Talk:Gerontology: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David E. Volk
m (New page: {{subpages}})
 
imported>Roger A. Lohmann
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
==Reset Status==
I've just reset the status of this article from a "4" to a "2", based on a number of changes already made, and on more which will be made in the near future. I've also added tags for Politics, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology and History. This truly is a majorly interdisciplinary field!
[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
: Because of restrictions on the number of possible categories, I am pulling the Social gerontology materials out of this article and putting them in [[Gerontology (social sciences and humanities)|this new article.]] That change still should be enough to justify the status change noted above. Is anyone disagrees, they can reset it back. [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:54, 7 March 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Biomedical, sociological and psychological study of aging. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Health Sciences, Biology and Psychology [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Reset Status

I've just reset the status of this article from a "4" to a "2", based on a number of changes already made, and on more which will be made in the near future. I've also added tags for Politics, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology and History. This truly is a majorly interdisciplinary field! Roger Lohmann 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of restrictions on the number of possible categories, I am pulling the Social gerontology materials out of this article and putting them in this new article. That change still should be enough to justify the status change noted above. Is anyone disagrees, they can reset it back. Roger Lohmann 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)