Talk:American Association of Psychiatric Pharmacists

Improvement strategies

Untitled

These are my thoughts on what would be beneficial to improve for this article! Please feel free to modify this list, and to work on these topics!

• talk about the BCPP recertification info, and that line of products Completed. 02:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• include a picture of the general logo for CPNP student chapters Completed. 20:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• include more information on the Mental Health Pharmacy Directory; why was it created?; what does it do exactly, and why might you use it?

Biochemistry&Love (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: 03:39, 25 August 2017 Edit

@DGG: Thank you for taking an interest in this page! In the interest of collaboration, I thought I'd reach out to you here. Why did you decide to delete the table of the local chapters and the list of CPNP communities? I can see how it might look a little WP:DIRECTORY, but I think it's all relevant information that a reader may be interested in. At the very least, the date that the chapters were founded should be preserved, if not their websites. I admit that it was an unfinished list, but it was difficult to find the relevant information, and I figured that it may help readers interested in the topic. As for the CPNP communities, I don't see why that shouldn't stay.

On an unrelated edit, I agree that it was probably overkill for me to overcategorize the CPNP MHC authorship section. I appreciate the fresh set of eyes to it. (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

the lost of chapters is the sort of specific information which is better found at the organization's website. That's our almost universal practice, except for special circumstances where the chapters are equally or more important than the main organization, pr one particularchpater has run int particular controversy ofaroused general interest. Among its advantages is the ease in updating. When WP started, there was no really effective web directory and finding information of this sort was really erratic. By now, it's gotten pretty standardized--the web page for the main organization lsits the chapters, and anyone interested in a particular chapter would know almost automatically to go there. WP is not the only information source in the world. and if we want to keep it high quality, we need to limit what it includes in some rational fashion. One purpose of listing chapters is to show the range of the organization, but a brief sentence that does not need to be updated does this very effectively. At any rate, I'm not stating my idiosyncratic view--if I do this I say so. The advice I give and the editing I do is intended to represent our current standard.

This is even more the case with internal thematic sections of one sort of another. Our own organization, WP, is a complex of several different dimensions of such sections, some quire active, some not, and it is difficult to explain exactly their purpose and scope. This is pretty generally the case. There are exceptions, like the IEEE Special Interest Groups, where they are essentially organizations in their own right and with their own characteristics and notability,and are appropriate for separate coverage. But another organization of which I am a member , ASIST, has similarly named special interest groups, very few of which do anything much, and are of concern only to itself. The rule is that material of concern to the general reader who may have heard of the organization is appropriate; material of concern only to members or prospective members or their associates is not. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the candid response! Yes, the website does list the chapters, but I couldn't find their websites from there. That's what I scrounged around to find them, and put it in a table. The main org website also doesn't list the founding dates of the chapters. I recognize that it is important to rationally limit what is included on WP, but don't you think that difficult to find information like that should be organized in one place somewhere on the internet? If so, why not WP? At the very least, the founding dates of the chapters seems important; not just to prospective members/associates, but to general readers. I can imagine a student asking, "does my school have one of these? If so, when was it founded?"

Your comment regarding the "CPNP communities" makes sense to me. I appreciate the general rule; I think that's a good standard! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Means of improvement

@Randykitty: thank you for tagging this article. Could you provide some areas for improvement regarding areas that appear like an advertisement, or indiscriminate information? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Biochemistry&Love, sorry it took me a while, I've been busy... An example of intricate detail is the section on membership categories (with even a "history" subsection). Apparently nobody ever found this subject interesting enough to write about it as it is sourced to the organization's own website. In fact, the whole membership section is full of intricate details that are only of interest to dedicated members of the society, but not to readers of an encyclopedia. There's the extensive use of academic title's and obscure postnomials (" Dr. Lawrence J. Cohen, PharmD, BCPP, FASHP, FCCP, FCP", really?) that need to be removed (WP:CREDENTIALS). "It is the only such organization representing the interests of neuropsychiatric pharmacists in the United States" is pretty promotional and in addition hardly noteworthy (many professions have only one national representative body). Another example: 'Dr. Steven C. Stoner, PharmD, BCPP, past president of CPNP (2010-2011), has described the CPNP annual meeting as the organization's "crowning achievement."' Don't you think that a past-president is not really a neutral observer? The vast majority of references are to the organization's own website or affiliated sources. Many sources (I picked one at random, currently #39) only mention this organization in-passing. These are just examples, but I think you got the picture. Hope this helps! --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• No worries; thank you for getting back to me, Randykitty! I greatly appreciate your suggestions, and have made a few edits based on that information. On the sentence, "It is the only such organization representing the interests of neuropsychiatric pharmacists in the United States," this was added during the AfC process here per advice (from SwisterTwister, I think) to, ironically, indicate notability. Do you think the article is better off without it? If you have some time, I'd appreciate a second look over my edits! This was the first article I wrote, so I'm not surprised that I made so many mistakes!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)