Talk:Divisions of the American Psychological Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2017. The result of the discussion was merge.

Split[edit]

Prior to this entry, there was no piece which outlined the APA's various divisions. These divisions play a big role in the structure and usage of the APA, so I think it's important to explain them in greater detail; simultaneously, I saw that the existing APA page was way too long to include these without being burdensome. I'm hopeful that each division will create a page specific to its origins, work, notable members, etc., and that they'll use this page as a springboard for linking to them. Wadegeorge (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the content is not infringing on any copyright. The page only contains one sentence (which was uniquely written) and a list (which cannot be written any other way, as APA divisions are listed with a number and a title). Please advise as to which areas seem to be infringing upon copyrights. --Wadegeorge (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wadegeorge is right, a noncreative list is not subject to copyright, so this article should not be deleted for copyright reasons. However, I see no reason why this should not be included in the main article, if such information deserves inclusion. It isn't obvious to me that it does deserve inclusion, but unless it is going to be substantially expanded upon, it should go in American Psychological Association--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the source refers to the APA’s 54 divisions and then lists 56. I take it they aren't the American Mathematical Association.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the list, there are indeed 56 divisions, but two are not currently active. So "54" is the correct number of active APA divisions.--USpring76 (Talk) 16:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, learned something about copyright. There remains the point, of course, that copying a list that we can simply link to does not constitute a good article (or even a section in the APA article). As this is not CSD-eligible, I'll PROD it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, all. My decision to keep the list separate was one designed to prevent the general APA page from being overly burdened with a list of this length. If there's a formatting trick to making this 2-3 columns, however, I think that would be a good approach—I still have a lot of Wiki coding to learn. I do, however, think that there's good reason to keep this content on Wikipedia rather than just linking: 1) the divisions are very important to the general framework and functionality of the APA (maybe I'll write more to this), and 2) I believe each division has a robust enough history and operation to warrant its own page. In regards to the latter point, I see that this would provide a strong and intuitive path for reaching each. In regards to the 54/56 issue, good point: they're definitely a little sloppy on that.Wadegeorge (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment regarding the correctness of the "54" number.--USpring76 (Talk) 17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There actually are historical reasons why there are gaps in the sequence of the number of divisions. Down the road, it would be neat to see if we could document the history behind those decisions as a section within this page. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 17:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... the reasoning lists that a copyrighted image is being used. I do not see any copyrighted image, nor did I include one in the post. Please advise what this is in reference to. --Wadegeorge (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

Can't find any other section actually discussing the merger, so thought I had create this.

Oppose. There are already Wikilinks to articles on some of the divisions. There probably would be more down the road; many of the divisions are frequently in the news for many controversial policies (intelligence and IQ for example). The APA article will be overburdened with this list. Churn and change (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I agree with the arguments made. Several of the divisions are actively working on Web presence, and separate pages for many of the divisions within Wikipedia are likely. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)