Talk:Index of psychology articles
|This page was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was No arguments for deletion other than nominator; no consensus to redirect, please continue the discussion on the article's talk page..|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Psychologists
- 2 Resolution
- 3 Catchment area
- 4 Refractory period
- 5 Magnitude
- 6 Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?
- 7 Split proposal
- 8 Experiential therapy
- 9 Pls make a comment on the format of the section W
- 10 Decision
- 11 A mess
- 12 people never learn.
- 13 firstname.lastname@example.org
Since we have a list of psychologists, is it OK if I remove them from this list? Maybe we should also have a "list of people who has contributed to psychology but are not psychologists" as discussed on Talk:List of psychologists, but I'm not sure how to name this.... List of people in psychology, maybe? /skagedal... 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing the list of psychologists (since we have a list of them) is a good idea. But, I'd like to make the same point here that I just did on the talk page for "psychologist". A licensed psychologist is a subcategory under the broader category of "psychologist" and it would be very wrong to exclude all those who have, and those who continue to make significant contributions to psychology because they weren't or aren't licensed under the APA/gov guidelines. Please take a look at my entry there for more detail.
- It would seem to be rather Americanocentric to insist upon APA membership to count as a psychologist for Wikipedia's purposes. And I don't think that generalizing to "membership in the recognized psychological professional organization for country X" would work either, as there surely are countries without such organizations. --Saforrest (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolution is listed as a topic. The Resolution page does not have a topic to properly redirect the link on this page. if some one could look in to this that would be great --STHayden 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We are working on resolving links for the disambiguation page catchment area. It is not absolutely clear to which page the term on this article page should point. Requesting experts determine whether any of the existing terms are appropriate and if so, link directly. If not, consider adding a new use of the term to the disambig list. Thanks. Theflyer 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- None of these articles cover a topic in psychology, as far as I can see. Removed it from the list. /skagedal... 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I renamed "Refractory phase" into "Refractory period" and linked it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory_period_%28neurology%29 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
I oppose the split into three separate articles based on alphabetical demarcation. I have redone the layout to make it more usable. The psychologists should be split out to List of psychologists. These two actions would mean that it will not need splitting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support the action described by Liefting. The page as it stands will work, but the actual psychologists should get their own list page. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an article on this topic??
Pls make a comment on the format of the section W
This article is a mess with psychologists listed in forename order, entries not related to psychology, many psychology articles missing, many dubious sounding redlinks.--Penbat (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am doing a radical cleanup in my sandbox at User:Penbat/Index of psychology articles. I think all the redlinks here should be stripped out here as many are inappropriate, strange or will never get done anyway. I am also stripping out non psychology articles and psychologists as they are covered by List of psychologists. I am also adding missing articles. It wont be perfect but it will be substantially better than it was.--Penbat (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)