Visual perception |
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of , which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.
= Can be psychologically studied =
Visual Perception falls under the auspices of psychological study so long as it is studied from a psychological perspective. Clearly it can be studied from many points of view, and I know so many psychology professors who work on this multidisciplinary subject that to not list it would almost seem laughable to me. I thought the article conveyed pretty well that it can be (and IS!) psychologically studied. -- 09:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
= categorization =
I removed the psychology category, because its redundant. Visual perception is a part of psychology through the perception subcategory.
An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. --
-- 09:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Then remove it from the perception category or something. It s clearest and easiest to find by browsing through a list of psychology category items. Common sense should also always prevail, despire wikipedia guidelines. -- 11:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::I agree we should go along with common sense. But I d be interested in hearing exactly why you believe visual perception should be a top-level subject under psychology, and referring to common sense doesn t communicate anything. ::What I m trying to do is have a simple, clear Psychology category system, where related subjects are clustered. If people are looking for visual perception, they re going to type it in directly as visual perception or perception and get there directly without using categories. If they re browsing, they want related subjects. Now psychology is a really big field, so having everything related to psychology in one gigantic pile I don t think is helpful. For example, finding visual perception among illusions and gestalt is helpful, whereas finding it among vicarious conditioning and vulnerability theory of schizophrenia is not. ::My conception of how the psychology should work category-wise is have sub-categories for the schools (behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.) and divisions (social, cognitive, personality, perception, etc). Most individual subjects would fall under at least one of these groups, and not need to clog up the parent psychology category. The subjects directly listed in psychology would be fundamental issues in psychology, such as research techniques. ::I think this conception agrees with the conventions here on Wikipedia. For example, , even though Napoleon is a very notable French politician. If you want to break the conventions of Wikipedia, you should have a good reason you can clearly explain. ::-- 20:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::I can t say that I d see any problem with such a categorization scheme. I do think that perhaps there should be a recursive link to navigate upwards within the nested category schemes. Perhaps something along the lines of 21:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Infobox for psychology looks good to me. If there are any improvements other folks want to make to it, that d be fine, but I think it s clear, succinct, and makes obvious how visual perception fits into psychological studies. -- 07:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
= Illustrations ! =
Isn t it paradoxical that an article on visual perception has no illustration whatsoever Pictures would really help explain unconscious inference, Gestalt laws, etc. If anyone feels like sketching up a few doodles, here s a great opportunity. 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There s currently a photograph of a pair of eyes on the right-hand side of the article overlapping and obstructing the text of the article itself. I tried several times to change the alignment of the image, but I couldn t figure out how to prevent the overlapping effect. Would any of you wiki-savvy users be willing to correct this glitch|
|