Talk:Mariology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name 2 Need for consensus and disambiguation 3 Ontological metrics 4 mariology 5 Please remove the encyclicals or summarize the topic of each so as to disambiguize.

[edit] Name

REDIRECT [[Mariology (Roman Catholic)]] is POV.

You moved Mariology to Mariology (Roman Catholic) on 16 April 2008.

When you move, it is your duty to find all articles that link to the old name and rename them individually. ("You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go.")

Any that have not been redone by now should be about Mariology in general, not Roman Catholic Mariology.

This name has to link to Ecumenical Mariology.

There is no statute of limitations on being POV. --Carlaude (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need for consensus and disambiguation

The orginal redirect change by Carlaude was without consensus or discussion and invalidated many links. I therefore disambiguted the page since various pages related to this topic are currently changing name in a haphazrad way, and disambiguation is the most logical way. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whole whole point of a disambiguation is to list similar topic article pages together.

Mariology (Roman Catholic) and Protestant views of Mary -- teachings on Mary are similar topics from different POVs-- and need to be in the same group.

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) on veneration and Mariology (Roman Catholic) on teachings -- are unsimilar topics and should not be listed together-- if Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is listed at all.

If you think that the meaning of Mariology is important in some way that I am missing, you need to be more clear-- but if I don't know why "Protestants do not have Mariology," as you say, then we cannot expect the reader will know this either.--Carlaude (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological metrics

Actually Ambrosius reorganized that, not me, but from a technical point of view that happens to be provably the best hierarchy since it imposes the minimal cognitive distance between the immediate siblings in the ontology tree. I happen to be an expert on this topic, much more than in religion, so I am sure here. Please read: Ontology (information science), Semantic relatedness and Semantic similarity as a start, then carefully apply those metrics herein. But to put it differently and more simply, from the cognitive factors viewpoint, the use of an implied double negative such as similar from different POV places a higher cognitive burden on the user compared to the alternative design and should be avoided. There is no doubt that technically all metrics would lead to Ambrosius's hierarchy as being optimal.

Anyway, since other entries are appearing now, I will wait a day or two, then eventuallly create the optimal cognitive structure once the entries have stabilized. Let the above reasoning act as the rationale for my future reorganization of the said ontology. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers. I think this was good progress. As we have more mariology articles, the structure may need some subdivides but as a whole, its good. Many encyclicals are missing. Please improve. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mariology

When do you propose we capitalize mariology? It is not consistent on this page.--Carlaude (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Webster's Third New International says "usually capitalized", so I recommend we capitalize it consistently. —Angr 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the encyclicals or summarize the topic of each so as to disambiguize.

Please remove the encyclicals or summarize the topic of each so as to disambiguize. The typical reader does not read Latin.--Carlaude (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude is right. Encyclicals are not relevant here, unless they refer to the methodology and definition of mariology. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)