Talk:Somatotype and constitutional psychology

Request to split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Xurizuri (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose that the sections Somatotype and constitutional psychology#Criticism, and much of the introduction and Somatotype and constitutional psychology#The three types relating to constitutional psychology should be split into a separate page called Constitutional psychology, and have this page be moved to just Somatotype. If this is done, the pseudo-medicine sidebar should be removed as well. While the three types are still heavily used in sports talk and fitness talk today, the pseudo-psychological theory is completely unused, obscure, and mostly irrelevant. Crescendolis (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

splitting sounds like a good idea, for the reasons articulated by Crescendolis. Biblib (talk)

I disagree. The article is short enough as is. --Integer123 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Xurizuri. In my opinion the article should have been split, based on the argument proposed and because both topics meet WP:NOTABILITY. That the article is (currently) short is irrelevant because it is not "one article" that has become WP:TOOBIG but two articles shot-gunned together, therefore not a reason to close on "no consensus". The only reason that these two topics appear together is because they had the same person as their theoriser - that is not a foundation on which to structure an encyclopedia. Your thoughts please? 182.239.159.174 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Too hard to think about, eh? 182.239.159.128 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"See also" section

"Somatology" links to "biological anthropology". תיל"ם (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent removal of longstanding info without discussion.

Hatting WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:generalrelative recently removed a longstanding sentence wothout first discussing. My understanding is this is against policy. I dont necessarily have a problem with the removal, but should it not be discussed first? 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:FBCC:4E33:A5BE:64AA (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Putting aside the question of "shouldn't it have been discussed to remove this section first", it's not a "longstanding" sentence as it's only been on the page since [June of this year]. And even if it wasn't, poor or incorrect information shouldn't be kept just because it's been on a page for a long time. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC) That's fine, I don't necessarily have an issue with the removal, I just thought we were supposed to discuss whether or not the information was "poor or incorrect" *before* removal. 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:57E0:F373:E22:75A8 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Cool, I'll go ahead and remove it then. In addition to what Henryhenry1 correctly stated about process (see WP:JUSTDOIT), I'll point out that the sentence I removed contradicts what the rest of the article says about somatotyping in criminology being "quackery" and "pseduoscience". I haven't done a detailed reading of the literature, but from a brief survey, that looks to be an accurate characterization, meaning that we'd need a good reason to consider a single study contradicting this consensus to be DUE for inclusion. Further, after looking at the study itself, it's clear that it wasn't even properly summarized. But even if it were, it's making some rather trivial claims which I don't see as inherently encyclopedic. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) I guess I was under the impression that changes to content should be discussed before making the change. That's all. Not trying to start anything. No opinion one way or another on the content itself, but in all fairness the source didn't contradict the article. It simply stated that a correlation existed - it didn't imply causation. In any event Merry Christmas. Not everything has to be an argument. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:A5E3:2339:6344:1CDA (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)