Purpose of this page Edit
This is the discussion page for the Main Page. Here we should discuss things that need to be on the Main Page only.
Any big changes to the front page - please discuss here first!
Please sign and date your contribution by typing four tildes (like this ~~~~).
What else does the Main Page need?Edit
Please add ideas here...
What might the Main Page need removed if too big?Edit
What could we happily do without?
Logo Image for the SiteEdit
I have an image to replace the blue Wikia image in the top left corner.
Here it is, tell me what you think of it:
This is the png version of the logo. We can update it later if/when someone comes up with a better logo, but something along these lines seems good. Discuss alternative logos on this discussion page. Mostly Zen 11:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
NEW: Featured ArticleEdit
Does anyone know how I can change the word NEW to appear in a red colour? I've tried normal HTML coding tricks but it refuses to be anything but black!
- Thank you to the anonymous contributor who fixed this to Red! :) Mostly Zen (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This will be a nice first featured article. We are currently working on the Article Depression which will be our first main featured article. Please help contributing to these two articles to improve the existing featured article and to get the Depression article into good shape after which it will be featured too. Mostly Zen 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Structure of the WikiEdit
Hi David, I have moved your discussion to here: Forum:Structuring_the_Wiki which is part of our general discussion forum. (Linked to from Discussion Forum in the community box, on the left hand side of the screen). I really like your suggestions, and will reply properly there. Mostly Zen (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can't, because the wikicode defines subsections of a page (when editing) by H1 H2 H3 H4 tags (= == === ==== headers in wikicode) and no other way. So, you have to use those type of headers if you want to edit sections.
- So, the easiest way to do this is to make sure you only have H/= type headers where you want editing divides. That means: no using <h2> or === for bold text, and applying the styles directly to h2 tags rather than tables for sections. I've edited your Main Page quite a bit in an attempt to do what you seem to want (see the history for what exactly I've done). Revert if it is not to your liking.
- Alternately, what you could do is put the subheaders into transclusioned subpages, and link to the edit page of that subpage (as many other wikis do). --Splarka (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is Fuzzform of Wikipedia again. I noticed that most of the comments are by operators/creators of the wiki. This shouldn't be the case, in a good wiki. This wiki needs more exposure to the online community. I'll add links where appropriate on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Also, I'll register here, although I won't be of much help until I head back to school (I'm on extended vaction for the summer). (Contributor 220.127.116.11 3 August 2006)
- Hi Fuzzform. Many thanks for helping to increase our exposure. Your help is much appreciated. We look forward to you joiin us here 18.104.22.168 11:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a bit of advice if you're trying to expand to more of the world. Try adding a chatroom. That's what people are looking for, community and help. Adding a chatroom would go a long way to getting more people drawn in, especially at 90k views a day. (Gartonia 02:29, January 21, 2013 (UTC))
Just wanted to say that I did a bit of work on the personal experiences section of this main page. I mainly tried to make it easier to follow and more organized. The actual content is mostly the same. Andrew Schramm (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Brilliant, that section looks and reads much more easily now. Any chance you could do something similar for the How can I contribute section? When I first wrote it, it was pretty clear, but as I added and added stuff (as we had more material) its gradually become a little messy. Tom Michael Mostly Zen (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Semi Protection Edit
Admittedly it is generally inadvisable to engage in full protection. There is, however, a mid-option available if you happen to be an admin, call semi-protection with several options to it. One of those is to block only moves. Since there would be no legitimate reason for moving the Main page, I would suggest that it be protected from moves, while still leaving actual edit available.--Kirk 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Revamp of Main PageEdit
I've started to redesign this page so the first people see is how to get into the site. Before, they were having to read through reams to get to this. I am hoping this will improve useability and load more quickly.
The Psychology Wiki's first birthdayEdit
- Happy 1st birthday, Psychology Wiki! (January 21) - Congratulations on an impressive first year, Philralph 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
False Claims Edit
To start the wiki with a self boasting yet un-sited claim is not a good sign. "one of the largest psychology resources on the internet". To further discredit this claim, the site is a year old and does not make the first few pages of either a Google or Yahoo search for Psychology. I am not dissing, and will probably get involved with this site in the near future, but be modest and this wiki will grow with time. Make false claims and people will move right along. dkriegls...
- Contributors (whether or not they agree with all of that comment) might help the cause of psychology by noting which psychology resources on the internet are apparently much larger and do "make the first few pages of either a Google or Yahoo search". Any that are not listed under Category:Web resources or its subcategory Category:Websites ought to be listed there, to give us a better idea of where we are lacking. Robin Patterson 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- well, there is psychinfo for oneDominus Draconis 06:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Book 15 is "Other specialist fields of psychology" but then come Books 16 and 17. How do they relate to that "Other" word? Does "Book 15" define it? (The target category has groups of 12, 7, and 2 links, with no precision about its early use of the word "other".) If the book numbers are engraved in some psychological tablets (DSM or ICD?), OK; but if there's no such magic in the numbers they might be better dispensed with so that the "Other" one can come at the end. Robin Patterson 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again Robin for your suggestion. I've rearranged the books in a more logical order. list of main fields followed by "other" (I think transpersonal should be in the "other" group, and maybe some of them made into their own section?) then the world category and finally the professional items. We are going to spend the next year aligning the structure of the site to the Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms and perhaps a better structure will emerge from this exerciseDr Joe Kiff 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Logo on the left Edit
Perhaps the psychology Wikia logo could be change to at least have a white background. Lots of good content though. : ) --Remi Oyen 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Logo... EditHere is a slight variation of the logo without a black background. I hope that helps. --Remi Oyen 05:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I created a transparent fav icon too.
Why an image of a brain as the graphic for the logo for The Psychology Wiki? I found my way to this site via a Wikimedia posting about Peter Ossorio, founder of Descriptive Psychology. The brief post says his work has had a broad influence on psychological science, but apparently not enough influence on the participants in this wiki to lead any to object to the logo as a harmful elevation or reification of the brain as the iconic image of all psychology. Following Ossorio (The Behavior of Persons, Ann Arbor: Descriptive Psychology Press, 2006), the iconic image for the science of psychology should be a person, not a brain.
Michael Strait 17:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Michael. Thank you for your comments. I am inclined to agree that we should have a different logo for the reasons you suggest. Now we need some alternatives. Do you have any artistic inclinations yourself? The current logo is the best solution offered so far but we are open to offers.Dr Joe Kiff 23:27, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
What other sites like yours do you recommend? Edit
Does anyone have suggestions for other sites like this?
Road11 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Check out the answer I gave at Forum:What other sites like yours do you recommend?Dr Joe Kiff 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What other sites like this one do you recommend. Edit
I am searching for online communities to inform me about research methodologies that are based on psychology that can be applied to market research.
If you were to add more features to your site, what would they be? Edit
I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions about adding more features that would attract more participation here?
A copy of Wikipedia Edit
I also could do a wiki about astronomy by pasting 40,000 articles from Wikipedia. And this is featured? Nonsense, just a forgery of a good encyclopedia. If the 40,000+ articles were created from scratch, or at least 1,000, this would be a nice wikia. It is only a copy. Freud2008 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are many articles here that are original and not on Wikipedia. In addition a large number of those articles that were originally on Wikipedia have been edited, corrected, and reviewed by professionals for accuracy. One of the major features that this site has to offer readers is that articles are read and edited largely by licensed mental health professionals and are not subject to the hijacking by zealots and the uninformed anon. editors often found on Wikipedia, especially on controversial or contentious topics. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is also important to understand that this is just the very early stage of this wiki and that the pages from Wikipedia are best regarded as temporary placeholders, illlustrating how we might proceed and what links are available. In this first pass we estimate that the wikipedia articles will make up about half of the titles and that of those about a third will not require a substantial rewrite. A further third can probably be adapted after the inclusion of further referenceing while the other third will need to be completely rewritten.In the long run our current estimates is that Wikipedia content might overlap with about 10% of ours. At the moment our main aim is to sketch out the knowledge structure of our discipline. You might also like to access a copy of the APA thesaurus and consider for yourself which items would warrant articles with a psychological focus only on Wikipedia, then do the same with a specialized psychological dictionary. Bear in mind the psychological literature relevent to each topic and think of the particular focus that psychology would bring to it. Take for example high school students- now WP has a superficial article on this. But at the last count psychologists have produced over 20,000 papers relevent to that topic so you can probably see there is much more to be said from a psychological perspective, a lot more depth to be explored from a professional point of view. Dr Joe Kiff 07:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oops I have just checked and WP doesnt have such an article, but you probably get my point. Do continue the discussion if you wish, as the dialogue helps us make our thinking clearer.Dr Joe Kiff 07:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
What is a vocational rehab assessment Edit
Assessments/evaluations that are made, by whom, and how are they performed i.e. for the purposes of determining mental health problems and how disability affects the persons ability to successfully return to work. Making a determination/decision if additional treatment therapy etc..person should have prior to returning to work/school. This is for an adult who has been successful and has sought services from the vocational rehabilitation (state/federal) program and needs services to successfully return to work. 22.214.171.124 03:09, March 8, 2010 (UTC)Stephanie Thomas (lay person)
- Hi Stephanie. We are not really an advice service and this is not my area of expertise and I am in the UK so its not appropriate for me to comment. Try this article: Cook, Judith A.; Pickett, Susan A. (1994) Recent trends in vocational rehabilitation for people with psychiatric disability.In American Rehabilitation.
bioTechniques article Edit
Vol 48, no.1, 1010, page 25-29
In this article they are talking about recording mulbiple ion channels. Is there any one that know of a way to get a samlpe of this data? I would like to use it in my book "The Neuron and Mathemtiaca".