Template talk:Psychology sidebar

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconPsychology 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.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]


Why is the letter Psi here at the top?

I understand, of course, that it's the first letter in the Greek spelling of the word Psychology. But is it used elsewhere to represent Psychology, for example in textbooks? I am not familiar with any psychology textbooks myself.

It was added to this template in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Psychology_sidebar&diff=103943026&diffmode=source

I cannot find any discussions or explanations for adding it.

If it's not used elsewhere to represent Psychology, it shouldn't be used here. It's a bit too arbitrary. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for some anecdotal evidence that I won't be verifying, my university's school of psych uses it. For a few actual examples: in the American Psychological Association symbol, this usage is mentioned in Psi (Greek)#Use as a symbol (although w/o citation), it's used in the symbol for the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council, symbol for the New Zealand Psychologist's Board[1], symbol for India's National Association of Psychological Science[2], the German psych society[3]. I googled countries in the languages I can read, and I only came across 2 psychology groups that don't use it (aus psych society and british psych association). If it didn't come up when you searched for things, it may be because most people refer to it as the psychology symbol or trident symbol rather than as psi. Hope this helps! --Xurizuri (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great examples! Thanks :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Psychometrics from Basic; Keep in Applied[edit]


The Psychology sidebar lists Psychometrics in both the Basic and Applied subsections. I would like to suggest Psychometrics be removed from the Basic subsection and kept only in the Applied subsection. Psychometrics is considered a part of Quantitative Psychology, according to the Wikipedia article for Quantitative Psychology. Then, Psychometrics' connection to basic research is already covered by the Quantitative subfield, which is represented already in the Basic subsection. Thoughts by others on this idea?

Mattsnod1993 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]