Category talk:Socionic models

I suggest we liquidate this category and disperse the articles to "hypotheses" or "classical socionics" (models J and A). --Admin 16:24, 18 July 2007 (BST)

"A majority of socionists use Model A alone. Other models are employed by a small number of socionists."

What's with all the thought-police stuff? It's getting to be a bit too much IMO. Thehotelambush 01:31, 27 July 2007 (BST)

In my opinion this category shouldn't even exist. I've never heard of "Model B." Why should it be on the same plane as Model A, which is the foundation of socionics? --Admin 02:24, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Your Aristocracy is showing - there is no "plane", it's just a category, one which actually means something, unlike Classical Socionics. Since this is a wiki, there is little point in explicitly saying what's commonly accepted. There are no links to Model B, and very little text in it, so I doubt anyone will be converted anytime soon. Description is not the same as endorsement. Thehotelambush 02:35, 27 July 2007 (BST)

You've got a point there. I am used to thinking of categories as menus of websites (like the ones listed on our home page), not the numerous internal categories that we have here. (the original text here was machintruc's, btw). Can someone provide a link to an elaboration of Model B? --Admin 02:47, 27 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, it seems like we're going to end up with a lot of little tiny categories, just by the nature of the subject and the size of the wiki. Eventually we should make an index or something to put them to good use. Thehotelambush 03:15, 27 July 2007 (BST)

We can add a prominent link to the list of categories somewhere. --Admin 03:19, 27 July 2007 (BST)