Talk:Subfields of psychology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subfields of psychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Top‑importance

	Psychology portal This article 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Critical psychology

Wow, no discussion yet?! Anyway, re. [1]: True, critical psychology is rather esoteric. But a passage on critical psychology "spices things up" a bit; it adds some pertinent--if surprising--variety. And, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we can do those sorts of things, so long as we don't violate WP:SIZE or WP:DUE in the process. The tiny passage certainly does not bloat the article beyond size limits. If that two-paragraph subsection carries undue weight, then it always could be trimmed to, say, one paragraph (probably the first). If, in terms of content, Wikipedia is to stand out from conventional encyclopedias, it's going to have to be somewhat unconventional at times. Indeed, it'll have to be a little "esoteric" in its own right. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As far as due weight is concerned, the subsection (if re-added) would be one of twenty-three listed. And 1/23 (roughly 4.3%) is not very much at all. Too much "spice" can be overwhelming, but even just a little bit can help to keep the intellectual taste buds awake. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the lede for the page says that the article covers the "major areas of inquiry that comprise psychology." It is not meant to be a comprehensive list. To me, due weight is the consideration of whether or not a topic should be included at all. If a subfield is notable, then editors should work to create a useful entry (of any length). If it is not notable, then it shouldn't be included at all (at least not on a list of major areas). The argument that the section is not very long, doesn't speak at all to whether or not the subfield is notable. And since this is a collaborative encyclopedia, section length will always be in flux. My opinion has nothing to do with the merits of critical psychology - it has to do with the fact that is is not a major research area or degree specialization. To include it in the same list as social, cognitive, and developmental psychology (which gives it the appearance of equal weight) just seems absurd. Because of its breadth, psychology is already a difficult topic for people to understand. We're not doing anyone any favors by clouding the picture and highlighting niche disciplines. This list is entirely too long (there isn't a psychology department in the world that has 23 separate areas); eliminating critical psychology, global psychology, and postmodern psychology seemed like a conservative approach to focusing the scope of this list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No Consensus. Unfortunately, a destination article for the merge was never identified. A fully formed proposal is needed before any meaningful merger discussion can take place. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a merge proposal on these talk pages, but merger of this with List of psychology disciplines is a good idea, so I support. Having the two pages separate is an obvious WP:POVFORK. What criterion could there be for being a "psychology discipline" but not a "subfield of psychology"? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two names for the same thing. Lova Falk talk 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is more updated in division of psychology for the description of its research, development and application. As a matter of fact, lots of information contains in the page of "Psychology" is not the perspective of contemporary psychology nowadays, which is more multicultural and dualistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneisceo (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.