Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:HeartofaDog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- so messages are not likely to be answered quickly, as although I check occasionally, I won't be around vey often. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont care if you reply or not ;) - I just want to tell you that I'm very impressed of your article about the 1922 sodom and gomorrha film! Great work! I've never seen a compareable good article about an austrian movie until yet! hope you come back to wikipedia soon! -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, Otto! many thanks. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply earlier - missed it initially when reading another new message, then didn't get round to replying. Anyway, your solution looks elegant and workable - good work! Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am have added some new information to this page and I have seen that you have commented before on it. Can you leave some feedback as to further develop this page. Thanks.
CyJack15 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I will leave the Project Tags but the assessment as a stub i think is no longer viable. I think the article is more developed than just a stub.
CyJack15 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
User pages use a subpage structure (see Wikipedia:Subpages). The software only recognizes subpages as pages following a / in certain namespaces. (Which is why things like talk page archives are always /Archive_1, /Archive_2, etc.) Thus, your page wasn't in your user space, but was in fact floating in the user namespace. The page has been restored to User:HeartofaDog/Spare templates. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
193.171.131.230 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Christian religious houses in Belgium, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian religious houses in Belgium. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just been tinkering with your additions to Keizersberg Abbey. There still is some sort of liturgical study centre there, but I don't know anything about it (yet). I've added another Belgian monastery stub (Munsterbilzen Abbey), and will try to get some more done next week. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the list of monastic houses in Denmark. There isn't much available on many of them. I would appreciate some help with terminology for the monastic houses I have been working on. I have been using Danish sources and for the most part, the words translate directly to English counterparts. Many of the houses in Denmark had English, French, and German roots, so I would expect the Here are some questions I have had as I add articles:
Can I use abbey, monastery, house interchangeably?
Are nunnery and convent interchangeable?
How are an abbot and a prior different?
Are the terms mother house and daughter house the best available to describe a relationship between monasteries?
Are there another terms for a monk's habit (clothing)?
Thanks for your help. I'll keep an eye out for additonal houses. I found one for Schleswig.Giljuna (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I need your help again. I clicked on the Roskilde Abbey link on your Danish monasteries page and wrote an article there. When it was complete I realized it was under the wrong title, so in my haste to correct it, I moved it to Roskilde Friary, and then realized it should have been written under St Catharine's Priory. I tried to 'move' it again and now it I am afraid I have messed up your Sjaelland (Denmark) monasteries section and don't know how to fix the mess. If you could help straighten it out, I would be grateful and be more careful in the future. I apologize profusely Giljuna (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello HeartofaDog/Archive 2008/01/ - 2009. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:HeartofaDog/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff WriteRead 12:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, HeartofaDog! I'm concerned about the article Cypriot Gay Liberation Movement. You mentioned in your edit summary that it's "notability because of the circumstances surrounding LGBT issues in Cyprus", but I don't believe it qualifies as notable. All of the information in the article is about Modinos v. Cyprus, not about AKOK. Furthermore a search of Google News returns nothing, and a search of Google: only returns the name of the org, nothing substantial. I'd like to redirect the article to Modinos v. Cyprus, if that's okay. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be good etiquette to notify editors who have objected to the proposed deletion of an article of the AfD discussion?
Judging by the criteria used to justify the deletion of the article, especially the last comment at the AfD discussion page, then by that logic all of the other clan pages within Wikipedia (there are many) are candidates for deletion.
The article very clearly explained the history of the clan and significant members, however, I do agree it lacked enough relevant third party references. But to suggest that we don't exist at all is an insult to your intelligence.
So - there we have it - a future project for me if time permits - namely - to revive the article - complete with relevant references - and convince you and the other two that an article about my clan is just as notable as an article about any other clan. What, after all, makes one clan notable and another not notable? How fast they breed (sheer numbers - like MacDonald or Campbell)? Notoriety of one member (like the usurper Macbeth)? Or perhaps we should also consider what great contributions individual members have made to society (like George Stephenson, for example)? I know, I know ... you'll give the stock Wikipedia answer ... third party verifiable references ... so ... until then ... to be continued... Cheers! Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- HeartofaDog, thanks for the feedback on my talk page. After some thought and trying my best to maintain a NPO I acknowledge that you guys made the right call on this one. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Please note that {{coordinate}} is not yet used on the English Wikipedia. When copying coordinates from the German Wikipedia (or elsewhere) please use {{coord}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
..for your reply - am already watching and occasionally deleting - I may well be mistaken.HeartofaDog (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hope for the best, while bearing in mind that (unfortunately) less-than-the-best is possible : ) - jc37 14:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be pretty active now for someone who claims to be away until 2009 ;-) Hope to see you translating one or another austrian-film-related article again :) -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bravo for the new Hugo Bettauer article! Do you plan to nominate this for DYK?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- And thanks for translating City without Jews! PS: Wanna see some scenes I "cut" out as GIFs? :-) The expressionist scenes of the film are really genious! See the scene with the blinking stars of David or the singing jewish ghosts torturing the anti-semitic member of parliament Bernard. Not expressionist, but also a nice scene: jews reading the newspaper and discussing :-) -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
On 18 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugo Bettauer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for correcting my translations of the articles on Friedrich's paintings! I was doing them rather quickly, and missed a lot of those details that you caught. Thanks, Lithoderm 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks.
Note that in addition to the other errors I am find people that are marked as "Saints" and Category:Beatified people but are nearly always just Beatified. There are also likely some that are beatified or venerated that are not in Category:Beatified people. I am not sure how much Roman Catholics care about this distinsion, but if you do see them it is best to not add any more saint categories to them. --Carlaude (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi HeartofaDog, thank you for your advices about Wikipedia, and for your contribution to improve Bonneval abbey's page. What you added about Bonneval history is absolutely right (Especially, the bands of marauding French bandits took their part in the looting). Above all, my English is close to what a french frog can produce. So I am very pleased to see it corrected.--Martha e (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your patience in explaining the meaning of this category to me at CfD. I certainly would not have pursued its deletion had I known its true complications! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hy! How are you? Everything going well in en-WP? After a few weeks christmas- and university-brake (concerning the writing of new articles, not my amount of contributions ;-)) I wrote a few articles about Austrian Cinema (companys and history) and about a few yiddish actors/directors ((de:Joseph Seiden, de:Leo Fuchs and de:Sidney M. Goldin) who even (except of Goldin, who has a stub) dont have an english article, although they were american and lived and worked in NY ;-) - but thats not what I wanted to ask you to translate)... So the matter now is the film Revanche (film) - as you might have heard, another Austrian film which got nominated for the best foreign film-Oscar; The last 1 or 2 hours I worked on the "Handlung" in the de-Version of the article. It is not completed now, because I do not remember every detail (including one important, which I will add as soon as possible) - but it is already pretty "ok" ;-) So my question to you is, if you have time, if you would like to translate the de-article into en-WP? (the awards I already "translated" ;-)) Especially the "plot/story"-containment is not the easiest for me to translate, but would be a great source of information to alle the people in the world who speak or at least understand english (and no german), so that all of them who are interested on the oscar-nominated movies can make theirself a picture of this movie. :) beste grüsse -- Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Great work! :D - Otto Normalverbraucher (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I saw the movie a second time and watched for particular details. Based on this I made some changes to the German version of the plot. It would be nice if you could incorporate these changes also to the English version. Alternatively I could try to make these changes myself and ask you to improve my English afterwards. Thank you, --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi , I've read your last comment on Categories for discussion: it seems to me that you agree with the move/redirect but you don't like the way it was proposed and/or the supposed bad faith of the nominator. So, could you redo the nomination in a more neutral tone after this one gets archived? Since you opposed this nomination, you can't be considered in bad faith.--Supparluca 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. Couldn't you do that yourself, Supparluca? Considering how active you have been for the last two years in all kinds of nominations and talk pages debates to move topics away from the heading "South Tyrol". And if these failed a new attempt, and again another one...till the agenda is pushed through. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use my talk page for an argument -you both have pages of your own for that!HeartofaDog (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
On 26 January, you wrote:
Geez yourself. Procedures matter, and if the issue is as contentious as this one is, they matter a lot. Your man made an error in not troubling to follow the procedures here, but a far worse one in not bothering to fix his mistake when it was pointed out: instead, the gang turns up all together to try and push the thing through anyway - this doesn't create an impression of good faith. Instead of making such a song and dance, perhaps one of you just solve the problem by redoing the nomination correctly, and in an appropriate tone.
"Your man"? "The gang"? you unquestionably suffer from CABALnoia. Now, I don't know what made you write that kind of accusations, I did make a mistake, but I made worse without anyone turning against me screaming conspiracy.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since I am a native English speaker and you aren't, you shouldn't read too much into details of expression. And watch your manners. You simply got this one wrong, because you didn't take the trouble to find out first what to do - go away and read the procedures properly, leave it a few weeks and then try it again - WITHOUT the shrill cries of indignation.HeartofaDog (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's all very unfair - "South Tyrol" and "conspiracy " in the same breath? whatever next. :) HeartofaDog (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I didn't say I wasn't wrong in this one, but that's not the proper way to tell anyone. And watch your manners? You're the one who accused me of being part of some intra-wiki gang, so the "shrill cries of indignation" (okay, I had to look that one up in the dictionary) are justifiable. Also, if you are right about me having read too much in your words, you could explain me what you meant, and if I was indeed mistaken, I will promptly take back my shrill cries (lol).--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Enough.HeartofaDog (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- This should be enough to understand what kind of person this "heart of a dog" really is, and an example of what one shouldn't do in a civil discussion.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am clearly a VERY BAD PERSON, and no-one should address me at all - at least, not unless they have something sensible to say. However, to show regret for my breach of civility, and more importantly to teach myself not to let the Wiki-muppets irritate me, I will voluntarily ban myself for 3 days (except to monitor certain pages for vandalism).HeartofaDog (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Guys relax; both of you. Heartofadog, first of all, we are no "gang" and he isn't one of "my men". I hardly know Piccolo. I made my statement to you simply because it gets old seeing editors lambasting other editors on here constantly. This is a case where you could of assumed a bit of good faith before letting out the accusations. Anyway, have a good break... Icsunonove (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- My break was good - and voluntary. You've had a break of your own since - Icsunonove block log - at the insistence of the Wiki community. Please reconsider, while you're rusticated, whether this is really the forum for you. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A tough question. I do not think Cathedral, Place Name is the correct way to go for all cathedrals. I would reserve it for dab reasons. That said, I do not feel strongly enough to oppose the change. St. Emmeram's is the only cathedral article I am watching. (I did work on Emmeram of Regensburg.) If the argument comes up again, it will be with people who have a stronger interest in cathedrals. Happy editing! imars (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving Regina Fryxell from the dust bin. We're just getting started. Xuehxolotl (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem! HeartofaDog (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
HI! Thanks for your expansion of articles related to Austrian cinema. If you are interested there is Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia. We need as many people who speak German as possible to expand them! Let anybody else know who speaks German on here! No doubts a lot of Austrian articles could be started/expanded using text from German wiki. Regards, Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not just St Denis. Quite a lot of the articles on French buildings have been moved to purely French names. "Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris" is at "Notre-Dame-de-Paris" or something similar. It makes it very hard for your average English reader because they don't always show up when you search, unless you are sure of the French spelling and punctuation. The problem doesn't seem to happen with articles on German and Italian buildings.
Anyway, I've done some rewriting, very slowly because I'm having difficulty saving. Frustrating! I wish there was a better pic of the ambulatory. I've got two, but they are both worse rather than better than the one in the article. I'm feeling grumpy! I think I'll play mine sweeper! Amandajm (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice work on expanding this article! Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just curious, they call it Sella group, so why not Sella towers with a lowercase? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi - it just looks really peculiar as the name of mountains / a mountain, which as a proper name would take a capital letter on the second element. But I am not sure that in any case in English it would be "Sella towers/Towers", which sounds like a block of flats. Have you some sources for the name in English? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, really just a direct translation for Sellatürme, I am afraid. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The move had been on for several days and was now completed. Therefore I removed the tag again... Look in history before you complain. (unsigned comment by User:Keallu)
- Then specify it properly the next time since there was a rename tag prior to yours who was done shortly before yours... (another unsigned comment by User:Keallu)
(like there's going to BE a next time!)
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Good Ol’factory— that is nice but my main difficulty is that Johnbod is, as of yet, unwilling to put forth a really clear possition, or even a kinda clear possition. --Carlaude talk 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the issues have been put to you clearly several times. Your cat scheme is not appropriate for many of the articles to which you are attempting to apply it, for the reasons given you above (and if you cannot understand them, then perhaps you should not be attempting to work with this sort of article). I second Johnbod's suggestion that you abandon this cat scheme as futile. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes issues have been put to me, but not a position as in a fix, an end state.
- While I can guess just what fixes people want-- and must guess some-- I think there are better uses of my time.
- Without Johnbod, for example, stating a position I can neither take a deffinate view on it, argue my view where I dissagreed, nor carry out the possition where I did agree. For example, a comment I just made on my page is...
- So you advocte deleting certain "church" categories... but I would have to guess how many categories at this point.
- This sounds like you are saying they should all be in categories like Category:Medieval churches in Foo and removed from any other category, categories like...
- Category:1250s architecture
- Category:Church buildings established in the 13th century
- Category:Oriental Orthodox congregations established in the 13th century
- Category:Christian organizations established in the 13th century
- If you and he really want all these undone— in addition to being a very bad idea— it would not be with my power. --Carlaude talk 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is now a Cfd at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Categories:Formerly_papal_congregations.... Cheers Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Formerly papist congregations now Protestants in kinda medieval churches with precise construction dates (but not architecture)
Thanks. Although I would rather watch an all-night re-run of the European Parliament election results than waste more time on this lot, it would be wrong just to let it through on the nod. I can only admire your patience. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought you would like to know than if and when there is a proposed renaming for the various Fooian congregations established in the 00th century to 00th century Fooian church buildings, I will support it (as a better, but still imperfect system) up until fairly modern times-- the 18th century-- since not only are the articles in "20th-century churches" about the buildings and congregations, it can be shown that many are more about the congregation. I am not sure about 19th-century churches... I will have to look at those more. So I would oppose Fooian congregations established in the 20th century to 20th century Fooian church buildings, but not oppose a change to 20th century Fooian church buildings and congregations or 20th century Fooian churches. What do you think? Of course I will also be glad to not have the categories deleted.--Carlaude:Talk 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was polite of you to ask, and I appreciate it.
- As you know, I have a major difficulty (which is obviously shared by several other editors with an interest in the area) with any attempt to deal with "congregations" and "church buildings" in a single cat or over-cat. (The word "church" seems to be regarded now as ambiguous in cats, so is no longer an option). But I do understand that sometimes the congregations in themselves are significant, and that you are trying to find a systematic way of logging that, and I don't see why that shouldn't be achievable. (But I don't think you will ever find a "one rule fits all" solution). The least complicated way still seems to be to have entirely two separate cat schemes, one for the buildings - and I'm still inclined to think it might be best to do that through the architecture cats - and another for congregations ONLY where those were noteworthy (i.e., not every church building needs a congregation tag) and I don't think I'd be likely to support any scheme that tried to combine the two. Before I go into detail on your proposals above, could you clarify whether "Fooian" refers to countries or to denominations (by which I mean ,e.g., RC or CofE)? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"Fooian" refers to denominations... e.g. Category:Lutheran congregations established in the 20th century. Creating a system of churches by country would have to be done almost form scrach-- and I am not sure what the merit would be. As soon as you make a system "by country" people begin making categories for any country even if the category has just one item in it.--Carlaude:Talk 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I've got two main problems here:
- 1) I just don't see the logic of trying to deal in one single cat or over-cat with congregations AND buildings; you obviously see sense in it, but I can't. The only way that makes sense to me is to have two separate parallel systems, one for church buildings and the other one for church congregations. I expect I could support both Fooian congregations established in the 00th century and 00th century church buildings used as separate cats side by side (subject to all the qualifications and difficulties as per Johnbod et al that go with trying to put any kind of definite date on an older church building in Europe). That would work, for example, for medieval European parish churches, as they can be catted both as RC congregations pre-Reformation, and Anglican (Lutheran, Calvinist etc) congregations post-Reformation, plus a cat, or cats, for building by century where ascertainable.
- (At CfD I was arguing re Santa Maria etc that congregations shd only be catted if they were noteworthy separately from their buildings, but thinking it through I can see that there's perhaps a need to indicate the USE of buildings separately from their STRUCTURE - after all a building is neutral: it's just a building and can be used for anything; it's the use that is Catholic, Protestant, etc etc - and that that is what you are aiming for with your "congregation" cats [if I've got that wrong, please tell me]).
- The fact that these cats feed higher up into an over-cat - Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established - that covers both church buildings and church groups / congregations is an insuperable difficulty for me, however, because I can't see the logic of putting them together.
- 2) the proposed cats try to convey too much information in a single cat, and this makes them ambiguous. For example, 00th century Fooian church buildings: it's not clear if this is about a church built in in the 00th century for Fooian use, or whether the Fooian use is the present use of a building bult for something else, or even if it was a church then but not now or vice versa, so there has to be another cat to clarify it in any case, and if you have two cats their terms may as well be more effectively distributed, as above. That's before all the problems of whether the date is the build date of the present building or the foundation date of which no physical trace remains, etc etc
- Regarding your proposed cats above, I don't think unfortunately that 20th century Fooian church buildings and congregations is viable, apart from anything else because almost as soon as it appears somebody will certainly just divide it again between buildings and organisations. But 20th century Fooian churches might work - in fact we only have the present difficulties because somewhere back along the line somebody over-analysed the meaning of "church".
- To sum up: I'm not happy with the cats you want to rename in the present CfD / suggestion above mostly because of the over-cat, as said. That aside, what I would support would be leaving the existing "congregation" cats as they are, and setting up parallel "building" cats as indicated above.
HeartofaDog (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a building is neutral; it's the use that is Catholic, Protestant, etc.
- To me the Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established was just a was of clarifing... the articles are nearly always about church buildings and their congregations. If it is mostly the name you object to we can name it as just one or the other... Category:Protestant congregations by century established I would think if we are keeping the 00th century Fooian congregations. If you want to set up parallel "building" cats I will do not mind and will be happy with this set up. --Carlaude:Talk 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds promising - let me just think it through a bit, which I can't at the moment.HeartofaDog (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_25#Category:Eastern_Orthodox_congregations_established_in_the_11th_century --Carlaude:Talk 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
