This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
I'm not sure this template should exist under this name. At the moment, the name combines two fields, developmental psychology and biology. Most of the links go to pages that deal with psychology and not biology, and some of the links go to pages that deal with biology and not psychology. Of course developmental psychologists (I am one) take account of biological factors in their research, but hard core biology is considered a separate field. Biologists often take no account of psychology in their work. A combined template is misleading, because it implies the existence of a unified biological/psychological field of study, which doesn't really correspond to reality. The template above implies that this is a psychology template. If that is really the aim, it should be made more clear both in the name of the template, and in policies that evolve in the process of the design of the template. Alternative names for the template might be "Humandevelopment(psychology)" or "Developmentalpsychology". Perhaps two templates would be best (one each for psychology and biology), with links to the respective fields within psychology and biology, and also a prominent (bolded) link to the other field, to show how closely related these two approaches to studying human development are. -DoctorW 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
One template would work with separate lines for the biology & psychology. But looking at the articles linked you can see how patchy Wikipedia coverage of this area is, both biological and psychological, in terms of quality & comprehensiveness. Paul foord 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree on both counts. But why don't you remake the template before putting it on more pages. Also, be sure none of the links go to disambiguation pages! -DoctorW 15:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of upgrading that overview image in the template to an ImageMap, making each period clickable directly in the image. However, since it is still pretty new I think there may still be considerable changes in it, just as it has been so far, and the whole image-mapping process must be done again for each major change, so first I think the image needs to stabilize for a while before doing it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks lovely except that its still a bit to small to read easily even when you've double clicked on it. Is it possible to make it a little larger? Fainitesbarleyscribs 11:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It could easily be enlarged, but is it really necessary for the file itself? After all, it's 2,450 pixels wide already - that's more than twice the width of most monitors. And since it is a vector image, you could probably zoom in much more if that's not enough. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've taken them from the articles for each period. I'm aware of that there should be more sources to them, but the image could always be updated as more definitions are added. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)