Category talk:Superlatives in religion

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles

Linguistics

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles

Is overkill a superlative?

This category probably does not deserve deletion, but it is getting applied to so many pages, it is giving overkill a new meaning. Need to calm down on its application I think. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's currently at 32 pages? That's "so many pages"? It's a category, since when are categories restricted to just a few entries? For comparison Category:Christian terms is currently at 1,109 entries. 75.15.194.45 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor, unimportant issue. But I just feel it is getting applied to so many pages, it is overloading those pages, e.g. Michael. And you are getting double reverted by different editors. So whenever you get double reverted, you must stop. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So the question is why are you two guys ganging up on me? It's just a "feeling" that adding a category to a page overloads a page? Are you both simply opposed to Wikipedia:Categorization? Can you express a logical argument, other than that two of you guys agree to gang up on me since I'm an anonymous editor? 75.15.194.45 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ganging. Carl also reverted you elsewhere. I have seen your edits (usually Reno ISPs) and they are generally pretty good fixes all around. In this case, I thought that one of the last things one wold have thought of regarding Michael was this category. The largest cross, etc. were good cases, however. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Michael (archangel):

Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Michael the Archangel: "Regarding his rank in the celestial hierarchy opinions vary; St. Basil (Hom. de angelis) and other Greek Fathers, also Salmeron, Bellarmine, etc., place St. Michael over all the angels; they say he is called "archangel" because he is the prince of the other angels; others (cf. P. Bonaventura, op. cit.) believe that he is the prince of the seraphim, the first of the nine angelic orders. But, according to St. Thomas (Summa Ia.113.3) he is the prince of the last and lowest choir, the angels. The Roman Liturgy seems to follow the Greek Fathers; it calls him "Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives". The hymn of the Mozarabic Breviary places St. Michael even above the Twenty-four Elders. The Greek Liturgy styles him Archistrategos, "highest general" (cf. Menaea, 8 Nov. and 6 Sept.). "

Jewish Encyclopedia: MICHAEL: Michael and Gabriel: "It is quite natural that, owing to his position with regard to the Jews, Michael should be represented in the Haggadah as the most prominent of the archangels. He is called by Daniel (Dan. xii. 1) "the great prince," and his greatness is described at length in later Jewish writings. He was one of the seven archangels first created (Enoch, xc. 21-22; Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxiv. 6 gives only six), but among these seven four excel, and Michael is the chief of the four. Both he and Gabriel are called "great princes"; but Michael is higher in rank thanGabriel (Ber. 4b; Yoma 37a). He is the viceroy of God, who rules over the world (Enoch, lxix. 14 et seq.), and wherever Michael appears the Shekinah also is to be found (Ex. R. ii. 8). Michael is on the right of God's throne, while Gabriel is on the left ("Haggadat Shema' Yisrael," in Jellinek, l.c. v. 166; Targ. to Job xxv. 2; Enoch, xl. 9). Four armies of angels sing in praise of the Lord, the first being that of Michael at the right hand of God (Pirḳe R. El. iv.; "Hekalot," in Jellinek, l.c. ii. 43-44). A similar tradition is given in "Seder Gan 'Eden" (l.c. p. 138): Michael's place is by the first river, Pison, while Gabriel's is by the second, Gihon. It is Michael who, on account of his occupying the first place near God, receives the prayers of men from the angels and presents them to God (Baruch Apoc. Slavonic, xii.). His position makes him the companion of Meṭaṭron (Zohar, i. 149b)."

Regarding the largest crucifix in the world, which is the Cross in the Woods, the application of this category to that page was reverted by User:Editor2020. 75.15.194.45 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the Cross item, bu could you remove the duplicate Michael discussion here, given that you entered it also on Michael. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: StAnselm just removed the article Christ the King (statue) from this category on the grounds that being the tallest statue of Christ is not superlative, according to his definition. He also removed Throne of God which I thought was the highest you could get. 75.15.194.45 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the users at large don't seem to be hot on this idea. What I can I say? But you should know they do these things because they feel it is not applicable, not because they do not like your IP address, etc. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is some secret wikipedia definition of "superlative" which I am not privy to. Any of you editors care to enlighten me? Exactly what definition of "superlative" is being used here? 75.15.194.45 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it interesting that Transcendence (religion) was rejected from this category. Look up any definition of "Transcendence" and tell me that's not "superlative". 75.15.194.45 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]