Thanks again Joe. I have incorporated some of your ideas and I'll work on the others some more.
The idea that it's about the care rather than the framework is interesting. I'll try to reach out to some of cited authors for their feedback. I feel like many people think it is a model, but it's more of a framework. I mention in the article where this is a source of confusion for some people. In a framework, components from other models can be plugged in. That perspective allows people using TIC to plug in relationship tools they already have so they can start using the framework quickly and without a lot of new training. It also helps underscore the framework can be modified for any relational profession (including architecture). On the "how to" comment. Yep, I sprinkled how to tips throughout the article, and that section you noticed is very much that way. Here's where my Wikipedia skills may be lacking. For me, in articles like this I appreciate some quick take away tips, rather than be forced to go elsewhere to get any suggestions at all. They help me get a sense of whether I want to pursue this more. I think the tips also provide useful context to flesh out the concept. For the Talking about trauma section, my experience is that most people have no idea how to do this or what it means and that it's hard and scary to open up the topic. So, I thought to go the extra bit in that section, and the cited source had a nice list but spread throughout the long article. As I recall, all of the tips in that list came from the cite to Sweeney, et al., except as specifically noted. To the extent the list is good to include, I wasn't sure how to best cite the exceptions. For example, in #2, the basic idea of establishing safety is discussed by Sweeney, but agendaless presence was coined by Bonnie Badenoch. You're astute to notice "pace and lead" should be obvious, and it may be for many therapists. I'm not a therapist and never heard that until I took some training from therapists when I was 50. Do these thoughts make you want to rethink your concern about it being too much of a how to guide, or make you want to double down on your thought? Thanks again for all your help, and I understand if you don't have time to give it more thought. Warm regards, Mark Baumann On Sunday, November 19, 2023 9:25:38 AM (-08:00), Joe Mabel wrote: > Presumably the most relevan assessment would be from WikiProject > Psychology, so you'd request that at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology/Assessment > > . > > I have a few comments of my own, but I'll put those on the talk page of > the article rather than here in an email. > > JM > > On 11/19/2023 7:34 AM, Mark Baumann wrote: > > THANK YOU Su-Laine! > > > > Do you, or does anyone else know how to get the article reviewed for a > > ranking assessment? > > > > Mark > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2023 7:26:12 AM (-08:00), Su-Laine Yeo Brodsky > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >> Thank you for posting. This listserv is very quiet so I for one am > >> grateful for the chance to chat with other Wikipedians in my region, > >> especially about science articles. Making another title change is > >> totally fine and it won't create code problems. I've just gone and > >> done it. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Su-Laine > >> Vancouver > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 6:59 AM Mark Baumann <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Forgive me if it's inappropriate to ask for help in this listserv. > >>> > >>> Last year I created a Wikipedia page which I titled "Trauma- and > >>> violence-informed care." I decided to simplify the title and I changed it > >>> to "Trauma informed care." After I made the change (moved the article), I > >>> realized I should have titled it "Trauma-informed care" with the hyphen > >>> added. I assume I can easily re-title it, but I'm wondering if too many > >>> title changes creates code problems? > >>> > >>> Does anyone have an opinion about leaving it as is with less than ideal > >>> grammar vs making another title change? > >>> > >>> [A little context, FWIW. TIC is a big concept, but there was no article > >>> dedicated to it. The concept was just in a section in an Article about a > >>> government agency that helps promote the concept. Most people refer to it > >>> as TIC rather than TVIC, and most people use the hyphen in the term.] > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance. > >>> > >>> Mark Baumann > >>> Port Angeles > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >>> [email protected] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] > >> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> [email protected] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
