Talk:Paedology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paedology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A msg from the initial editor[edit]

I am a complete ignoramus in psychology and pedagogy, not to say pedology. I created this article with the sole intention to fill the white spot (er... the red link, like this one) created when I wrote the Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. Therefore please excuse me for a very superficial description. mikka (t) 22:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolved. However: the name Alexander Nechayev is given that way in English and then written in Russian as "Nechayev Aleksandr Petrovich." Why not "Aleksandr Petrovich Nechayev" ? Terry J. Carter (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast cut-and-paste from first found Russian source. Inversed. - 7-bubёn >t 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expert on subject needed to edit article[edit]

I have rescued this article from some long-standing vandalism, and attempted to start copy-editing to make it plainer English, but have quickly realized that it really needs an expert on the subject to fix this - there are too many apparent pitfalls for a non-expert like me. So I've tagged the article accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedology (study of children) → Paedology – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DAB, WP:ATDAB, WP:UCRN. Use a common name in lieu of parenthetical disambiguation. And this isn't even a proper parenthetical DAB anyway: it's a synonym/definition, not a qualifier. It also it reads like broken English. Worse yet, it's ambiguous in and of itself (how is that a disambiguation?!), seeming to imply a study children not the study of them. It thus comes across as the title of a published work, not the name of a field of study. Oh, and the paed- spelling cannot apply the pedology, the study of soils (it's a different ped- root). So, the move satisfies WP:SMALLDETAILS, though DAB hatnotes will be needed. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 09:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A very sensible form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I think there's probably some article as a merge target for this WP:DICTDEF (which has a detailed etymology, and virtually nothing else). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't merge away pages that have dicdef problems when they are clearly something that can be expanded to not be one. An entire field of scientific study is not a dicdef by nature, even if this article has a dicdef wording problem at present. In other words, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG and so is entitled to an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.