Template talk:Psychology (sidebar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] More Categories

I would like more categories added to the template, such as "applied psychology" and maybe "counseling psychology"whicky1978 talk 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One possible principle could be that the list of sub-areas in the template should correspond to those listed in the heading of the portal. Currently that list is: Applied · Behavioral · Biological · Clinical · Cognitive · Developmental · Educational · Evolutionary · Gestalt · Humanistic · Linguistics · Personality · Sensory · Social. Nesbit 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Educational Psychology belongs in the template

Hi Bacchiad: Educational psychology belongs in the template because it is not suitably classified within any of the other categories. It draws extensively from all forms of psychology listed in the current template (developmental, cognitive, etc.). It is indeed a form of applied psychology, but stands on its own because it has large professional and academic membership relative to other branches of psychology. Educational psychology has a relatively big footprint on the web -- by my count about twice as many google hits as developmental psychology and applied psychology, and eight times as many as evolutionary psychology (search with terms in quotes). The purpose of this sort of template is to aid navigation and reduce mouse clicks. Therefore, content which is likely to have higher traffic should have higher priority for listing in the template. cheers Nesbit 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep this template?

Hi everybody! Now, since there is a new navigation template for Psychology (see:Template:Psychology), which is more exhaustive and complete, i was wondering if this template is still useful. Before I put it for deletion, I would like to know your opinion about it. Please, leave your comments below or on my disscusion page. Thanks. Frédérick Lacasse 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a number of pages that have a brief template like this in the upper-right corner (appropriately unobtrusive, taking little horizontal space, and also having in this case the virtues of having stood the test of time and having been tweaked by quite a few editors) in addition to a more comprehensive navigation template at the bottom of the page. Both templates serve a purpose. This one should not be deleted. -DoctorW 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old item, but now that the emotion sidebar has been taken out of action, I want to reiterate my point that sidebars are good and that there is no reason not to have both. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic psychology

Please take the ampersand out. Forensic psychology is a category. I do not know what Legal psychology is but the editor refuses to put in the Forensic psychology category. I object strongly to the linking of Forensic psychology with Legal. I have worked hard on the Forensic psychology article and will cease doing so if that is to be the fate of the category. --Mattisse 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I made my last edit before I noticed that you made a comment here. I can't understand the sentence "...the editor refuses to put in the Forensic psychology category" (word missing? what editor?). Not every "branch" (no matter how small) of psychology should necessarily be represented in a template (especially the smaller template). So for now, I'm deleting "Legal" from the template, until a strong argument can be made here (and consensus achieved) that it ought to be included. -DoctorW 04:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data on Types of Psychology

I collected the number of google hits and the size of the wikipedia article for most types of psychology listed in the template. There is a low positive correlation between the two variables (.37)

Image:PsychologyOnGoogle.PNG

The table possibly indicates that more content should be added to the articles on Neuropsychology, Experimental psychology, Cognitive psychology and Abnormal psychology. I think it also suggests criteria for selecting the subfields that should be represented in the psychology template.

Nesbit 16:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing with Disease infobox

This is arguing with disease infobox on pages (see Psychopathy) where it appears (and there are plenty). Is there some way to fix that so it sits underneath or something? --Zeraeph 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of this template

I've noticed editors placing this template on a lot of pages. I'm not always sure I agree with the placement of this template on ALL articles. Having the "Psychology" name at the top right sometimes implies that the subject is purely psychological or mostly psychological. If subjects are also related to or moreso related to psychiatry, social work, etc., wouldn't it be better to include the Template:Psychology template at the bottom? It seems like such a prominent template should only be included on pages that are linked to from the template, or purely psychological. Thoughts? Chupper 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable position to me. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readability?

Seems to me that at default text size on Firefox 2.0.0.12, certain portions of the text are unreadable, see: [1]. Just letting you know. --85.5.47.205 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)