Talk:List of important publications in psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Question
Would any of the popular works of Stephan Pinker belong on this list? I've read How The Mind Works and greatly enjoyed it, but I don't know if it can be considered an "important publication" Furthermore, what of publications that are psychologically important, but the publication itself is not psychological in nature. Specifically, I'm thinking of the results of the Brown vs. The Board of Education case, in which many of the arguments were based around psychological studies that concluded that seperate is inherently unequal.
[edit] Style
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "Avoid links within headers. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." Rgds Rich Farmbrough 22:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The format of the list is indeed to be changed. It should look like list of publications in medicine. APH 07:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Does it really make sense to include this in all those subcategories of psychology? I'll remove them unless anyone objects. /skagedal... 02:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles
List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The criteria for entries
Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories of important publications
Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I/O psychology
The list of journals should be deleted and replaced with a few notable publications. -DoctorW 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
