Talk:The Collected Works of C. G. Jung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
[edit] about merging articles on individual works into this one
it depends if this is a full article on a particular work, I guess it would include the stage of his life at the time of writing, the social and medical context (when he wrote it, the development of his thought at the time and the work's place in that) and summary, his own influences, critique maybe even? and influence, then yep, let's make it a full article. But if it's gonna be a brief record, then maybe it's better in the Collected works of CGJ. And, if the Collected Works is a compilation, then a significant work would merit a separate article. Julia Rossi 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
---
I think that the article on psychological types should be left as a separate item from the Collected Works of Jung, because many people is interested in his particular taxonomy of personality types. I also think that this article should be expanded, giving examples on how to use this taxonomy.
---
another opinion I think its best that we leave the individual book pages open, in time each one can be expanded to provide valuable information, perhaps quotes sections, chapter by chapter summaries, concordances and so on.
---
I'm for leaving the existing articles as is. Certainly Psychological Types, as mentioned above, is a major work that merits a fully developed article. Bertport 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphanage
I like the list as is so far, but can't see the value of empty pages being orphaned. Wikipedia is not an orphanage. Suggest titles in the list be left as is until someone really has an article (or good sized stub) to contribute. I revisited this page, but found it frustrating to click on titles "linked" and simply be redirected to the list, or sent to an article that is just a list of headings. In wiki, clicking on a blue link means you expect to get information, not a blank.Julia Rossi 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging and combining
The articles on typology are pretty thoroughly confused, and need to be straightened out. Personality type leads one place, Psychological type and Psychological Types lead to another, and Psychological types leads back to Personality type. God knows what other confusions exist. Somebody with a lot of Wikipedia skills and a bit of personality type knowledge needs to work on this. How can that be brought about? Lou Sander 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
