This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This template 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 Medicine: Psychiatry This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine This template is supported by the Psychiatry task force.

Has there been a discussion about this psychiatry template somewhere, and about what pages should be tagged with it? It seems to contain a bit of a mishmash of links listed as specialities. And I do'nt think the American Psychological Association should be included in the list of psychiatric societies. EverSince 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a discussion yet about the template, I just created it myself recently in order to organize some of the psychiatry related articles, as has been done quite extensively for psychology related articles. But please, let us start a discussion. Smeelgova 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Am I OK to edit the template? I would like to remove american psychological association as mentioned, + change hte list of subspecialities to be those listed on the psychiatry page currently

Also what do you think about the tagging of antipsychiatry? Clearly it's very and directly related to psychiatry, but at the same time it's whole thing is that it's against psychiatry, so just seems funny to be tagged like that! EverSince 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those all sound like good ideas. Smee 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

EverSince, I think the American Psychological Association should be included as there is a move to allow Psychologist medication dispensing with additional training. Smee, I think you made a good compromise in linking the antipsychiatry article while keeping the focus clear.TalkAbout 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not link that article. Smee 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've altered the org list, didn't see these new comments until now. I do disagree about including psychological organisations TalkAbout - they are by definition and membership not psychiatric orgs.

Need to check before changing the subspecialities of psychiatry listed. The ones included on psychiatry page are:

• Child and adolescent psychiatry
• Adult psychiatry
• Psychiatry of Old Age (Psychogeriatrics)
• Learning disability
• Behavioral medicine
• Consultation-liaison psychiatry
• Emergency psychiatry
• Addiction psychiatry
• Forensic psychiatry

and further down

• Biopsychiatry (or Neuropsychiatry)
• Social psychiatry or Community Psychiatry
• Cross-cultural psychiatry
• Psychoanalytic psychiatry (or Dynamic Psychiatry)

But as you see can see not all are linked, should they still be included?

Not sure still about psychiatry tag on anti-psychiatry, maybe should leave it for now and see if anyone raises an issue... EverSince 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. I do think the infobox is a very good addition[reply]

EverSince,I found these:

• Behavioural Neuroscience
• Biological Psychology
• Brain Disorders
• Dementia
• Depressive Disorders
• Eating Disorders
• General Practice Psychiatry
• Health and Clinical Psychology
• Health, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
• Huntington's Disease
• Indigenous Mental Health
• Mood Disorders
• Mother/Baby
• Neuroimaging
• Neuropsychiatry
• Neuropsychology
• Posttraumatic Psychiatry
• Psychiatry of Women
• Psychogeriatrics
• Psychopharmacology
• Psychosocial Research
• Psychotic Disorders
• Rural Health
• Suicide and Suicidal Behaviour
• Transcultural and Refugee Psychiatry
• Veterans Psychiatry

Some seem very similar like geriatrics but may not cover dementia etc. I imagine the next step would also be to create some articles for the psychiatry specialties not covered in the near future and table them until such time.TalkAbout 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TalkAbout, apart from neuropsychiatry, that list seems to me to involve variants on names for those subspecialities already on the psychiatry page, or are separate professions (e.g. psychology) or are more types of disorder or types of clients or types of activity. What I plan to do is add neuropsychiatry to the psychiatry page, and then add that and all the rest currently listed on the psychiatry page to this template - but, as you suggest, leave out for now those which don't currently have a wiki page to link to. EverSince 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've made some revisions/reordered the specialities as line with above. I still don't think it reads quite right yet but will develop over time I guess. EverSince 12:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the animation at Image:Brain animated color nevit.gif should be avoided, as it is not illustrating anything and is distracting while reading the text. Can we replace it with a still image or something iconic? — brighterorange (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, interesting suggestion, thank you. What image would you suggest? Smeelgova 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I like the idea of a brain, perhaps something from commons at [1]? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brighterorange (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any particular image you like, perhaps from Human brain or Brain articles? Smeelgova 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I like the brain animation, I think it is wonderfully done and upon checking my copy of Grays Anatomy I find that they too have added color to the brain and I imagine they would make the page rotate for a full view if they could. Can the image file be larger so when one clicks it can be more easily seen? I also, think it will be a great visual tool and makes the page a bit lively. Smeelgova thanks for creating the image and the template.:-)PEACE TalkAbout 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very distracting, nothing animated please -- Diletante 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other opinions? Smee 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK points noted, can the rotation be slowed down Smee? Would that solve the problem? Keep in mind that the brain is the most active part of the human body even when we are still and I think the animation brings that to life. I would go for no animation if we place four images of the brain:front, back, side (view), and slight shot from below the frontal lobe looking up.PEACETalkAbout 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to slow it down, another option would be to choose another image from Wikimedia Commons: Category:Brain Smee 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[2] Good but in Chinese?

[3] Not very good visually except very small,

[4] Good but not to exciting. The others there are simply too depressing, some are a flash back to anatomy class and a bit too much for small children. So, I am still sticking with the original one [5] Any other ideas from those that are objecting as to finding a solution we could all agree on? Can we work with this one until such a time? PEACETalkAbout 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is so distractign to me because its brightly colored, the rotation makes these bright colors cycle, and the brain seems to be moving jumping back and forth towards the viewer which really draws the eye (its as bad as that flash ad with the bull). Thanks PEACE for the alternative options, but is a brain really the correct symbol of psychiatry, isn't it more concerned with the mind than the brain? Would something like a combination of Psi and a Caduceus be acceptable to everyone? What are the tradition symbols of psychiatry? I will try to find some alternatives today instead of just complaining -- Diletante 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. No animation thank you. --Ysangkok 17:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the image. Discuss what you think here. Smee 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The "brain" is the perfect image as if one has a chemical absent it causes a condition (which affects the mind and its functions), if one suffers a brain injury it affects the mind (memory, as well as body functions depending on the injury), if one uses drugs like ecstasy the brain can be permanently damaged (as seen on brain images) and thus the brain would seem apropos. Also, when looking for the origins of developmental delays we once again go back to the “brain”. Most psychiatrists tend to speak of the mind but really mean the brain. They don’t say the mind chemistry; they will however say the brain chemistry. They will say terms such as brain re-branching but not mind re-branching. So, without the brain one can’t really have the “mind”.PEACETalkAbout 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote on your choice below or express your opinion there if you like... Smee 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think we should discuss it. Here's some suggestions:

1. (we could eventually make a version without the captions)
2. (we could eventually cut the cord)
3. (we could eventually cut the cord)
4. (too complex?)
5. (yeesh, and it's a nontransparent JPEG)
6. (too boring?)
7. (it's broken so maybe it's not a good example?)
8. (too incomprehensible?)
9. (eventually remove captions and/or rotate)
10. (eventually remove captions)

--Ysangkok 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Number 9 - License is given to modify that one, so we could easily remove the captions. I like the colours. Smee 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• I vote for #1 and #9. I prefer #1 but can live with #9 as the colors are very nice. Color is a must as the gray ones are too dull.PEACETalkAbout
• I like numbers 6, 8, and 9. Chupper 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly opposing to any of the proposed images. They all refers to brain, not to psyche. These image could be used to tag topics about diagnostic image or to tag neuroscience topics, but not psychiatric topic. The burled of saying what psychiatry is and what should so be an image to describe it, is to the psychiatrist, of course. -- 82.54.154.105 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the current image, since it is strongly misleading. -- AnyFile 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a move without consensus. Please engage in the discussion above. Smee 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The current image is misleading, someone can believe that psychiatry is grounded on image of the human body or someone can misleads psychiatry with diagnose by image. All the alternatives proposed in the above section are misleading too (since psychiatry do not deal with brain, (while neurology, neurosurgery or neuroscience do).

So the reason for removing the current image is that it mislead the reader. This is fundamental point that is much more important than discussing a future image. I am not removing the current image because I want a new one, I am removing it because it is strongly wrong. If there is a grammatical error in a sentence in an article what should I do, remove it or discuss it?

So please show, on the contrary, that there is consensus (at this time) of keeping the current image and prof that the current image is not misleading. In lack of the latter, it is better to avoid reader to be misled and hence the image to be removed. -- AnyFile 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think a brain image is reasonable enough to represent psychiatry, but I suppose it should ideally be a functional one rather than structural, e.g. an fMRI of activation patterns (ideally from a psychiatric study) rather than general neurological structure. I do think it's a fair point that a brain image is more representative of biopsychiatry than, say, social psychiatry...but one little icon can't convey everything (guess an ideal one might show activation in response to a social challenge...but that is getting very picky and tricky! EverSince 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The day psychiatry will be about brain, this could be an acceptable image (however, if this happens, it should be clear the difference from neurology, for instance). Till this day and psychiatry is not about brain, but its main aim is to lock people, and to pretend this is done on their interest, an image of a brain, is completely misleading. For this reason the image should be removed. Please do not insert it again. Feel free to replace with an image that really give out the idea of what psychiatry really is. -- AnyFile 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list above for the areas covered under psychiatry and then vote above or provide an image to add to the vote. Also, "It is strongly wrong" and "its main aim is to lock people" doesn't cite 'WHY' or 'WHO is trying to LOCK (I imagine you left out UP)people'. Please explain. PEACETalkAbout 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think the consensus here is a picture of the brain would be just fine for this template. TalkAbout has already stated that Anyfile's arguments were not sufficient to qualify that image being removed. I have, however, added Diletante's image as the one for the template. I'm pretty much just doing this because it looks cool :). If anyone does prefer an image of the brain, feel free to leave a comment here. Psychiatry is the medical specialty dealing with the prevention, assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of the mind and mental illness. A brain would do just fine too. Chupper 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the consensus so far is that it would be just fine, but perhaps that certain kinds of brain image should probably be OK, while other images might have advantages. EverSince 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyfile and a user at 82.54.154.105 are the only people here against using an image of a brain. Smee, Eversince, myself, Talkabout, and Ysangkok all support using an image of a brain for this template. Chupper 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just mashed together the public domain svgs on psi and caduceus. The caduceus should not be confused with the Rod Of Asclepius which is the actual symbol of the medical profession. According to the Psychiatry article the word came from the greek "spirit physician" so I think this image is appropriate but I am not sure. This was my first svg i've ever made and the first image I've ulpoaded so please fix it if you notice that I did something wrong. Is this appropriate? -- Diletante 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree that icons depicting body organs are inappropriate. The template probably needs something more abstract and arty, like above. Adamantios 10:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably best. EverSince 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys mind if I uses this on the mental health template? Chupper 16:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't -- Diletante 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caduceus is the symbol of merchants, while the symbol of medicine is the Rod of Asclepius. [6] [7] I propose the latter is used. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I realized this a few weeks after Diletante uploaded that. I tried to do some image work putting a Rod of Asclepius on the psi, but I wasn't happy with the results. Would anyone be willing to switch back to Ysangkok's image 9 for the template? It seemed to have the most support... Chupper 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wonder if you all could agree to remove "Psych navs" from the bottom of this template. I'm terribly sorry but it makes no sense to me at all. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and removed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

navboxes should not have redlinks. its a guide to existing articles. if we need these articles written, then write them, then consider adding them to the box. I will remove them and add the removed names to requested articles, at the psychiatry project and the main list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why we wouldn't include a link to the primary contrarian points from both anti psych to psych and from psych to anti psych.

Isn't this to create echo chambers? Isn't spreading knowledge what wikipedia is about?

Pauloroboto (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit that I reverted changed the *title* of the template, which already did contain a link to the article on Anti-psychiatry. Plus, you gave no explanation for why you did that. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]