Template talk:Psychology sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Behavioral Genetics[edit]

‹See TfM›

There is weak consensus to include this in the sidebar. Editors are cautioned to be aware of WP:CANVASS in future discussions. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, an administrator editor suggested that I use the suggestion page to propose that we include Behavioral Genetics in the psychology sidebar. I think that the psychology page in general will benefit from having more information about genes and environment, how they influence behavior, and how to study them. Behavioral genetics is not a new subfield in psychology, has been responsible for a sea change in how we think about the causes of behavior and psychiatric disorder, and should be included among the subfields. Undergraduate courses and graduate programs in behavioral genetics exist in psychology departments within universities, and there are several learned societies devoted to behavioral genetics including the Behavioral Genetics Association and the International Society on Psychiatric Genetics. Including Behavioral Genetics as a subfield in the psychology sidebar is one good way to include the history and ideas of behavioral genetics within psychology. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Do I take a lack of negative response constitutes consensus that behavioral genetics should be added? Vrie0006 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
No, please don't do that. Please read my message to you at User talk:Sundayclose#psychology edits and follow that procedure. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Vrie0006: By the way, Behavior genetics is included in the Template:Psychology which is at the bottom of every major page related to psychology. As a collapsible template, it can include far more links to related articles than a sidebar, which is supposed to be very brief. I noticed that Behavior genetics is included in the template under "Methodologies". Since you're interested in that area of psychology, you might have an opinion about whether it should be moved to a different section. If you do, I don't have a problem if you go ahead and move it. If someone objects, it can be discussed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that behavior genetics should be included in the Psychology page. In addition to the points made above, research on genetic and environmental influences on behavior is published in every major psychology journal and many more general science journals, and is included as a key level of analysis by NIMH.Nf003 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

support: It also seems obvious to me that behavioral genetics should be included as a sub discipline of psychology. Take a look at any major journal in psychology today (Psychological Science, JPSP, Brain and Behavioral Sciences, etc) and you are sure to find articles on genetics of behavior or those using behavioral genetic methods to get at key questions. It has a large and active association (Behavioral Genetics Association), a yearly conference, multiple journals devoted to publishing work in the area (e.g., Behavioral Genetics, Twin Research and Human Genetics), and its own study section at the NIH (Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology Study Section [BGES]). Frankly, it surprises me that BG isn't already on the sidebar - it certainly has a bigger footprint in psychology than, say, positive psychology. --Mckeller7 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

support: Importantly, like existing items Evolutionary, Experimental, Quantitative, etc., Behavioral Genetics is a broad, distinctive approach to psychology, linking it to other disciplines, and informing multiple topics within psychology. Tim bates (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Inserting request for comment: should Behavioral Genetics be included in the psychology sidebar? Vrie0006 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I mentioned this sidebar issue with Mckeller7 and Nf003, both of whom happen to be psychologists, in communication outside of wikipedia. I suggested that if they had such strong opinions they make their opinions known. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I do not see why exactly it should not be included in the sidebar. The article itself is included in Wikiproject Psychology although not all articles in Wikiproject Psychology's spectrum should be included in the sidebar, this page is definitely one that should be. Davidbuddy9 Talk  18:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree/Comment Why do we specifically need "Behavioral Genetics" in the Psychology sidebar? How does this not fall under the basic "Biological" category that is already there? It seems to me that behavioral genetics is a subsection of Behavioral neuroscience. --Iamozy (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Great point. Hope to hear comments from others. My initial reaction is that there is a lot to BG research that is not within the domain of behavioral neuroscience, and vice versa. Much of BG work, especially in humans, is quantitative genetics, statistical genetics, and quasi-experimental research in humans, where genetic relatedness is used to control for genetic effects, allowing one to parse out what things are environmentally mediated influences and what are genetic influences (e.g., see | this article by Michael Rutter). Some of this is already described on the page behavioral genetics itself. I don't think a behavioral neuroscientist would consider these kinds of research questions or approaches to fall within the domain behavioral neuroscience, although other aspects of behavioral genetics certainly would, as you point out.Vrie0006 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'd have thought school psychology would be a sub-field of industrial and organizational psychology, but they apparently have some positive symmetric difference, and both are currently in the sidebar. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support and comment: What's the top journal in this field? Is it Behavior_Genetics_(journal), with an impact factor of 2.5? I suspect a hint of POV here: like maybe OP and a few others are fans/practitioners of this subfield and want to make sure it is easy to find. On the other hand, space is fairly cheap, the sidebar is not currently overcluttered IMO, and I can't see any that way adding this subfield to the sidebar template would hurt. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oh and P.S. to the redlink new users who happen to be psychologists - your input is of course welcome but be wary that none of us necessarily care about or trust your credentials, and when you say things like "included as a key level of analysis by NIMH", or "it certainly has a bigger footprint in psychology than, say, positive psychology" you should give us a reference to support the claim. We scientists get to use our names and credentials subject authority in real life, but we shouldn't on WP. Also, we are trained to give proper citation s for our claims so we should set the example positively when we can :)
  • Comment Storm in teacup. If someone wants it there and it does not spoil the layout, who cares? I don't think it's necessary, but wouldn't bother to argue if anyone feels deprived or lost. JonRichfield (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I know little about the field, but it seems to me that behavioral genetics is relevant to psychology. However I would like to dissent from the view above: we should be considering how best to help readers, and not be concerned about the feelings of editors. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Brought here by WP:FRS. Appears to be a genuine subfield of psychology; given that, it probably belongs in the sidebar. (The "weak" qualification is because my knowledge of psychology is limited, so cannot feel confidence in judging its weight–someone with better knowledge of this than me might make the argument that it isn't significant enough to be called out individually in the sidebar, and such an argument if made might be correct–but I lack the comptence to judge whether that is so, if anyone actually tries to argue that.) SJK (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Thanks all for the input. On the basis of, what appears to me at least, something approaching consensus, I've inserted behavioral genetics in the sidebar. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsible sections[edit]

Wondering if anyone has an opinion about collapsing two of three of the sections and leaving only that section open and visible that contains the article in which the template is installed (the title is in boldface type rather than linked). This has been done for this template and can be found in one of my sandboxes, in case you would like to see how it would appear on this page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the sections collapsible and have proceeded to update the parameters in the individual articles. If anyone wants to return this template to uncollapsed, that's okay, and please discuss further. Thank you for your consideration in this matter!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It's an interesting idea. I would prefer the portals be kept the way they are. Space is cheap and few users know to click the "show" button. I'm not sure what this proposed step achieves other than to make it harder to navigate between these sites. 2600:1014:B02F:9B1E:18F9:489:A4D:78A7 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
One reason to shorten (collapse) sidebar templates that are used at the tops of articles is because they tend to take up so much room, which distracts readers from the heart of the content in the lead paragraphs. Another distraction for readers is to bombard them with so many links to other places, especially right when they first get to an article. To reduce this by collapsing all sections except the one that applies to the article tends to reduce that type of distraction, too. Judging by the widespread use of collapsed sections, editors tend to agree that by collapsing most of the sections in a sidebar, the benefits to our readers far outweigh any possible disadvantages. Be well, IP 2600+.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I also oppose, preferring that the portals be kept the way they are. Iss246 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Iss246, I see that you've reverted the edits, first in the Occupational health article and then again in the Industrial and organizational article. Your first reason was, "It is okay to have the entire sidebar, and not just the applied part of it," and your second was, "It's an interesting idea. I would prefer the portals be kept the way they are." The collapsing of sections is a common way to make it easier and less distracting for our readers. Is that what you disagree with? Your first revert, to "have the entire sidebar", actually reduced it to where all the sections were collapsed. All you need do to expand the entire template is to place the word "all" in the first parameter, as is noted in the template documentation. I would be happy to do that for you in these two cases if that is what you want.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Paine Ellsworth, on the occupational health psychology page, the table of contents, which is on the left balanced an open psychology sidebar on the right. They paralleled each other. I also think all of psychology should be in the sidebar, not just the applied half of psychology. The applied half follows from basic psychological research, and basic research feeds the applied half. Research in the applied half feeds ideas to basic researchers. I think one strong fabric is in order. I did not change the collapsed sidebar. I think it is better open. And would like to make it open but I want to hear from my editors. The sidebar has been open for years, and I have not heard talk of the opened sidebar being a distraction. Iss246 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Paine Ellsworth, I decided to open the sidebar in the occupational health psychology page. It looks good to me. Not distracting. All of psychology is there for a reader at a click. Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with above opposers. Vrie0006 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of ABA in sidebar[edit]

Given the volume of controversy from autistic advocates over applied behavior analysis, and the breadth of psychology as a general field encompassing many particular schools, I'd question the inclusion of applied behavior analysis in the psychology sidebar. What was the original thinking in including it? Is its inclusion really justified? (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Coaching psychology?[edit]

I just added coaching psychology to the psychology sidebar. This is being BOLD. If someone wants to revert then we can discuss. Notgain (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I support the addition of coaching psychology. The article shows that it is an established (though relatively new) field of applied psychology, and I can't think of a good reason to exclude it from this template. Biogeographist (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020[edit]

I suggest that you include the following work under the heading "Lectures complémentaires": Chakkarath, Pradeep (2012). Le rôle des psychologies indigènes dans le développement d'une psychologie culturelle élémentaire (pp. 71-95). Oxford University Press: New York. 2001:171B:C9B1:78C1:882A:EA8C:7E84:D49A (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Further reading does not belong in this template. Even if this were an article, works in other languages shouldn't be added.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 15:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)