Talk:Psycholinguist

untitled
This page seems like a messy decimation of the pyscholinguistics page, it does not start with a clear definition of psycholinguistics, the central part seems like unsupported opinion or hearsay, the only external link is broken (at least for me, today 2009.09.16). On top of which, if there was anything you'd expect to find uniquely on the page about psycholinguists it would be information specifically about practitioners in the field which is not otherwise suitable for the main psycholinguistics article - and there's no such information.

Anybody mind if I rewrite this from scratch? It seems to me the first sentence is fine. After that, there is usually a *short* explanation of 'what the field is about' and then a brief 'what they do' to the extent that isn't obvious or covered on the field article.

The mathematician article lists 'notable' mathematicians in the first para, which seems fairly logical, except that the main mathematics article (which is quite beautiful) references every mathematician in that list.

I find that articles about the practitioners of a specialty may contain a subset of the following sections.

Psycholinguistics is a relatively new area - "historical figures" seems premature. I can't find any specific honors, awards, or even a professional organization - which means that statistics are also going to be hard to come by. There are a few departments of Psycholinguistics where you could presumably get a specific degree, and many more departments where you could pursue this specialty under a broader category such as Linguistics, Psychology, Cognitive Science. Maybe we could find something special about motivation... It is a already a sub-specialty, subdividing it is really splitting hairs, and in any case those hairs are better split in the psycholinguistics article.

Upong reflection, I recommend that this article be replaced with a redirect to psycholinguistics --Spike0xFF (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)