 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Class
edit@Ipigott: I removed this article from disamb class because it was categorized as a WP:BROADCONCEPT article by Swpb, and broad concept articles are not disambiguation pages. Yes, like most broad concept articles it currently does a terrible job at being one and rather looks like a disamb page. We should achieve consensus on whether it is a disamb or if it's possible to explain what "Great Goddess" means in general and across various contexts. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Finnusertop: It looks fine the way it is to me. Disamb can be used as a class for other wikiprojects.--Ipigott (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have expanded a tiny bit, but to me it is a disam page. We already have TWO broad concept articles more or less on this: matriarchal religion and Great Goddess hypothesis, and we don't need a third. In fact those two should be merged, and this merged as a short list there. What does "Disamb can be used as a class for other wikiprojects" mean? Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reassessing as list class as following the developments in banner shall, disamb leads to unclassified.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Merge proposal
editSee section above. I propose merging this to Great Goddess hypothesis, maybe as a first step to a further merge with matriarchal religion later. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, no sense in two separate articles.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Great Goddess might work better as a set index article, with the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and/or Neolithic Europe and Western Asia and North Africa being one particular example on the list. The page is already structured very much like an SIA. I'm also uncomfortable with merging Great Goddess to Great Goddess hypothesis because it would lend implicit support to a contested and weak 19th century hypothesis (that all such goddesses originated from one source in pre-history). Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)