Category talk:Hissarlik
Troy versus Hissarlik Discussion
[edit]
Oppose most wikipedia's use the current name and make no reference to the proposed name. --Foroa (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- If most Wikipedias do a bad work, do we have to follow them?—Actually there is a difference between mythological and archaeological Troy: the mythological Troy is defined after Homer and the Epic Cycle, and the archaeological Troy after Schliemann and the UNESCO. It is doubtfull for many scholars if they are same.
- Furthermore, my motivation is clear:
- This name fits with the actual content of the cat (Hissarlik does not, since it just a toponym and NOT the name of the archaeological site).
- It is an official name defined by UNESCO (which Hissarlik is NOT).
- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree Good idea, makes sense since all UNESCO sites should follow the official naming. Gryffindor (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- And keeping both: Archeological site of Troy (Hissarlik) , is that an option? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a server for the caprices of Unesco, we have to serve (majority of) the wikipedia's. Amazed how people want to push a namechange through, but they don't make even the effort to document the possible names. --Foroa (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a server for the caprices of WPs anyway. “Hissarlik” is just a toponym, it refers to a hill and not to the archaeological site; “Archaeological Site of Troy” does, and it does according an official source. Why being obscure when it is possible to avoid it? Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a server for the caprices of Unesco, we have to serve (majority of) the wikipedia's. Amazed how people want to push a namechange through, but they don't make even the effort to document the possible names. --Foroa (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- And keeping both: Archeological site of Troy (Hissarlik) , is that an option? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I see here the remnant of an old Troy versus Hissarlik discussion. The only thing I can add is that sites are called anything you want to call them. People usually listen to the archaeologists, however, and I can see that point of view. In Schliemann's time Hissarlik was frequent, before the mound was definitely accepted as Troy. Now of course Troy dominates. Now, WP has a Hisarlik and a Troy article. The Hisarlik tends to emphasize the mound. Someone could suggest a merger but no one has. Both articles aren't bad and both are tagged for some reason or another. Here there is a problem, which I will explain in the next subsection.Botteville (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Proper and improper categorization
[edit]The intent of the categories is to form a tree. A tree proceeds logically from most to least general. It has a start and an end. This scheme entails certain rules. A higher-level branch cannot be repeated as a lower-level branch. That is not a tree but is an infinite regression. We have such a thing here. Troy includes Hisarlik, which includes Troy (which includes Hisarlik ad inf.). So, I m going to do a bit of clean-up on the categories.
Second point. Since both cats refer to the same place there is a certain question as to what goes under Troy and what Hisarlik. Here I don't plan to make any major revisions. I notice the archaeological pics seem to be under Hisarlik and the legendary and historical material under Troy. Fine. Whichever way it tends to be I will follow. Feel free to jump in, but remember, no repetition of higher categories as lower, and also, if a pic is in a subcat it does not also need to be in the cat. It might be in two subcats. So, that is what I am doing.Botteville (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)