Talk:Schema (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Plural form
Hi. Should we change this article to use the plural form "schemata" instead of "schemas"? That's what I have learned in this context, but I'm a bit hesitant to change it, since I'm not an native English speaker and Merriam-Webster says both forms are acceptable. Currently, there is note in the middle of the text that says: "NB: in reality the plural of 'schema' is 'schemata'", which looks a bit silly IMO. /skagedal... 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- That note needs to go. But as for schema, I think the singular has become the standard for article names. As to schemas, that should be changed to schemata. I'll look at it. --DanielCD 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Schemas is becoming the standard plural, and is certainly more common in recent writing on this subject. These two articles should definitely be combined; there is no difference between "schema theory" and "schemata theory". Mccajor 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
Bartlett (1932) needs a reference to the actual study. The "Rastifarian" example does as well, as I have heard this somewhere before. I'll try to find some refs as I have time, but hope others can assist and add any refs they might know of. --DanielCD 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to throw in that i found the lines on "existentialist theory" frustrating because these are interesting points but I personally have never heard of such ideas associated with existentialism and could have used a source. The person who wrote this only left behind an ip so i can't contact them to request references. My recommendation is thus to remove the reference to existentialism but keep the good points in this pararagraph, and reference perhaps *Narrative Psychology* by Theodore Sarbin. --Yonderboy 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
