Category talk:Hissarlik

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Troy versus Hissarlik Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg 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)

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)