Talk:ISTP (personality type)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Type Descriptions

I just deleted the descriptions on all of these personality types. A lot of them were copyvios from different sources, several of them being from http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/ , where they may or may not have been copied from other locations. Nonetheless, the three theories of MBTI, Keirsey Temperaments, and Socionics are quite different and require different descriptions of types, functions, relations, and other concepts. Socionics especially differs from the other two. The three theories should all be expanded upon in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to do this while there is a conglomeration of these three theories and they are treated as one and the same. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 type articles to eliminate the hours of work it takes to update the same text 16 times. This is a recommended use for templates according to Wikipedia policy WM:TEMP.

To edit the templates:
1. Click the Edit link on the section of the article you want to change.
2. Select and copy the title of the template page (the text between the double braces).
3. Paste the copied text into the Wikipedia search box and press Go (not Search).
This will take you to the template. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 type articles! (INFJ, ESTP, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Extraversion

The MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and related Jung Typology assessments use the original spelling, Extraversion, rather than the modern corruption, Extroversion. In this context, Extraversion is jargon and should be thus spelled. ThreeOfCups (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo and border color

For a discussion about the logo and border color, see Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?. Please don't make a significant change to the logo or border color without discussing it there first. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction?

"It also gives them a keen insight into situations similar to that of the ISTJ." Should not this be ESTP/ESFP, or in other words Se dominance? Otherwise it does not make sense. --Hartz (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISTP (personality type) → ISTP
ISTP → ISTP (disambiguation)

– I don't appear to be able to perform the move myself for technical reason, but this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "ISTP". This article has been viewed more than 25 times more than all the other topics combined[1][2][3][4] so I think it makes more sense to direct users to this page when typing in ISTP, as it seems to be overwhelmingly what readers are looking for, with a disambiguation hatnote at the top of this article (which already exists). Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC) - Sudo Ghost 02:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but are the hits valid? I notice that ISTp personality type is located at Sensory Logical Introvert, not ISTp (personality type), so are people reaching the correct personality type? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page explains that the Socionics psychological type is located at Sensory Logical Introvert and that redirect still only had ~60 page views in the past 30 days, compared to ~10,000 page views for this article, so I'd say yes. - Sudo Ghost 04:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the general principal that obscure acronyms with lots of possible meanings should not have primary topics. Only when the acronym would be widely recognized by the public (e.g. IBM, FBI) would this make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such consensus or "general principle", and this article was viewed over 25 times more than all other subjects combined; this is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there is no stipulation that "obscure acronyms" should be avoided (also disagree that the MBTI personality types are "obscure"). It could be argued that any ambiguous term with "lots of possible meanings" should not have primary topics, but Wikipedia guidelines say otherwise (6 topics is also not a lot by any means). Given that readers are looking for this article so much more than all the others, it doesn't make sense not to direct readers to what they are looking for. - Sudo Ghost 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should have such a policy about acronyms, but we don't at this time. bd2412 T 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what you are really proposing is:
ISTP (personality type) → ISTP (disambiguation) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2013

No, these sorts of moves are carried out simultaneously, not sequentially. Well, ok, they're generally not moved at literally the same time, but in this case, the second listed move would have had to be made first. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reduce to one article

The other recreational pseudo-psychology systems Socionics and Enneagram of Personality have only a single article. In the meantime it would be beneficial to remove the "list of notable persons of this personality type" seeing as the Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator is make-believe. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]