Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Psychology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 3 months

WikiProject Psychology was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 4 September 2013.

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	4	4	11			20
FL			1	1			2
GA	4	17	30	71		9	131
B	33	208	339	338		104	1,022
C	26	336	1,113	2,044		495	4,014
Start	7	165	850	3,332		2,304	6,658
Stub		6	121	1,323		1,810	3,260
List	7	11	47	100	1	12	178
Category					3,095		3,095
Disambig					35		35
File					44		44
Portal					100		100
Project					23		23
Template					232		232
NA		7	48	178	763		996
Other				4	183		187
Assessed	78	754	2,553	7,402	4,476	4,734	19,997
Unassessed			1	14	1	396	412
Total	78	754	2,554	7,416	4,477	5,130	20,409
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 72,229			Ω = 4.78

Shortcut

WT:PSYCHOLOGY

Requested move at Talk:Counseling psychology#Requested move 18 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Counseling psychology#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on Draft:Samuel Zeyd

Hello!

I would like to kindly request feedback on a newly created draft article:

Draft:Samuel Zeyd

It is a biography of an Azerbaijani psychologist, coach, and author of a certified psychocorrectional method. The draft includes reliable sources, a neutral tone, and categorization within the scope of psychology.

Any guidance, suggestions, or editorial support from WikiProject Psychology would be deeply appreciated.

Thank you in advance! Samuel Zeyd (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following:

Wikipedia:Autobiography

Wikipedia:Notability

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

WP:PROMOTION

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This also appears to be relevant:

Wikipedia:Username policy

There is absolutely no way your draft will be accepted. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of random psychologists (or anyone else). AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business-related articles and we hope to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved in particular. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for psychology, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Short description of BPD.

Recently, a user added a short description to the article on Borderline personality disorder. As a result of me stating the opinion that the description was inadequate, I requested suggestions at the article's Talk page. A suggestion was proposed, namely "Personality disorder characterized by unstable emotions, relationships, and self-image", which was supported by others too. We decided to also request comments from others over here. Thanks in advance for thoughts on the matter! BlockArranger (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is “double bind” the same as “double-bind problem” or should there be an extra article for it?

Please see the discussion at WT:WikiProject Sociology ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 06:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personality disorder

There are some pretty important conversations going on over at Talk:Personality disorder including Talk:Personality disorder#Significant lack of citations regarding the lack of citations throughout the article Talk:Personality disorder#Profound lack of information on PD assessment regarding where we seem to be lacking some information, and Talk:Personality disorder#Managment section which is my attempt at trying to make some improvements to the management section. Any input would be appreciated. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic overshadowing in autism

There is a new page that was recently created that may interest this wikiproject, Diagnostic overshadowing in autism. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ovulatory shift hypothesis

Ovulatory shift hypothesis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and correction of Risk-seeking

I just stumbled upon the article on Risk-seeking, which is in a seriously bad state. The psychology stuff is in its own section beneath the rest, and is of dubious quality to say the least. I believe that we should try to improve it, as traits and behaviors are obviously important. Perhaps a split of the article would be in order...? I think we should first work on making the content adequate anyway, so that we do not dump a half-baked article onto Wikipedia. BlockArranger (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Alcoholism

Alcoholism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lay person reader-friendly wordings: "et al." vs. "and colleagues"

As the title states, I'm pondering if we should either wikilink "et al." or just use "and colleagues" and similar wordings, when citing researches in text, as a lay person reader might not be familiar with academic writing norms. Something like this:

A 2077 study by Jane Doe et al. suggests...

Jane Doe and colleagues found in a 2077 study that... 海盐沙冰 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Legal history of cannabis in the United States

Legal history of cannabis in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Human behavior, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Good article reassessment for Self-harm

Self-harm has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]