Portal talk:Psychology

Tasks

 * not sure where to put this, but I wanted to draw your attention to the Recall Test article. It needs more citations.  It would make a GREAT article for a student to revise for a class.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.10.188 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it needs a lot of work. It hasn't been updated in probably months now. The question is, how many people actually view it? I check back once a day, but it hasn't really moved anywhere, haha...

So, uh, what needs to be done here, specifically? I haven't done much work on Portals.--Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new to the Portals game too, but take a look at the featured portals for inspiration. Portal:Constructed languages is a nice one. I think we should start WikiProject Psychology to coordinate things, write to-do-lists, pick some "selected articles" etc. / skagedal [talk] 10:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cosmetic Changes
I've played around with some cosmetic changes, mainly so this doesn't look exactly like half the portals on WP created with the default template. It's still far from perfect, but I'm hoping it's at least better than the original -- if not, more aesthetically inclined users can have a go or we can just revert to the original appearance. Thoughts?
 * Zeligf 05:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the colour looks a LOT better now. I think the biggest problem is content, not layout. The featured articles have been there for months and months now.


 * I like the changes. It would be nice to have a transparent version of Image:Psi.PNG, I tried making one but apparently my GIMP skills aren't what they should be... Btw, the WikiProject is "live" now... we'll see what happens. :) / skagedal ... 20:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just recently discovered this portal so I don't know how it was before. I just have tvo suggestions. Number one I find the brain pic a bit... well... ugly :) It is so brown and dull compared to the colorful pictures beside it. Is there another one that might be suitable, something more "cartoonish, "e.g. a man with a thought bubble? Second, I'd like to mention that there doesn't seem to be an easy way for a user like me to modify the contents of the portal. I could do it at the mind and brain portal, though. --Heida Maria 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I ought to add that I'd like the background to be just plain white, I somehow find it a bit difficult to read black text on a blue background. --Heida Maria 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There actually is an edit link to the very right of each of the boxes title bar, but it's almost impossible to see! :) So yes, the color scheme really needs to change. I asked at Portal talk:Box-header if there is a way to change the color of the edit link, otherwise (or maybe even if), we should change the background color of the title bar. I also agree it would be nice with an image for the mind and brain portal more similar in style to the others. / skagedal ... 06:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A link to the Nuvola icons. Maybe we can use some of these. --Heida Maria 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Psychology Wiki
The Psychology Wiki is a Wikia project, meaning that it is run by Wikia Inc, associated to Wikimedia foundation who run Wikipedia. You can think of the project as a daughter of the wikipedia site.

We are a large wiki in terms of content but small in terms of contributors. We have various plans to promote ourselves through wikipedia, and through psychology on and off the internet, but some more promotion amongst people already familiar with Wiki editing would be very advantageous.

The Psychology Wiki differs from Wikipedia psychology articles in that: PS All wiki editors should be aware of the psychological phenomena of Social Loafing. It effects new Wikis with few contributors especially.
 * 1) It is intended to contain all of the discipline of psychology, like a giant meta-textbook, rather than an Encyclopedia.
 * 2) It will therefore go into much greater technical detail than one would have in an encyclopedia. It will have full academic referencing.
 * 3) It will have user experiences relating to psychology issues on seperate user pages, protected by admins, allowing POV to be expressed on these pages only. The rest of the wiki is NPOV, but expression of personal experience is nessesary and desireable on our wiki.
 * 4) It will have course content pages from academic and clinical courses with links to internal wiki articles.
 * 5) It will be a place for researchers to discuss latest papers etc...

Here are some useful pages on our site


 * Main Page
 * Community Portal
 * Beginners Guide to Editing
 * Featured Article: Recovery from Acquired Brain Injury
 * Soon to be featured article: Clinical depression
 * User Experiences Page

We just need more contributors to make it work! Mostly Zen 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Biological or Physiological or Neuroscience
It seems to be very popular these days to rename anything to do with brain biology or physiology to neuroscience. In part, this is just to make it look new, but in another part it is also to unify different disciplines which don't fit into the physiology or biology umbrella term (such as psychology in a way).

I'm just wondering what you guys think about changing the link "Biological" to perhaps "Neuroscience" or even "Neuropsychology".

Just a thought. dr.alf 08:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi dr.alf! My reaction to this is that biological psychology is a slightly different subject than neuroscience or neuropsychology, encompassing all biological aspects of behavior such as the impact of the whole organism (endocrine system, etc.), evolutionary aspects and genetics, etc., when neuropsychology and neuroscience is specifically concerned with the nervous system. I see that the article on biological psychology doesn't really reflect this, but that article is a bit underdeveloped... It's probably so that the terms are often used interchangeably, and the neuro-sciences are where all the action is, but at least at my university "biological psychology" is still taught.. / skagedal ... 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Skagedal,


 * I know there was a reason for neuropsychology replacing biological/physiological psychology, but can't remember it of the top of my head. After thinking about it, I think we should keep it biological psychology and we can always change it after the whole portal is fine-tuned.
 * dr.alf 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal directory
I added this portal under "Science and mathematics", I guess "People & Society" or even "Philosophy & Religion" would have been possible too, but I thought this was the best choice. / skagedal ... 12:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i think AI turns to a joke. program me 4a fun! 159.242.227.158 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured content
I've just changed the featured content. In the future, how often should we cycle our featured content? Other portals vary from every day (which I think is too frequently for us, given the amount of quality articles we have to draw on) to once every month (too infrequently?). I think part of it depends on what kind of traffic the portal is getting - is there any way to get statistics like page views per day for the portal? Otherwise, my feeling is that once every one or two weeks is sensible. Zeligf 23:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that once every one or two weeks is sensible, at least for the time being (we could change the smaller sections, e.g. quotes and "Did you know", more frequently). Maybe the portal will attract more contributors now there is a link to it from the main psychology article. --Heida Maria 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay - I added a note in each of the 3 "selected content" boxes saying they should be updated around March 20... so I guess we'll do every 2 weeks or so for now. --Zeligf 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Colors
I'd like to get rid of this pastel blueish-green color in the background but I don't know how. Can someone teach me, if it is possible at all? --Heida Maria 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of accomplished this by copying and pasting code from another portal (the Australian portal, actually), but as you can see, the effect isn't perfect. All WP pages have that pastel background color, and so while you can mask it with a box like this one, I don't know if you can remove it completely. Anyway, this is the code I inserted:
 * {| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:white; border-style:solid; border-width:1px; border-color:white;"


 * width="55%" valign="top" style="padding: 0; margin:0;" |
 * I honestly don't even know what it all means, only that you can obviously change the color for "background" or "border-color" by typing in another color (or its hexadecimal code) into the right slot. Hope this helps a bit. --Zeligf 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I added a page border and it looks fine now, I think. --Heida Maria 11:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychology of science
Could someone take a look on this newly created article? Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks ok to me. Psychology of Science is a young field, but worthy of an article. Besides, it appears that the article was created/edited by one of the foremost experts in the area. -Nicktalk 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured portal tips
Please add any tips here on how this page can be improved to Featured portal status. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Picutre captions should be added, and I have questions whether the Quotes section will have enough potential candidates. Can't really think of anything else right now. Will come back later for a more thorough examination. Badbilltucker 16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What Bill says, but apart from that - I can't really think of anything it might need. I'm rather new to this portal business! I'll go through some featured portals and do a more thorough comparison. riana_dzasta 16:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I honestly can't think of anything else to recommend. It's really great - comprehensive, attractive, well-maintained. I think it should get featured status very easily. riana_dzasta 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The selected picture needs an image credit, and the "Archive/Nominations" link should be on the same side on all boxes, for consistency; but, other than that, I don't see anything that needs fixing. Kirill Lokshin 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you've done a great job! It's definitely ready for a featured portal review. Sorry that I didn't help out on it; I'm not really good at designing creative layouts. Fortunately, it looks like it has turned out just fine. —Cswrye 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Community psychology
Can I ask why this portal/project has ignored Community Psychology? As a Master's candidate in Community Social Psychology, I am a bit disheartened to not see my discipline mentioned in the portal, and not on the side-bar template either. CP/CSP is a recognized discipline by the APA, Div 27. Though it is also a part of the community portal, its rightful place, IMO, belongs in the Psych Portal.--Azathar 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what Community Psychology is :-/ I guess this is just a subfield that is too small... --Heida Maria 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 54 APA divisions, and not all of them can be listed on the sidebar or on the portal header. -Nicktalk 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but CP is one of the busier ones, working to make changes within "community" (can be defined in multiple ways, from 2 ppl to the planet). Also, none of the sidebar categories fully define CP as well.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference between psychwiki.com and The psychology wiki?
Can anyone tell me the difference between psychwiki.com and The psychology wiki. --Janarius 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deep trance meditation
Could someone take a look here? The article is on because of no sources. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New award found
What awarding users with this? -- Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? ·  help! ) 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout help?
I modeled a page at Portal:Scientology after your portal's layout, but could not get the image caption to display. Actually, it looks like your caption is also not displaying for the Milgram experiment featured article on your portal. Does anyone know how to fix this? For the page w/out caption display showing up, see Portal:Scientology/Selected article/3. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC).


 * I'll take a look, but I'm on a slow wikischedule. We can have future conversations about it at that portal's talk page. RichardF 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Laughter
I hope this is the right place to ask for an expert to add something to an article. Someone at a reference desk asked about inappropriate laughter, so I had a look at the Laughter article. The only thing mentioned there is inappropriate laughter due to a medical condition. Could someone please add an explanation for inappropriate fits of laughter in sad situations. (I guess it's something like a Freudian slip.) Thanks. --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Stack Sullivan
I searched and failed to find the notable gentleman in this grand project. I'd be delighted, if you could close this gap. Cheers, 212.90.206.43 (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Harry Stack Sullivan? --Jcbutler (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards for the Web Resources?
Why were those websites chosen as psychology web resources. There are several sites that would seem to be closer to wikipedia standards. Why were those sites chosen and is there any interest in choosing higher quality sites? Postcrypto (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should have that section at all; see WP:NOTLINK. That should apply to portals as well as articles. A list of web resources might be useful to have for the psychology WikiProject, but shouldn't be in Portal space, IMHO. /skagedal talk 09:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is nobody interested in helping with Wiki psychology articles anymore ?
I have almost single handedly done tons of work recently on workplace bullying, narcissism, personal boundaries and ( I hope) psychological manipulation. It would be nice if someone else helped, preferably an academic.--Penbat (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommended to Penbat on their talk page that they seek input here regarding the desirability of creating a separate 'free standing' article, devoted exclusively to the concept of "psychological manipulation". In my opinion that are already other articles in existence that potentially address the topic such as psychological abuse and the "psychological" section of the coercion article and perhaps even others as well. My concern is with avoiding the creation of a content fork WP:CFORK, but personally I'm open to any reasonable (and referenced) argument that allows me to see some 'daylight' between what appear to me to be very closely overlapping categories. Personally, I'd rather see resources devoted toward improving the closely related articles that already exist. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Donald Campbell page in need of improvement!
I was surprised to see the sad state of the Donald_T._Campbell page. I've tried to fill in some material which covers only a small fraction. Unfortunately, I am not a psychologist and only am getting into his stuff tangentially. I'd be really glad to see an improved webpage. He is such a giant that his page deserves better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.13.98 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

School vs. Branch
This distinction seems ill-defined. What is the difference (if any)? Some topics are in both categories like evolutionary psychology. SO maybe theses are really just the same thing... I know in some intro textbooks these are called psychological perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTHarden (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal Total category is up for deletion
Svick (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help with Esther_Thelen article
Please help to improve newly created article Esther_Thelen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standard2211 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review Motivation crowding theory
A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you!

Peer Review for Wonderlic Test
Hello All! I was hoping to solicit some peer reviewers for the article on the Wonderlic Test. Any and all help would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time. Mdwilliams2 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Requested
Will someone within this community please review my article on Team Composition and Cohesion in Spaceflight? Any input will be greatly appreciated. Jssteil (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on over to Wikiproject Psychology
This is the talk page to discuss improving the Psychology Portal. If you want to request feedback on, or questions about, psychology articles more generally, the place to do so is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. Jssteil, I've copied your request over there. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Death
I recently read an article about the fear of dying or being dead, Thanatophobia. I noticed that it was rated on the "low" scale of importance. This means that whomever chose this rating felt that the fear of death could be almost "trivial" to the subject, study, and development of the human mind.

Let me say that again. The psychological aversion to death was rated as unimportant to the study of psychology.

I am very concerned that this reflects a callousness to the precariousness that is human consciousness. I am concerned that it also reflects an unscholarly disregard to one of the basic human conditions: the nature of the limited self. If anyone can clarify or make the appropriate changes, it would be most appreciated. This topic deserves our most attentive focus, as a species if not as an organization. Brandonjcole (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that these "importance" ratings have little practical effect. This one was set in 2007. The usual rule here is "Be bold", so you can change it if you like. Go to Talk:Necrophobia, click "Edit" at the top (where it says Read/Edit/New section), and change "importance=low" in the first line to read "importance=mid". If anyone disagrees with you and re-instates "low", begin a discussion with them. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way - I've left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Death anxiety (psychology) is the abnormal fear of death. the general fear of death, if it has an article, would be of top importance. this form of it is not as important to the psychology wikiproject, in terms of having a perfectly written article, esp. as compared to articles like Psychology or Sigmund Freud. i see its now mid importance, which is about right. these ratings are guidelines to help editors focus their efforts, though i am not sure they are used for that much. I wish people could address these questions at the wikiproject, not the portal. the portal talk page is for improving the portal, nothing else. (mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review requested
Hi! Our Wikipedia team has made edits to the Big Five personality traits article. This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. But rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. I hope anyone could review this article and see if it is eligible for higher class article or not. Saehee0908 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured status
By my standards (which i believe are site standards), this is not a featured portal. after 8 years, almost no selected content has been added, and the selections themselves do not reflect the current articles. I will work to improve this.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias
Nearly every section here shows researcher bias. the list of psychologists is narrowly defined, and one editor (a psychologist very proud of her advanced degree) even removed the nominations of jung and freud, as they werent, obviously, possessing degrees in psychology. thats like saying hippocrates was not a doctor cause he didnt graduate from harvard. psychology is not the academic disciplline and its adherents, its the study of the human mind. there should not be an academic bias here, and we dont need this page vetted by anyone with a phd. This should be reordered so that the bias is towards well written articles, or article ranked high by the wikiproject. categories should not be handpicked so much. I will try to do some cleanup over time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

possible selected articles
moved from below the psych main article, as too many links unique to this page (ive used standard navbox and category tree to allow movement)

 Psychology: • Applied • Behavioral • Biological • Clinical • Cognitive • Community • Developmental • Educational • Environmental • Evolutionary • Genetics •Gestalt • Humanistic • Industrial/Organizational • Intelligence • Personality • Linguistics • Psychoanalytic • Sensory • Quantitative • Social • Transpersonal 50.193.19.66 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Alert notification
Among psychologists it is not uncommon for us to see and understand an us-them conflict. But recently there has been an unprecedented use and support of this non-harmonious behavior for targeting psychology, sociology and psychiatry articles.

I particularly faced this with self esteem article. So this is an notification for others who might accidentally come across or have to face such unprovoked or unethical attacks towards your contributions. Other editors are welcome to comment constructively (like expanding evidences...etc.) here on this ongoing WP:LTA problem. The user in this questionable actions is Jim1138. This person was primarily targeting only sociology articles and now they have changed focus to psychology articles.

Evidences of this discriminatory actions and vandalism's:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750287697
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750287697
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750367274
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750470846
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750532181&oldid=750529504 (Continual WP:REFACTOR)
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750538406
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750538378&oldid=750534953 (Continual WP:REFACTOR)
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&diff=750367229&oldid=750348191
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&diff=750287770&oldid=750263091
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=751088329&oldid=751086419
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hope&diff=751366680&oldid=751276761 (Removal of valid links by keeping links to blogs/forums)
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soft_skills&diff=754536142&oldid=754510384 (Adding irrelevant factoids)
 * 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociomateriality&diff=prev&oldid=754372917 (A recent massive removal)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.98.12 (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Triggering disruptive actions for negative purposes from unsuspecting editors using avid understanding of social psychology. Direct evidence of this understanding can be seen here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Permstrump&diff=prev&oldid=751388943

Mislead actions:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750466842&oldid=750466830 (WP:REFACTOR per WP:TPO)
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750471015&oldid=750468945 (possible retaliation)
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750487695&oldid=750471015 (WP:CANVAS & Probable WP:OTHERPARENT)
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750547897&oldid=750544218
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_resilience&diff=750348024&oldid=750347940
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750547549&oldid=750543944
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750551297&oldid=750548896
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=750551284&oldid=750551176
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750551598&oldid=750551431
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750551599&oldid=750551384
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=750551597&oldid=750551512 (Continual WP:REFACTOR)
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-esteem&diff=750556744&oldid=750551754
 * 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=750558679&oldid=750500151 (WP:CANVAS by deceiving facts)
 * 14) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750566739&oldid=750566422 (Probable WP:SOCK of Carlstak – the timing is so fishy)
 * 15) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-esteem&diff=750566739&oldid=750566422

Direct confrontation with this user's personalized agenda would evoke continual harassing, this user can also gaslight policies and incidents, this user will also not honor any WP:ETIQ. Since wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY (discussion's failed due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU) the current best way of preventing these antisocial behaviors would be to WP:DENY and ethically WP:REVEXP or WP:BANPOL in psychology articles. There might be other options an experienced member can draw-up, I felt this to be my responsibility to notify to prevent violence in general. 117.213.19.105 (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @117.213.19.105 This talk page is intended only for discussing improvements to the portal, Portal:Psychology. For user issues requiring administrator action I suggest you post at WP:ANI. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @59.98.248.30 Please do not edit the post left by 117.213.19.105. If you have a point to make, please add it by making a signed post of your own - but I think this is the wrong page for these points anyway. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @John of Reading It is hard to keep track of this users actions, though it mostly consists anti-vandlism, on the side these sort of things happen. It is also better to not contact now or bring this to ANI till evidences build up, this issue relates to portal related articles and will have better visibility and strong case formulation here.59.98.248.30 (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting review(s)
Hello, please help with reviewing the following segments, as they have been pending for a while, which I fear would become obsolete, shortly - 1. a DYK review submitted by me towards Allegiance bias about 2 weeks ago! 2. My nomination for BEOSP for improvement which was, again, submitted well over 2 weeks ago and most recently for Pain psychology as well. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: Also, an overwatch on my recent contributions would help too - 1. another DYK nomination for Schadenfreude which I've expanded 5x 2. a peer-review for the same topic (schadenfreude)! Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice from the Portals WikiProject
WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    &mdash; The Transhumanist   07:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with Parapsychology
I am presently trying to resolve some issues of bias on the parapsychology article by inserting text relating to peer reviewed articles. Things are getting a bit out of hand with people claiming parapsychology is not even psychology at all and thus wanting to remove the Psychology sidebar from the article. This despite parapsychology once being a featured article in psychology! Can anybody please come and add some input? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-Propaganda Page
The beginning of this article is written very casually, beginning with the word "essentially," and then progressing into more of a definition. As this is Wikipedia, it should be safe to assume that the article will be a summary, and "essentially" is unnecessary as a start. As well, could we include a link to the "Echo Chamber (media)" Wikipedia article in the "See also" section? Although the Self-Propaganda page is just a stub, it seems that much of the article relates to the Echo Chamber (media) page. Also, any help on what I can do to add content to this article would be greatly appreciated. –– Noaddrag (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've begun contributing content on the "talk" page of this article to allow further feedback and edits. -- Noaddrag (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Article selection criteria
To make it more noticeable for portal editors, copying the following article selection criteria here from portal subpages. North America1000 10:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Copied here from Portal:Psychology/Selected article: "Feel free to add featured, good, and a-class articles, that are also top or high importance articles, to the list. Other articles may be nominated at Portal talk:Psychology."

Copied here from Portal:Psychology/Selected psychologist: "Add a new selected biography (NOT necessarily a psychologist, despite the page name) to the next available subpage." "Feel free to add Most important authors in psychology or top or high importance psychologists to the above list."

Portal updates
The following updates have been performed to the portal. North America1000 10:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated portal using Template:Transclude random excerpt, providing current, up-to-date information that is verbatim to article content. A consensus approving the usage of transclusion templates in portals was formed at this Village Pump discussion. Used selections moved to the main portal page from Portal:Psychology/Selected article and Portal:Psychology/Selected psychologist.
 * Expanded portal with the addition of more FA-class articles (diff, diff)
 * Expanded with addition of one FL-class article (diff)
 * Expand with the addition of more GA-class articles (diff, diff, diff, diff)
 * Added some B-class biographical articles to diversify and round-out the portal and provide a more comprehensive topical overview (diff)

How are people supposed to find the page on "Personality disorders" and psychopathy, machiavellianism, narcissism, sadism, sociopathy?
Here's the page Personality disorders and psychopathy, machiavellianism, narcissism, sadism, sociopathy, Cluster B personality disorders? At the bottom of these articles, shouldn't there be a link to this "Psychology portal"? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Clinical Psychology Article
I noticed that the transpersonal psychology section was not that big, at least when compared to other psychological methods. I was thinking of adding that "transpersonal psychology also focuses on understanding the brain as it goes through shifts in consciousness that are related to transcendence" transcendence being different for each individual of course. Source: Hartelius, G., Krippner, S., & Thouin-Savard, M. I. (2017). Transpersonal and Psychology: An Experiment in Inclusivity and Rigor. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 36(1), iii+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A584329702/AONE?u=birm97026&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=82ef0da5

I just wanted to go through the talk page before I actually edited.

Thank you

Pammul (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)