Talk:Pomona (mythology)

به فارسی

پومانا(به لاتین Pomona) در آیین و متدولوژی قدیمی روم الهه بخشش و برکت نامیده می شود. در گفتار لاتین به پوموم، میوه، باغچه میوه ای مشهور است. (پوممه در زبان فرانسوی به سیب اطلاق می شود). او به پری دریایی و قطعه ای از نومیا مشهور است که بر مردان و دارایی ها و خانه هایشان بعنوان روح مراقب محسوب می شود. رومانا به عنوان خدای میوه و باغ و باغچه مشهور است. برخلاف دیگر الهه ها و خدایان رومی ، معادل یونانی ندارد. او بر روی درختان میوه و بر رشد درختان و میوه ها نظاره گر است. او با برداشت خود از میوه ها در واقع همراه نیست اما با شکوفایی درختان میوه همراه است. ابزار چاقوی هرس از مقدسات او می باشد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.17.30 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Google translation follows: Cynwolfe (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Pvmana (Latin Pomona) the Roman goddess of mercy and blessing rituals and old methodology called. The Latin word Pvmvm, fruit, fruit garden is famous. (Pvmmh in French refers to apples). He Noumea is famous mermaid and a piece of the soul of men and assets, and watch as their homes are. Rvmana fruit orchard and garden is famous as God. Unlike other Roman goddesses and gods, no Greek equivalent. He grows on trees and fruit trees and is watching. He actually is not associated with the harvesting of fruit trees is associated with prosperity. He is the sacred knife, pruning tools.

Requested move 14 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved, so that Pomona can be made a dab page asap. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Pomona → Pomona (mythology) – Pomona the goddess should not be classified as a primary topic as it not even used as much as, say, Pomona, California, according to WP:DAB. --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support, assuming also Pomona (disambiguation) → Pomona. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Replace with disambiguation page move the goddess -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest Pomona (goddess) or Pomona (deity). I don't think that this application of "mythology" is NPOV when other faiths are regarded as religions. GregKaye 10:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pomona (mythology) already exists as a redirect to this page and the other pages about Greek gods and goddesses are all in the form Name (mythology) whenever it is not a primary topic - see for yourself at Category:Greek gods Category:Greek gods and Category:Greek goddesses Category:Greek goddesses. If this was not the case, I would have already made the move myself. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that this is not the primary topic, that there is no primary topic, and that the DAB should therefore also be moved to the undisambiguated name Pomona. Relisting to seek stronger consensus on the exact name for the move target, and I'll also put a heads-up at talk:Pomona (disambiguation) as this will become a multi-move. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no justification for classing this as mythology when current time beliefs are defined as religion. Its a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.

My Suggestion of either Pomona (goddess) or Pomona (deity) would have preference depending on the result of a current discussion on the issue as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities. GregKaye 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have made this move so that Pomona (disambiguation) can be moved to Pomona asap. If anyone believes the title is not appropriate please put up another move request as appropriate. Thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post closure

I'm neutral and not involved, but with all due respect, there appears to be a conflict of interest here (see WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest). @Andrewa: a few hours after you relisted this "to seek stronger consensus on the exact name for the move target", and User:GregKaye suggested other names, the OP went ahead and moved and closed it,[1][2]. This should have been left open for another week per the reason User:Andrewa stated. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an out of process close, and apparently a non-admin close. It is out of process for several reasons, one of which is that the closer was involved in the discussion a fortiori as the proposer. That may be a COI in normal parlance but not in Wikipedia jargon. It's still not a valid close. I think we all took it for common sense that you can't close your own RMs and I'm not even sure I've ever seen anyone try it before but perhaps it needs to be said in stronger terms.

But I'm not sure it is now worth reversing the move or closure. I would support anyone who did (provided they do it carefully and according to process, and I'd suggest it's an admin only job) but maybe WP:SNOW could be invoked and we run with this move for the moment. We did arguably have a weak consensus already. That does not justify ignoring the relisting. A line call as to whether to reopen or move on IMO. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me say that I made the move so that Pomona (disambiguation) can be moved to Pomona as the discussion has already reached the consensus that Pomona (mythology) is not the primary topic.

We can deal with the new name of the article about the goddess further, but this dab page has got to move eventually. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, Some Gadget Geek.

But are you saying that this non-admin closure by yourself was the right way to move ahead? You don't actually say whether you now think it that it was correct.

IMO it wasn't, and that seems to be the opinion of Zzyzx11 too. I relisted the RM, as any user can at any time while it is open, and it then should go the full time to allow discussion of the target.

If we don't follow procedures, why have them? Now that you have in error closed this discussion, I'm inclined to leave it that way. But I also think that you should agree to read the relevant project pages and abide by them in future. I think that would be a good outcome.

If you cannot give that undertaking, and if nobody else reopens the discussion above, then I'll consider other possible action. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. I will be open to anyone suggesting that this move be reviewed as the title does not fit the topic appropriately, provided the page does not get moved back to Pomona as it is already certain that the page is not a primary topic. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>>, I think that the above violation of Wikipedia guidelines show that IMO you have no regard to issues like WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. A clear argument was presented that you can't call supposed gods like Allah as being a "god" when substantiation is arguable and treat another supposed god such as Pomona. WTF were you thinking???? Why should you unilaterally go ahead with a move in line with your own move request so as then to obligate other editors to resolve your policy abusive fuck up?? Please desist in what I regard to be a clear example of disruptive editing and find a way to, yourself, resolve this situation. GregKaye 09:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate all your advice and will take that into consideration next time I run into such a situation. If you feel the need for a move review, please do so at your own discretion. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Connection with Porus? (incoherency)

I was doing some research, and I stumbled on an incoherency. The article of Porus says the Roman equivalent is Pomona, yet this article says Pomona has no greek equivalent.

Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.137.95.217 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)