Talk:Aura (paranormal)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aura (paranormal) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 730 days

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

On 29 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Aura. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Cleanup[edit]

A full rewrite was suggested, I cleaned up the article a bit but more work is definitely needed. — Paleo Neonate — 01:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Karlpoppery for rewriting substantial parts of the article. — Paleo Neonate — 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rp vs sfn[edit]

Opening this discussion. Comments welcome, thanks — Paleo Neonate — 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand, sfn is a more common way to do this, keeping the notes outside of the text while allowing to refer to pages (and automatically combining duplicates). Rp is an alternative way that may be used when sfn would cause an abnormally high number of footnotes despite automatic combining. While rp permits to refer to pages, when used with blue links, part of the reference appears in the text (page numbers) while the source link is required to know which source they point to. Sfn allows to keep it all outside of the main text without loss of information. — Paleo Neonate — 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also want to request that the I.P. address making these changes would start leaving edit summaries to explain what they are doing. Thank you for your work, but it's confusing at times. Also, please consider creating an account. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were reverted again, without communication. This seems to be disruptive. I'm now reading on what should be done... — Paleo Neonate — 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested, will see... — Paleo Neonate — 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either method is acceptable per the MOS. In this case I think the sfn presents a cleaner References section for the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: Thank you for your input, as well as your cleanup, I agree with your recent changes. —Paleo Neonate - 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theory about how a successful scientific analysis could be performed to prove or disprove aura as the current methods aren't very scientific due to the scientists trying to get the results they expect.[edit]

It has recently come to my attention that 2 aura readers will see the same colors in a persons aura. So to prove the existence of aura you just have to get 2 aura readers in separate rooms where they cant hear each other and ask them to read their own auras in front of a scientist. then they have to go to the same room without telling each other what they saw and read each others auras. if both instances of each persons auras being read line up, then aura is real, if they don't then it means aura isn't real, of course it wont disprove my method of reading aura as I use a completely different technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.192.157 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct the experiment and get it published in a reputable journal, and it can be mentioned in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a meta-analysis of several such studies would be needed. I do not think a single study is usable in Wikipedia for such an extraordinary claim.

Just trying to avoid later accusations of goalpost-shifting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Aura diagram.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 20:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aura (paranormal) → Aura
Aura → Aura (disambiguation)

– Primary topic by both pageviews and longterm significance. According to views, the symptom is the only thing that even gets close to the views of the paranormal/spiritual topic, and the name of the symptom is clearly based on the paranormal occurrence/fictional concept (it is about seeing "auras" in front of things like the supposed energy field). The mythological goddess might be able to compete for longterm significance, but is only a minor goddess. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first thing I think of personally is the symptom, but I am close to someone who gets migraine headaches. I'm not sure there is a primary topic here, but I would support moving Aura (paranormal) and Aura (symptom) to the top of the disambiguation page, similar to the Georgia disambiguation page, as those are the two most likely topics someone searching for "aura" is searching for. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: no one usage is obvious PT, but I've boldly added the two most common usages to the top of the page as suggested by previous posting. PamD 07:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no primary topic with respect to long-term significance, and there certainly isn't any with respect to usage either. The nom's pageviews link already hints at that clearly enough (maybe a reminder that it's not enough for the top article to be receiving more traffic than the one in second place, it needs to receive more traffic than all the others combined), but that's more unambiguously revealed from actual usage data [1]: only a small proportion of visitors to the dab page clicked the link for the paranormal phenomenon. – Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the paranormal topic gets 10,602 views but the symptom gets 6,940, the mythology gets 1,959, the Asia album gets 1,197 and the Miles Davis album gets 1,106[[2]] and there are more than just these uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all but rearranging the dab page is fine Red Slash 19:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Oppose the DAB page has been fixed to highlight the two primary meanings. The paranormal term is probably more common than the medical term, but it isn't enough more common to be the primary topic when there are dozens of less-common terms as well. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Human energy field" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Human energy field and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 16#Human energy field until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]