Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Archive 1

Starting the project

Forming, storming, norming, performing... Well, Tuckman's theory doesn't apply here, since Wikipedians (excluding the trolls) are performing since the day they start writing, and there are already lots of very nice articles on psychology here. I still thought it would be a good idea to have a WikiProject were Wikipedians interested in psychology could "get together" and collaborate. I hesitated about creating a project, with the risk of just starting another project, but... why not?If nothing else, we'll have a central place to discuss issues such as "what do we do about the crowded Psychology category".

Well, I am Simon, and I study psychology at the Uppsala University in Sweden. I've spent some time the last couple of months on this Wikipedia and the Swedish one, mostly working on psychology articles.Recently, I've been adding stuff to Timeline of psychology, and I tried to nail the Millionth Article with Relational Frame Theory, but was to slow on the Save button and came in 1000019th...Well, I'll let someone else talk now. /skagedal^... 15:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Behaviorism

The behaviorism article, IMHO, is good and not overtly POV... however, it is a rather controversial field (like any paradigm in psychology), and the article does not feature the "controversy" section often found in articles on controversial topics on WP. Does this omission make it POV? Please adivse. Zeligf 19:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! (I moved this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Articles, thought it would be a good idea to keep project discussion in one place.) I think you're quite right. Even if it doesn't mean the article is "POV", it definitely means it "needs expansion". I think I'll have a go at this... /skagedal^... 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is a controversy that has very much gone off the boil.Ratinabox 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psychology

As I briefly mentioned, I think we need to do something about the Psychology category. There is a big problem with categories that have subcategories and more than 200 articles: If you look at Category:Psychology, it says "There are 5 subcategories to this category". This is false — there are more subcategories, but you need to go to the next page to find them. This has got me confused a number of times. There is a simple way to fix this: if you change [[Category:Psychology]] in e.g. Category:Perception to [[Category:Psychology| ]], it will be sorted alphabetically before all the others, and thus appear on the first page. IMHO this solution is a bit ugly. The proper thing to do IMHO is to move all (or most) articles that lay directly under Category:Psychology to subcategories. What do you all think of that?

And what about the current category tree layout, do you think it makes sense? A nice way to browse the categories is to use this tool. /skagedal^... 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Updated: The limit is 200 entries, not 100. /skagedal^... 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been browsing around looking for policy on if one should ever include an article in a category if it's also in a subcategory. Specifically I was wondering, should Alfred Adler really be in both Category:Austrian psychologists and Category:Psychologists? There is a discussion here with pretty good arguments that he actually should (also se under "Proposed consensus statement for professions subcategorized by nationality"). It's likely that somebody will want to browse all psychologists, rather than just by nationality, and apparently the problem with big categories is not as big as it used to be, with a new category TOC feature. I wanna put an {{allincluded}} on Category:Psychologists.

Also, I'm gonna go ahead and do the "ugly hack" I spoke of above on Category:Psychology, I see it used on many places and I guess we'll have to live with that until the software is fixed. /skagedal^... 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current category tree is very well organized, and establishing a more coherent system would probably be a great aid to organizing and navigating articles. Some of the subcategories only contain a few pages ("Psychological Theories" contains four, and "Symbolic System" contains one) and can probably be disposed of; others might be worth keeping as sub-subcategories (although we have to be careful not to get carried away with over-classification). I think it would be a helpful first step to reach a consensus on which of the current subcategories are worth keeping as primary level subcategories, and whether any others should be created. My own feeling is that these would be a good set of top-level subcategories:

Branches of Psychology; Psychological Schools; Psychologists; Psychology Books (doesn't seem to fit in any other category); Psychology Experiments; Psychology Societies; Psychology Stubs.

--Zeligf 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current category tree needs work. I also just noticed the "Symbolic System" thing, that looks to me as a Category for Deletion. I'm wondering if we really need "Branches of psychology" as a level of it's own - why not have "Social psychology" directly as a subcategory of "Psychology"? That's where I'd look... /skagedal^... 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too many branches of psychology exist so they can not be directly a subcategory. Anyway the first problem is not the definitive three but the redundant categories wich make a 300-articles-soup due to lack of possibility to categorize them clearly. pyl 14:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (that there are too many branches to each be a subcategory)... also, putting all the branches in their own category gives us the option of distinguishing between "Branches of Psychology" in one subcategory (eg developmental, social) and "Psychological Schools" or paradigms in another (eg behaviorist, evolutionary). --Zeligf 16:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar situation with Category:Education.A summary of what we did is here:Categorization of Education articles and subcategories. Rfrisbie^talk 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. That category tool is cool!!!. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rfrisbie! Looking over your discussion there was pretty helpful. Actually, skagedal, seeing their system of subcategories made me change my mind about putting all the branches of psychology into one subcategory--I think you're right, and it does make more sense to have more subcategories and less sub-subcategories. --Zeligf 03:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions to help clean up the psychology category: Rfrisbie^talk 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the conversation about details over to the category talk page so readers can see what’s going on and more editors will be likely to participate.
Add a to do list.
Add a section on recommended guidelines, similar to those at the Education category.
Keep the “Branches of psychology” and “Psychological schools” subcategories.
Use the “Psychology” category primarily for articles in the two subcategories above plus other subcategory title articles as far down as seem useful.
Add a subpage to be used as a scratchpad for possible category tree arrangements.
Use some existing taxonomies as benchmarks for revising the category structure.The following example seems to be a good candidate because its high-level categories are similar to and more complete than what is here.
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Thesaurus Scope Note: Psychology studies mental processes, such as perception, cognition, memory, and emotions, as well as individual behavior.
  - Detailed outline (least detail)
  - Quick hierarchy (more detail)
  - Annotated hierarchy (most detail)

Zeligf: funny, I was about to say that I was convinced by yours and pyl's arguments to keep the "branches of psychology" level :)
Rfrisbie: good ideas — that link to the AOD taxonomy is super, we can have great use of that! I'm confused about what you mean with "Use the “Psychology” category primarily for articles in the two subcategories above plus other subcategory title articles as far down as seem useful." - can you explain a little? /skagedal^... 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skagedal.I'm suggesting a slightly modified "topic article rule" like what's at (Reasons for duplication).That guideline basically says put all the articles with the same name as a subcategory in the main category too.Because the "branches" and "schools" subcategories here contain so many important articles, I would put all of them under the "psychology" category, as long as they belong there.Any other subcategory "title articles" can go there as well.The last part is I would look at "sub-subcategories" for title articles that also might be worth including.Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 21:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you have been doing great work, Rfrisbie! The psychology category is looking much better! What you're saying above makes sense to me. One example: I think the articles on psychotherapy are way too hard to find: Psychology » Branches of psychology » Clinical psychology » Psychotherapy... This is IMO important enough to be exposed directly under Category Psychology, but should we put the category psychotherapy or just the article? /skagedal^... 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a "hobby."I just finished a "first pass" through all the articles on the main page and some of the subcategories.Mostly what I did was recat pages to more specific articles, added a few broader subcategories, reintruduced "title" articles for the main "branches" and "schools," and added a few "big" lists.Now, "Social psychology is at its 200 item limit!!! :-0I'll keep putzing and make a few more comments on the talk page and the notepad subpage. Rfrisbie^talk 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on that category/article thing, I think it's okay to "bump up" an article from a sub-subcategory or two and still keep the category structure the general way it is.In this case, we might even want to consider grouping "branches" and "schools" under a broader subcategory like "approaches."That's basically what the taxonomy I've been using does. Rfrisbie^talk 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or...maybe just putting "Schools" under "Branches" would be simpler. What do you think? Rfrisbie^talk 20:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not answering earlier, but I'm not too sure about that... What is the advantage of having it so? I don't think the structure should be unneccessarily deep. I think I prefer having "schools" and "branches" as separate organizational levels, directly under "psychology". /skagedal^... 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went and changed it before I saw your reply (I wanted to give it a try). I wasn't too worried about "deep" categories because all the important articles are listed under the main category now anyway.I thought putting them together would help someone see both categories, no matter how they navigated to them.I won't complain if someone moves it back. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Maybe we should use this system for the assessment of Articles... /skagedal^... 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the system we have, but is there something better about this system I'm missing? --Zeligf 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that it would be nice to have consistency in assessment projectsall over Wikipedia, and apparently this is what the Version 1.0 Editorial team recommends. It's basically the same five levels, but with a bit more about what the different levels mean. /skagedal^... 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathology

I left a note on the WikiProject Psychopathology talk page regarding whether we can add mental disorder articles to our ratings page, or whether they'd rather we leave that to them. --Zeligf 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the go-ahead from the psychopathology project and added some mental disorder articles to our ratings page. I'm going to bed without having listed every disorder; still left to do are sexual and gender identity disorders; disorders of infancy, childhood, and adolescence; personality disorders; delirium, dementia, amnestic and other cognitive disorders; sleep disorders; and substance-related disorders. I think the first three I listed are pretty important, but we could probably stand not to list the last three for now. --Zeligf 05:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology tasks

I started a {{Psychology tasks}} template for the project page.It's designed so it also can be added to the portal, like at Portal:Education, or wherever. Have at it! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 21:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

I was somewhat surprised to notice the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing didn't have an article about them, so I started one.Please feel free to help expand it and link it to other relevant articles. Rfrisbie^talk 19:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how I covered the Testing standards in another article. Rfrisbie^talk 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New project template

Now that Category:WikiProject Psychology exists, I created a new template for talk pages {{WikiProject Psychology}} that automatically adds the page to the category. Rfrisbie^talk 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project userbox

I made a project userbox. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox}} Rfrisbie^talk 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind me moving the template to the Template: namespace? — Sam 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Cognitive Psychology

I have made this template but not added it to the pages yet because it needs tweaking, any comments?

Add this to a page: {{Cognitive}}

--K a s h^{Talk | email} 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. How about a border? :-) Rfrisbie^talk 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just copied the Psychology one and I can't seem find how to add the border! --K a s h^{Talk | email} 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Rfrisbie^talk 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! do you think it needs any more topics on the list? --K a s h^{Talk | email} 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good start to me. I would take a look at Major research areas in cognitive psychology to decide if you want to add anything.If it gets much longer, you might want to consider using a footer-style template.For example, see {{Emotion}} and {{Emotion-footer}}. Rfrisbie^talk 15:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass WikiProject Psychology userbox redirect

I forgot to update the WP:AWB edit note when I bypassed the WikiProject Psychology userbox redirect.Sorry for any confusion. Rfrisbie^talk 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social psychology page split

Hello everyone. For the most part, social psychology is a subfield of psychology. However, sociology also contains a subdiscipline called "social psychology" and various social philosophers also claim some rights to "social psychology." Because of this, the social psychology page has become a topic of heated debate as it attempts to represent all three perspectives in a single article, leading to conflicting statements, inaccuracies and overgeneralizations. As a consequence of this, the article social psychology is being split into separate articles. A page has been created at Social psychology (psychology) to contain an article that is specific to social psycholgy as a subfield of psychology. I ask the wikiproject psychology overlords to add the new Social psychology (psychology) article as a high priority article on the project page. Eventually, it might be a good idea to also change the wikilinks on the psychology template to point to the new article. We can use all the help we can get as the new article is created and expanded. Thanks! -Nick^talk 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sure. Social Psychology.. I am all up for it and will eventually get it all sorted, no problem :) --K a s h^{Talk | email} 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology portal

Please help revive the psychology portal :) --Heida Maria 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regulation of psychotherapy

I'm trying to find out when the state of New Jersey started regulating psychotherapy. Thanks in advance for any help. --JWSchmidt 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology wikiproject?

I just made a proposal for an anthropology wikiproject on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1.0 assessments

I set up the basic template, classification categories, and page for the Version 1.0 assessments. For more information about Version 1.0, see WP:1.0, WP:WVWP and this project's assessment page. Rfrisbie^talk 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have this, is it safe to get rid of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Articles? It seems that the "/Articles" page is now redundant, and have both "/Articles" and "/Assessment" could be confusing. --Cswrye 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rfrisbie^talk 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft WikiProject Psychology importance scale

I started a draft WikiProject Psychology importance scale to help us fine-tune those ratings. I based it on the main topics in the Psychology article. Hopefully, we can expand it to include some suggestions on rating levels for each topic. Rfrisbie^talk 19:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry

Should articles related to psychiatry be included in this WikiProject? I know that psychology and psychiatry are closely-related disciplines, but psychiatry is often classified as more of a medical discipline rather than a psychological one. There does not appear to be a Psychiatry WikiProject. A lot of principles overlap, but if something is specifically about a psychiatric issue, should it also be covered by this project?—Cswrye 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and they seemed to be okay with including psychiatry articles in both WikiProjects. Unless there are any objections, I will start tagging psychiatry articles as part of this project. —Cswrye 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Are they interested in rating articles? Rfrisbie^talk 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Articles

This is to advise you all that the page above is being considered for deletion.The person who suggested the deletion seems to believe that the page has been supplanted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment, and I tend to agree that the facts indicate as much.However, we would welcome any input any of you would like to give. Please feel free to follow the links on the page above to take part in the discussion. Badbilltucker 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment Theory/Disorder/Therapy/etc.

I should preface everything by saying that I don't know much about psychology; that is why I am posting here. There are currently several articles dealing with "Attachment Theory/Disorder/Therapy/etc." that appear to contain a subtle, but systematic bias. I can't really detect what the bias is leading towards because I have no idea about any of this. I only found these articles because I stumbled upon one through "random page" and the article seemed amiss. At the very least, these articles contain many sourceless and potentially controversial claims. Some of them go as far as to offer psychological advice without a reference. Many of these articles appear to be the sole result of long edit wars between the same groups of people and that is rarely healthy for any article. In particular, it would appear that there is a dedicated group of "attachment specialists" who are quite passionate about these articles.

I think these articles could really benefit from a plurality of opinion. I can't argue endlessly on the talk page of each article by myself (currently I'm only contributing to one article) and for all I know, I am way off base about everything and these articles do not contain a subtle, systematic bias. Hell, maybe these articles are all spot on. I am ideally hoping that these articles be adopted into this WikiProject. Failing that, I'm hoping that listing some of these articles here will draw more attention to them. I won't list all the articles I have issues with, I'll just list the important ones. There are quite a few related articles which link to these articles.

Attachment theory
Attachment disorder -- Contains potentially copyrighted material, per the talk page. Also seems to offer advice.
Attachment Therapy -- Highly contented article.
Reactive attachment disorder -- Seeing as how this is in the DSM, I think it'd make sense for this article to be part of this project. This article appears to offer treatment advice.
Complex post-traumatic stress disorder -- Appears to offer treatment advice
Advocates for Children in Therapy -- This is the one that introduced me to these issues. It is probably the least important of all the articles, but the talk page gave me a lot of insight into what is going on with all these "Attachment" articles.

I think that the talk pages and edit wars speak for themselves. I am particularly concerned about the lack of sources and the apparent advice given on some of the pages. I'm not trying to pass the buck. Really, I'd just like to see the issue of "Attachment" (whatever it may be) to get more attention. Thanks! shotwell 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milgram experiment

Milgram experiment is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the importance scale

There is currently a discussion about how to interpret the importance of an article on our assessment scale. It got started as a result of a discussion at Talk:NPA personality theory and is being continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. This could have ramifications for the assessment of all articles in this WikiProject, so everyone's input will be valued. —Cswrye 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Knowledge System

I thought I would direct your attention here at WikiProject Psychology to the Tree of Knowledge System by Gregg Henriques. It is a proposal for the unification of psychology. Here's an article written by Henriques on the ToK at the Psychology Wiki, if anyone is interested in checking it out. It has links to full texts and abstracts at the bottom of the article.[1]

Expert review requested for Dream article

FYI -- I was looking at the Dream article and noticed it was tagged as needing an expert to take a look at it. That's sure not me -- I thought I'd lob it to you all in case someone had a minute or two to see if the expert-needed tag was still necessary. Happy dreams, --A. B. 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had look at the dream article and it could have been written 20 years ago. There is no or scant mention of current dream research. While I have been into this literature a bit, I am far from an expert on it. Is there anyone who has an interest in this area? The fact that the previous entry lies unanswered since 20 Oct 2006 suggests that there may be no one with an interest or knowledge. --CloudSurfer 23:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.B2T2 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA and slashdot

Just a heads up the NPA personality theory was deleted and slashdot has an article about it, cliamin its a hoax. --Salix alba (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are already on top of that particular rumor. Love it or hate it I don't think anyone ever tried to claim the article was an hoax on Wiki, not least because it certainly wasn't, but for some strange reason the most peculiar rumors have begunto do the "abounding thang" in the past 24 hours. Obviously, Dr Benis scored high on somebody's hit list (gawd knows how or why, I always reckoned he gave Eleanor of Aquitaine sufficient cause to, at least, withhold Christmas cards but she's been dead for hundreds of years *rolling eyes*) and they don't want to let go. --Zeraeph 12:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

now that NPA personality theory made psych GAs kinda look bad, i wanted to push Kohlberg's stages of moral development to GA to redeem us. it's over at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development right now but no one is touching it; could someone here give it a good comb-through? i just know there are some wiz psych-students around here! :) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an excellent, well written, article I would be happy to see get GA status, as is. Fortunately (or not) the degree of impartiality I expect of myself demands that I neither be influenced in it's favor by the fact that it concerns one of my long time favorite psych theories, nor against it by the totally spurious sniping at NPA personality theory (What is THAT about? May I direct your attention to WP:NPA#A_misguided_notion:_.22Kicking_them_while_they_are_down.22.). I am rating the article accordingly, and if you tell me when YOU feel it is ready (I think that's important as it is largely your work) I will be happy to nominate it for GA. --Zeraeph 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Good to know that it's up to snuff. No worries, I don't mind about your involvement in the NPA personality theory. I'm ready to push this through to GA, and I'd love for someone else other than the principal contributor to nominate it. Thanks for your efforts. :) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point, I have no interest in how you feel about my involvement in NPA personality theory, but I do question the appropriateness and relevance of your repeated spurious negative remarks about what was an article presented well, and in good faith. It seems very unkind and unnecessary towards Dr Benis, and irrelevant to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. However that does not affect my judgement in any other matter, article nominated. --Zeraeph 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, i get it. I wasn't trying to put down NPA personality theory or anything, but its conflicted presence called light to the lack of psych GAs, which I thought should change. Thus: Kohlberg's stages of moral development! :) If i came across any different (and I can see how it could've) my apologies. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok Joe, glad you could take it on board like a gentleman. :o)

I agree that there abysmally few psych articles and I can't help wondering if that might be simply because it's so hard to figure out where in the lists to submit them...are they "Natural Sciences" or "Social Sciences"? Or neither?

Definately the lack of psych articles needs some jumping up and down about, maybe we could find some more nominees? --Zeraeph 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say social science. some cognitive stuff is more towards natural maybe, but mostly psych is bunched in s.s. there aren't too many 'psychology' sections in wikipedia yet. :/(WP:0.5 does though, yay!). there are some basic psych areas that need work for sure, that are actually pretty close to being up to GAness. For instance: Carl Rogers, B.F. Skinner (Ivan Pavlov), Jean Piaget, Attachment theory , Abraham Maslow, Psychotherapy, and more. Some just plain need work, like Erik Erikson, Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, Developmental psychology (no sources! not one!), Theory of cognitive development, John Bowlby, Jane Loevinger and Martin Hoffman (ego and empathy development) and more and more and more. psychology needs to 'represent' here, and get some writers behind this stuff :P . JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

Autism is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the Psychology portal

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 16:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might just be a personal preference, but I'm not fond of the cold blue color of the portal. I once changed it to a more warm brown color, but someone changed it back, apparently. --Heida Maria 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree colors reflect personal preferences.After all, this is the psychology project! ;-) My experience has been that no matter what color is used on a page, someone loves it and someone hates it. That means the color wheel always seems to spin around a bit. One thing I particularly like about the portal colors as they stand now is the white background, because it makes the psi logo look like it doesn't have one. I hope that part's okay. As far as the rest of the palette goes, I personally don't mind if you change things up. If you're interested in browsing some samples before you do, take a look at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes for a few more possibilities. If someone else really doesn't like what you do, I'm confident the colors will be "fixed" again. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm too lazy to do it all over again ;) --Heida Maria 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the colors. Professionals often use the cool blue to calm psychiatric residents. Doczilla 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just noticed that the portal got featured. Excellent work, Rfrisbie!

—skagedal^... 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology chat

There's a new psychology chat located here for anyone that's interested. EPM 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Optimism

The article on optimism is in a sorry state right now. Although maybe not directly in the scope of the project, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could spare a little time to help out. --Ybbor ^T 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Jungian psychology with Carl Jung

It has been proposed to merge Jungian psychology with the Carl Jung article - see Talk:Carl_Jung#Suggested_merger & Talk:Carl_Jung#Suggested_merger_part_II Paul foord 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong merge. Jungian psychology should be merged into Analytical psychology. Doczilla 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Analytical Psychology and Jungian Psychology should be merged. There is much on this topic, and much that has happened since Jung's death, that is beyond the scope of the Carl Jung article. I agree completely with Doczilla. --DanielCD 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Analytical psychology and Jungian psychology should be merged. Jungian psychology and Carl Jung, however, should not be merged. Jcbutler 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doczilla, DanielCD and Jcbutler - merge analytical and jungian but NOT the man and his theory. The Carl Jung article is about the man, and the Jungian psychology article is about the theory. They should be separate, like Lawrence Kohlberg and Kohlberg's stages of moral development. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In total agreement with all four of you. The man and his theory should be kept seperate, but his theory and...well...also his theory, need merging. --Zeraeph 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Given this consensus and lack of opposing voices, I've merged them. Doczilla 07:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! /skagedal^... 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project goals

Hi everybody, especially the many new project participants I've seen signing up recently! I was just thinking; now that our initial goals, assessing articles and cleaning up the category tree, have been pretty much reached by the excellent work of Rfrisbie and Cswrye (am I missing someone?) — where do we go?Maybe we should start something like a "Collaboration of the Month" (or week, fortnight..) thing? If so, what article? Maybe one of those that JoeSmack listed above? Greetings, skagedal^... 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (who hasn't been very active himself in this project, but hopes he will be... :)) [reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.Badbilltucker 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of lists of psychology journals

See Talk:List of scientific journals in psychology#Merging — should be no problem with this, right? /skagedal^... 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]