectblue 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Paranormal Barnstar
This brand new Barnstar is hereby awarded to all worthy recipients, curtesy of Perfectblue97, who has just designed it for the project.
Love it! Should we vote on who gets it, or just hand them out as we may? Totnesmartin 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it.

According to Wikipedia guidelines anybody can award any Barnstar to whomsoever they feel merits it. Personally, I'd like to see our Barnstar going to users who work to put paranormal entries on a sounder footing by making sure that they are well cited and evenly worded (pseudo-skeptic proofing), rather than being given out for pure bulk contributions. But that's just my preference. You can award one to anybody you feel deserves it.

perfectblue 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, too damn funny. Is that an actual crop circle? If so, I think you need to give a more specific source on its image page... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this where you got the image from (and then edited)? If so, you should credit it ("based off of this image")... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great =D Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! Geir 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very cool but I'm wondering also if some kind of permission or credit needs to be given since it is obviously based on this image:
http://www.hyperflight.com/images/pentacle-crop-circle-2002.gif
Still, it's a great barsntar! I just wish I could grasp all the intracacies of wikipedias image use polices. LiPollis 10:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was inspired by the August 02 Beckhampton Pentagram, but with the Wikipedia Barnstar in the center. - perfectblue 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the aleans will file a copyright suit? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they entered US jurisdiction in order to file or fight a suit they would be liable to all sorts of class action suits from farmer claiming that they'd sliced and diced their cows, and from rednecks claiming that they'd given them the probe. - perfectblue 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Circle article

Crimson Circle article

Hi folks! I've been working on the article found here User talk:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle. To day I published it under the title Crimson Circle (Shaumbra). Within one hour it was deleted. As you can imagine I become very upset, after all I did put a lot of effort into making the article. Please give me your opinions.
I also wander what experience you've gained on matters like this on Wikipedia. Is there an attitude against articles with paranormal matters? Geir 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have some minimum notability requirements, but if you can find some newspaper/magazine sources that discuss Crimson Circle, then you should be fine. Wikipedia does allow articles on the paranormal as long as they are neutral in tone.
That said, it's not entirely clear to me from your article exactly what the Crimson Circle is. You might want to take a few steps back and think of how to describe this organization to someone with no prior knowledge of it.
Good luck! Zagalejo 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that every single source was produced by the group itself. This generally isn't a good idea. Try citing a paranormal magazine etc that has spoken of the group in instead. - perfectblue 18:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there an attitude against articles with paranormal matters?", put simply, yes. There are those who consider belief in the paranormal to be dangerous and those who consider it to be stupid, both groups dislike the idea of paranormal content on the internet because they fear that it will encourage belief. They fear even the acknowledgment of the existence of belief, particularly when that belief is in contradiction to science or at least to the principles of science from their particular standpoint. You can have a page up about an obscure school in the middle of nowhere that nobody has ever heard of, with no citations to prove it's existence, and it will still be there in a years time withut even a "Fact" tag on it, but you try to put up a page about a somebody who claims to be psychic who made international headlines after apparently cracking a police case, and it will be AFD on grounds of notability in 5 minutes flat. - perfectblue 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, even doubling theory, which was developed by a PhD and covered in an allegedly major European scientific conference, was quickly AfDed after I created it. Ridiculous! Please contribute to its AfD. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the way that the page is written lends itself to deletion. There is very little information on the topic in question, it brings in several side topics but doesn't explain their relevance or the topic's relevance to them and it is written like a summary of an entry rather than an entry itself. I'd like to help, but I'm neither familiar enough with the topic to expand the entry or with the terms of reference enough to participate in the Afd in more than a token way. - perfectblue 07:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why it's a stub--I had only just started it when it was almost immediately AfDed... But the links/references go into more detail of what it is, but I did provide applications (as was covered in the conferences featuring the theory)... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 07:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the delete criteria. Was it Notability? I suggest that you look for some mentions of the topic from third parties and avoid bullet points. - perfectblue 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your time and concern! I think I've learned that dealing with topics like this on Wikipedia, I have to do my homework better. Thank you! Geir 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Carajou?

...I'm STILL waiting for him to produce that evidence showing how the Pogo 22 disappearance wasn't a completely bizarre mystery, so that I can get on to asking him about the Flight 441 U.D., next. --Chr.K. 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking Karajou over on conservapedia. Looks like he's moved on. Totnesmartin 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Maybe he actually read what happened, and ran. --Chr.K. 12:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He never struck me as the running type. I seem to recall he had a lot of flak about uploading images, and maybe he just got fed up of the hassle. Totnesmartin 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this:20:38, May 15, 2007 EVula (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Carajou" (per user's right to vanish) which only says when, not why - except that it was at his own request. Totnesmartin 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with his demand that everything on the Triangle be referenced/sourced, but not with his POV statement at the top that it's just a sailor's legend; after I basically called on (demanded) him to bring up the files on Pogo 22 and others (but especially that one), as he said such things were easy if one tried, I've waited for about four months now. Basically, him not being around ticks me off, since he made such a stink about people like "us" (those who are quite certain anomalous events occur therein) not being serious about the article's presentation. --Chr.K. 07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A legend? I thought that it had been scientifically established that that whole region was prone to unexpected sea/weather conditions that made it deceptively treacherous. - perfectblue 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not established enough for the liking of the pseudoskeptics. --Chr.K. 14:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Bot (redux)

Hi! Perfectblue asked me to run the aforementioned project page list, and the bot's been running it daily. First, I'd like to know if anyone has found it useful? Should I keep it in my bot list? Second, if the answer is "yes", I'd like to move it to a project page, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do from bot or something like that. Since I don't watch this page, would someone reply on my talk page? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detatched talk pages

Image talk:Paranormallogo1.png is a talk page about an article that apparently does not exist. If it can proven that the item in question does, then the image needs to be connected to; if it no longer exists, discussion for whether the talk page should be likewise eliminated, to be held here. --Chr.K. 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the logs, it was deleted since it exists on Commons. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the image is now on commons. - perfectblue 10:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There then needs to be some sort of link across to the image itself, so that it can be given classification. Without identifying what's there to begin with, such is impossible. --Chr.K. 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrogravitics/paranormal debate

What I would call reasonable doubt has been cast over whether electrogravitics should be under the purview of WP:PARA. Please study the article, and make your assessement, so a classification can be assigned, or the article culled from the list. --Chr.K. 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with this. Primarily because many of the entries on List of alleged UFO-related vehicles are neither alien, nor spacecraft.

  • Black helicopters aren't alien or spacecraft. They are just high tech helicopters in which people related to various conspiracies are said to travel.
  • half of the Black triangle myths are about top secret US/Russian aircraft like the stealth etc rather than aliens or spacecraft
  • The Chupa are mostly tied in with stories of spirits rather than aliens (they are said to be from a spiritual dimension/plain rather than an alien planet).
  • Green fireballs. Again, often more often thought of as being an unidintified natural or man made phenomona rather than alien or space related
  • Would be POV pushing to describe Identified flying objects as alien spacecraft. Especially as they are quite frequently said to be government disinformation, unidentified natural phenomena or terrestrial vehicles.
  • Lenticular Reentry Vehicle, man made, plus it is an orbiter not a spacecraft
  • Military flying saucers, man made and mostly said to be aircraft rather than spacecraft
  • Mystery airship, said to be German, not alien. Also not spacecraft.
  • Nazi UFOs, again, totally human in design and either prop or jet aircraft, not spacecraft. Not even built using alien technology.

perfectblue 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Xenu" paranormal tag

I've come to wonder if WP:Para is involved so as to bolster the number of FAs we have, from one to two. There is no reason to have this in what is hopefully a project about the exploration, preferably in line with rational scientific method, of that which the current mainstream paradigm does not yet accept, ranging from unexplained objects and disappearances to psionic eminations, spectral apparitions and more. Mr. Hubbard's "theories", meanwhile, have no backing whatsoever in archaeology, nuclear physics, or hell, even demonology. The article should not be in WikiProject Paranormal, but rather WikiProject Religions, which is what Scientology claims to be (rather than, say, a tax-evading cult). --Chr.K. 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree, but don't get upset, please hear me out. While the name of the project is "Paranormal" we actually cover a very wide range of topics that are nothing to do with ghost, ghouls and things that go bump in the night. In fact, we pretty much cover everything that is related to aliens and UFO (We don't cover pure fictions such as the X-files or Saucer movies etc). This brings Xenu within our remit. The fact that there is a religious crossover isn't really that important to us as it's the aliens at the core in which we are interested.
If you look at entries with our tag, you'll see that we already have ones that deal with contactees who founded religions/cults, the hypothesis that we are the product of alien intervention/colonization, and many other beliefs things in which there are Xenu like parallels.
perfectblue 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a project about the exploration, preferably in line with rational scientific method, of that which the current mainstream paradigm does not yet accept", personally, I think that that is far too restrictive a goal. We can't neglect the popular culture aspect of the paranormal, nor the way in which our society has shaped/been shaped by unscientific beliefs. For example the belief in UFOs alone has spawned a multi billion dollar industry of films, books, documentaries, TV series, merchandise and conventions, all of which exist more or less independently of rational Ufology. - perfectblue 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there is sizable evidence to prove the very existence of the UFO commercialization industry, which in turn was spawned solely by the legitimate sightings and reports of witnesses, a sizable number of them credible (despite the claims of the Pseudos). What evidence is there, in any field, to support the "Xenu hypothesis" of our planet's history, outside Hubbard's, and/or other Scientologists', claims? Remember, this was the guy who said "If you want to make real money, start a religion." By including him, and what is obviously not backed by common sense, we in fact assist the pseudos in accusing us of being willing to include/believe anything bizarre-sounding, whatsoever, so long as it disagrees with the mainstream. Anti-mainstream should not be what the project, and the subject in turn, is about. --Chr.K. 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, then: We should have high standards, which Scientology does not live up to. And no, I do not believe that is a subjective statement; arrogant me, eh? --Chr.K. 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree. Our primary lead for inclusion should be notability, not credibility. We're not here to make the Paranormal sound rational and credible, because it often isn't. Instead we're here to ensure that what accounts we do include are written in a rational and credible way.
To be brief, it doesn't matter if Xenu is in any way a mirror on reality, only that it is notable and that belief in/about Xenu is recorded in as neutral and accurate a manner. - perfectblue 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why black?

I wanted to ask why the paranormal templates including the "Paranormal terms" infobox is styled in black? Why not for instance green? Wikidudeman (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-files : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think green would look more lively. From the Ectoplasm of the Ghostbusters. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the infoboxes and chose black for two reasons 1) It is synonymous with the paranormal, from the X-files and MIB toBlack triangle UFOs and black helicopters, 2) Other projects aren't using it. - perfectblue 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they allowed image backgrounds, I'd have the paranormal templates pimped. Do they? I've never seen them.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "Pimped" do you mean "jazzed up" - colorful - decorated - stylized? The answer to that is three fold. 1) Infoxboxes are supposed to be informative not decorative and as such should be kept simple. Thematic colors in the headings are generally the most that are ever used. 2) It is technically possible to use code to create decorated infoboxes but it is not advisable as said code and the capability to view it varies considerably between different web browsers and so should be avoided. 3) Would you take a page about technical terminology used in parapsychology seriously if it was plastered with the X-files logo or pictures of aliens etc. It's best to keep page styles down to Earth, even if the topic isn't.

perfectblue 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal&oldid=140083501"