Talk:Mind model

Nominating Mind model for deletion

The term "mind model" does not seem to exist. A Google search yields only this Wikipedia disambiguation page using the alleged term "mind model". Furthermore, the disambiguation page offers links to seven Wikipedia articles (Conceptual Model, Space Mapping, Theory of Mind, etc), but my text search shows that none of these seven articles mentions the term "mind model". Hence the term "mind model" seems to exist only in the mind of the responsible Wikipedia editor and should be deleted.

Furthermore, the Mind model links list is a confused jumble of two distopics, namely Conceptual models (models of external reality, created by the mind) and Mental models (models of how the mind works, as proposed by psychologists). Therefore, once the Mind model page is deleted, I suggest transferring the listed links to those two pages as appropriate. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:ACAD:F546:A9E3:D423 (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied from previous discussion at User talk:Certes#Deleting Mind model

Although the term is not widely used, the collection of links there does seem useful. As partial title matches, they're unsuitable for Model (disambiguation) but might perhaps be usefully merged into Model itself, with Mind model becoming a redirect to there. That might be a good alternative to deletion here. Certes (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the several IP addresses commenting here and on User talk:Certes are the same person. If there are multiple opinions here, please let me know.

If we're going to merge the topics into other pages, we should keep this page for attribution as the history of a redirect. As an ambiguous term (could mean model in a mind or model of a mind) that should probably be a {{R from ambiguous term}} to Model (disambiguation). That means removing the PROD tag so that the page isn't deleted. Certes (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct with regard to same person. Could you explain please what the advantage is of "merging" the links into other pages and "keeping this page for attribution" rather than simply adding the jumbled list of links to appropriate articles and deleting this Mind model page? I am not sufficiently experienced with Wikipedia to understand the advantage of your proposal. Nor do I understand the outcome of your proposal - would this Mind model page continue existing in some generally accessible format but no article would link or could link to it? 86.156.70.117 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

To take the last question first: the new current version of this page would redirect to the dab. The old versions would not normally appear but could be accessed via page history. Attribution is important because we are copying within Wikipedia and should credit the authors of the text we are copying. Page history is a recognise way to satisfy that requirement. There's no intrinsic advantage to merging the links; each one should be added to related page(s) or discarded on its merits. Certes (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not understand what you mean by the oxymoron "new current version". The "current" version was last changed in 2017, so is not "new". Do you mean to say that you will create a new version? And if so, what would that new version contain (apart from redirection links)? 86.156.70.117 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we would create a new version of the page, containing only a redirection link. Certes (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. To be honest, I think your proposal would make a mountain out of a mole hill, as opposed to my idea of straightforward deletion. My reasoning is that the Mind model page is not an intellectual achievement which merits attribution, firstly because it is a misleading jumbled list of two different categories as explained above, and secondly because the term itself does not really exist in English. On the last point, if you look up the original editor, you will see he is not a native English speaker. Thirdly, the existing diversity of model-themed articles on Wikipedia is complex enough already, without adding to the confusion with a page based on a language mistake. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:F1FE:32A:AC6F:8763 (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine; if no one objects within seven days it'll just get deleted. Certes (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As the page creator, I support Certes proposal to keep the list of links at Model and redirect to the section. I object the characterization that this is not an encyclopedic topic; a search in Google Scholar returns more than 5000 articles covering the term. The problem, as noted by the IP user is that it is an ambiguous term, being used both for theories of the mind and theories of the world inside a mind. That's why this page is a disambiguation page instead of a proper article. My concern is that a reader looking for the term will need to see the list of links to understand which of the two meanings is closer to the one intended by their text of reference. If you prefer to keep this list in article space instead of at disambiguation, so be it. Diego (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in, Diego. Your Google Scholar analysis has made me change my mind: it would indeed be useful to keep the Mind Model page distinguishing "model in a mind" from "model of a mind", with the links sorted appropriately under those two categories. Can we agree on this consensus?

(DETAILS: Analysing your Google Scholar results, I have looked at the first 30 papers. Most of the results are spurious matches (for example "MIND model", where MIND is an abbreviation, or "Theory of Mind model" where the Theory of Mind is the keyword, and not "Mind model"). Nevertheless, one of the 30 papers is by a native English-speaking academic publishing in 1983 and he (Robbins) uses mind model in the sense of "model of a mind". This is a result I cannot ignore so it partly invalidates my concerns about the legitimacy of the Mind Model disambiguation page.) 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:C9:F9D1:7093:274A (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, keeping and clearly separating models representing minds from models formed mentally seems like a good way forward. Certes (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's settled then :thumbsup: Diego (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)