Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology/Psychometrics task force

Tagging articles
I've added the  text to the banners of a few articles that are within the scope of this task force,   but doing so hasn't added these pages to the relevant category. is there anything else that needs to be done before this tag will work? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the template Template:WikiProject Psychology would need to be edited. But I can't do this, as it's template protected and I'm not a template editor. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  03:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you get someone else from the Psychology Wikiproject to make the necessary change to the template? Until that's done, it won't be possible to follow the instructions under the "Tagging and assessment" guideline. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagging tasks
I think I've finally got the tag working now. You can see it in operation at Talk:Big_Five_personality_traits, which mentions in the template at the top of the page that the article is covered by this task force, and the tag also has automatically added that article to Category:Psychometrics task force articles. However, there are two more tasks related to this tag that still need to be done:


 * 1) Someone needs to find or upload an image to represent this task force on the talk pages of articles that it covers. I don't think I should choose an image unilaterally, so I'd like to get the opinions of other editors (particularly user:Everymorning and user:Deleet) about what image to use.
 * 2) Someone needs to add this tag to the articles that are within the scope of the task force. I can help with this, but I'm going to be pretty busy for the next month, so I can't do all of the work myself. Also, I'm under a topic ban from the articles in this category, so I can't add the tag to those. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the first thing you mentioned earlier, but I wasn't sure what image would be best. I just found this image (File:IQ curve.svg), and I was wondering if other editors here thought it would be well suited to represent the task force. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  19:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That image is okay if we can't come up with a better one, but its downside is that it's exclusive to intelligence research. As was discussed on the psychology wikiproject talk page, psychometrics includes research about both intelligence and personality, so it would be best if we could can up with an image that represents both topics.


 * Also, it ought to be an image that's decipherable when it's only 25 pixels wide, since that's the size it'll appear in the banner. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What would you think of using this image? That one can represent any normally distributed trait, which applies to both intelligence and personality measurements, and it also is simple enough to make out when it's only 25 pixels wide. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks good. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  21:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at a few other task forces, and it seems like the majority of them don't include an image. The template also has been edited so that it doesn't display a redlink in the place where the image would have gone, so at this point it it's not as important to add one there. Would you be okay with an image not being included? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't really matter to me. Incidentally, what I think is much more important is to get other editors to join this task force. Every morning   (there's a halo...)  02:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've invited a few editors to join the task force who have contributed to articles related to human intelligence in the past, but I don't know if they'll be interested in participating here. If you know anyone else who you think would be interested, I'd encourage you to invite them.


 * However, we should be careful to avoid inviting people who are likely to make non-neutral or poorly-informed edits, or who have a history of doing that in the past. I'd like to avoid violating WP:CIVIL on-wiki, but if you'd like some examples of people who I recommend against inviting, send me an e-mail and I'll let you know that way. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I know the outcome that's happening to me isn't your fault, but I really wish you hadn't suggested here that we look for other editors to join the task force. The AE thread is causing me to regret having done that. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)