Talk:Great Goddess

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion

	Religion portal This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Class

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reassessing as list class as following the developments in banner shall, disamb leads to unclassified.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

See 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)[reply]

Agreed, no sense in two separate articles.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]