Talk:List of pseudoscience topics

File size = too large

Here are just a few numbers I looked at. Keep in mind these are rough calculations and estimates, and I see from earlier discussion threads above that some people may still be actively removing entries from this list-article.

The article size is 350,000 bytes; but only 1/4 of that (94,000 bytes) is reader-facing prose text (13,500 words), meaning the other 3/4 is likely citation coding.

We have 555 citations, but only 238 topics (arrived at by counting asterisks), meaning we have approximately 2.3 citations per topic on average.

I might suggest reducing some of the text in each topic, and attempting to have one good reliable source cited per topic (we only need to verify the pseudoscience claim). Limiting the citations to one per topic (a hypothetical scenario) would reduce the file size by 240,000 bytes, leaving the article size around 110,000 bytes.

Looking at WP:SIZERULE, this article's size ranks easily into the level of "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material", and almost to the level of "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". If one wants to keep this article in one piece (not WP:SPLIT), then now is a good time to decide on a stricter format, and start implementing it. (This suggestion to standardize formats ties in with the discussion directly above, Copy edit tag.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer reducing the size of the article via editing over splitting.

Since this is a list article, each item only needs a short sentence or two to identify it and provide a bit of context. List articles like this tend to accrete a fair number of "interesting but tangential factoids" that aren't necessary to provide necessary context, but since each requires their own in-line citation the result is a bloated byte count.

I think we could substantially reduce the size by simply excising material not directly related to explaining the item and why it is considered pseudoscience. Each item has (or should have) a link to a topic article that contains a "Detailed discussion of these topics" so we don't need to include a bunch of tangential material here.

Unless there's objections here, I'll take a whack at trimming the entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with your concept of simply explaining the concept a bit, and leaving details to the linked article (per WP:SUMMARY). I'm whacking at the "Scientology" section, which has 2 entries, 7 citations, 6 of which have lengthy quotes. It doesn't deserve a section of its own. I took a look at the 'religion' section, and most of those are beliefs, not practices. Practices can be pseudoscience, beliefs not so much. (And one was even a duplicate of something elsewhere in the article.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That's how bad this was? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, that was harder than I anticipated; it remains longer than I expected, but I was able to trim 7,090 bytes and 5 citations from the section.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I trimmed a few others this morning. More to come but there is no deadline.

Since the move was implemented, the size has gone from 408kb to 343kb. We're far away from hitting any technical limits on byte size, so the real issue here is editorial i.e. how much stuff do we need to put in front of the reader before their eyes glaze over? I've ventured my opinion above, which is that each entry should be brief.

From an editorial standpoint, lots of text that is "hidden" in the cites doesn't really matter, so I don't think there's a pressing need to trim citations.

So, also from an editorial standpoint, the WP:WORDCOUNT is the main metric to consider. The current article size is 13,260 words (as calculated at wordcounter.net, which is about twice the size of the 7000 limit at WP:SIZERULE where we should "...consider whether the article needs copyediting to omit needless words and maintain encyclopedic concision...". So, I think we are on solid ground from a Wikipedia policy perspective for trimming the entries. Of course, the two of us don't need to do it all ourselves. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing a good start with your edits, Mr. S.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The word count is now under 10.000, so we've made some real progress. More work to do.... Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I like your attitude... and your progress. :)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The word count is now at 8,732, which is below the 9,000 limit for where the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed..."

Could still use some trimming, especially the excessive cites. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The excessive citations (some of which are clumps of 6 or more), will greatly reduce the file size. There are about 200 entries and 400 citations right now. The words and citation count put this article in the 99+ percentile of articles by size. Though I can't imagine splitting this article, if overall size continues to be a problem (especially by growth) I would recommend getting more strict with entry size, or even making the inclusion criteria tighter. At least the list-article is broken up into multiple subsections, making editing and reader navigation easier without worrying about size too much. You've been doing a great job. I've been monitoring your edits and just occasionally fixing typos or other small stuff, basically letting you get on with it without interference.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Two cites per entry doesn't seem excessive, but as you say above, one cite should be sufficient for the brief summary we present here. I've been focused on reducing the readable text, since that seems to be a more pressing issue since we were previously hitting limits that would indicate a split was necessary.

As for the byte count, we're currently at about 240k, down from about 410k. Trimming the cite bloat should reduce that number considerably, but we're still well shy of the 2M hard limit for article sizes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking into it further, while the raw byte size is an easy to find metric, the real technical size issue is the post‐expand include size which is now at:

post‐expand include size: 888690/2097152 bytes

So, while we're still under 50% of the hard limit of 2097152 bytes where things will actually break, it's worth bringing that number down.

And then there's the policy on citation overkill. Looking at the history of the talk page, there were a lot of contentious discussions with the result being half a dozen cites added to the article to "win" the argument. Perhaps we are past that now? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we are past that now. Good job on finding that metric, and for the willingness to continue to a really good result on this article.

My citation count wasn't to imply a mandate to trim to one per entry, but to mention the current count and thereby imply that since most of the entries have 1 citation, that means others have way more to average out to 2-per. SIZERULE also takes citation count into consideration. It is the OVERCITEd entries which can be a focus of reducing citations, not the 2-per entries. So far the file size has been reduced to about 60% of its largest size, and citations reduced to about 65%. This is good progress. The new format, amount of content per entry, and cites-per-entry is a pattern that will surely be copied by any editors adding new entries.

Last month I encountered List of suicides which was at 640,000 bytes and 1,600 citations. Now that article took forever just to save an edit adding a wikilink. As you've found out, there is a technical limitation on the number of citations, and that article was using a strange workaround to get past that limit. But because the article had already been tightly formatted with short descriptions and usually a single citation per entry, there was no other option than a split. This article is nowhere near that level (at least now).

While we're on a roll, now is a perfect time to whip this article into shape, since the likelihood of someone else coming along later and putting in this sort of work is slim to none. I've done a fair number of pulling back runaway articles from the brink and getting them back on track. It's a rare editor who is willing to do that sort of cleanup; most just keep adding salt to the soup. You're one of us now, Mr S.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

In terms of the {{Copy edit}} tag at the top of the article, I took a stab at the first section. There were several difference styles of format; I picked the predominant style. I objected to too many blue links within an entry, and mid-way citations are a sore point. I think most of these entries could be shortened to one or two sentences (preferably one), and leave the details to the wikilinked standalone article. I have attempted a shortening, and format 'smoothing' of just the first section. I like the results, and think we should adopt it as the standard format going forward. Basically: term (wikilinked and bolded), space en-dash space, sentence continuation beginning with a non-capitalized letter. The en-dash is intentional; it's there to visually distinguish between the entry label (this is a list) and the definition sentence, while still allowing the the whole line to be read naturally as a sentence. Mid-entry bluelinks should be kept to a minimum. Citations go at the end; preferring just 1, if possible. I did the first section as a sample, and propose it as the standard format to use for this article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Brain types and Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology entries

Two entries were recently added: Brain types and Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology.

I'm not seeing adequate sourcing to establish they meet the inclusion criteria. My take is that they probably are pseudoscience, but we need to cite reliable sources to include them here.

I'm not going to delete them just yet, but if we can't find adequate cites we'll need to remove the entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that the Psychology section claims that MBTI is "pseudoscientific" by providing sources that do not mention the word pseudoscience even once. One possibility is that the 'pseudoscience' listing was inserted by a competing psychometric assessment. The page is locked for editing otherwise I would have inserted a tag, or something stronger. ~2026-44198-03 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks and no cites. So, yeeting the entries. They can be restored if adequate cites are provided. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Psychology section - claim about MBTI

I would like to also point out that the Psychology section claims that MBTI is "pseudoscientific" by providing sources that do not mention the word pseudoscience even once. One possibility is that the 'pseudoscience' listing was inserted by a competing psychometric assessment. The page is locked for editing otherwise I would have inserted a tag, or something stronger. ~2026-44198-03 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the first reference says that it is a joke. The second also says that it isn't scientifically valid. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

What do WP:RS say? The fact that something is characterized as a joke doesn't make it pseudoscience. I notice that the MBTI article has citations in the lead that appear to explicitly mention pseudoscience. Carguychris (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, some of the first five references there have "pseudoscience" in the title. Someone needs to check those references. I don't have easy access to them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The "pseudoscience" aspect is clearly established at the topic article, but I added a cite here. That should settle things. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Colloidal silver

I do believe that Colloidal Silver should not be on the pseudoscience list, as even in Medical uses of silver it is stated that it is, in fact, a disinfectant, among other things. ~2026-47979-98 (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I think there used to be an entry for Colloidal Silver, but it appears to have been removed. The topic article would be Medical_uses_of_silver#Alternative_medicine, and if properly cited it might make for a good addition to the list. Perhaps someone could share a draft? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Religious scripture can't predict the future

Let's not make this a question about Islam. No religious scripture at all can predict the future. Not the Old Testament, not the New Testament, not any Hindu or Buddhist scripture. Any claim to the contrary, regardless of which faith it involves, is per definition pseudoscience. And that includes the Quran and the Hadiths. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

No religious scripture at all can predict the future. This is not a scientific statement because it's not falsifiable. That said, pseudoscience regarding scriptural predictions is certainly within the scope of this article. Carguychris (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)