Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RakeInTheCache

Worldwide Reformed Churchs Category Proposal

72 posts in this topic

I'm completely for the category. Just think that sites or locations doesn't really need to be used in the category name. Like others have said, I don't think it'll sway peer reviewers either way. There is a good, logical reason for the category.

 

Aside: I won't get to vote for it because I let my PM lapse. I'm still gung-ho on Waymarking, but I don't feel like justifying the $30 per year to myself or my family. If we got some decent service, I'd change my mind. But the continual replies of "Geocaching is taking all of our time, so we won't help you Waymarkers" is not a positive on the scales of such a decision. Even with different browsers and on fast networks, I still get the map problem where it shows the middle of the ocean (at 0.0000,0.0000) instead of the actual location about half of the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post

[...] Finally, as far as photos are concerned, I believe that a photo of the church sign should be a requirements unless the building is no longer used as a meeting place for a "reform" church [...]

This is not a good idea. There are countries, where church signs are more than uncommon. In my home area, only churches from the 20th century have a sign, if at all. Very old churches, the ones built in centuries, when most people could not read and write, never have signs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't think the word sites" will make a difference, but it is RITC's category. I agree that "sites" is not needed, and at the inclusion of sites Would be better stated in the category description than in the title -- I posted as much :) . But the category owner has said in response that having sites in the name is important to him, so -- there it is :) It will be interesting to see what the community says about it.

 

 

I'm guessing, (and only guessing) that some who have been opposed to the church categorizes oppose them because of their opinion of Christianity or religion in general.

 

With that in mind, let me try to explain my reasoning in a different way. The word "Church" has multiple meanings. Dictionary.com lists 7 only one of which is an actual building, the other six having more to do with let's say, "spiritual" connotations. In fact, I was taught "in church", in singing the hymn, that "A church is not a building, a church is not a steeple, a church is not a resting place, the church is the people". So there is some ambiguity in the word church used without a qualifier. That's why I believe that the addition of "sites" is appropriate in this case.

 

I agree that there may be others that oppose the church categories for the same reason they may oppose new fast food or retail outlet categories, and in this case, adding the word sites would make no difference to them.

 

For me, adding the word sites helps to "secularize" the category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Is this the correct place to make comments about the proposed category description? (I hope it is)

 

Yes it is and thank you for contributing.

 

The statement "...the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg proved extremely significant in that it provided the means for the rapid dissemination of new ideas." (in my opinion) does not add anything to the category description and could be removed to help keep the description as belief as possible while still adequately stating what the category is about. I think the same could also be said for the following paragraph as well: "It may be that the reason there are so many protestant denominations today, is that the reformation encouraged free thinking and an individual relationship with a monotheistic God and in so doing encouraged diverse interpretations, each with a distinct tradition and history while at the same time sharing some fundamental beliefs."

 

I agree it might be good to keep the description as short as possible. However, what I was trying to do here is explain why it could be that there are so many of these Protestant denominations, basically "free thinking" and "rapid transmission of ideas" in order to counter "category fatigue". But maybe it's superfluous. I'm open to discussion about it.

 

Regarding the discussion surrounding "site" in the title...and maybe I missed this in the discussion, but to me that implies that a building is not required.

 

Yes you are right.

 

But this is in the Buildings main category, so will that be a problem.

 

I put it in the buildings category mainly to be consistent with the other church categories.

 

I know I have visited locations which had historical plaques relating to important church history, such as the location of the first church meeting in Canada of such and such a denomination, but I think they met in tents and therefore there was no building... Anyway, would such a "site" be admissible to this category?

 

Yes it would.

 

Finally, as far as photos are concerned, I believe that a photo of the church sign should be a requirements unless the building is no longer used as a meeting place for a "reform" church (such as in the case where a building which once was used for a reform church is now used for a Baptist church, or a daycare, or a pub, yes I've seen it all) in which case the current sign would be irrelevant. or where the church building no longer exists.

 

In keeping the requirement down to one photo, I'm looking to eliminate, in the case of this category, that all too often occurrence of taking a photo of an interesting location on some vacation far, far away, only to find out when you get home that the category required two photos and now your waymark doesn't meet the requirements.

 

What purpose does the sign photo serve that a website couldn't be a stand-in for?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm completely for the category. Just think that sites or locations doesn't really need to be used in the category name.

 

I'm open to discussion about this. I could be swayed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To add to the "site" portion of the discussion...I hope you choose to keep it. I found a Congregational Library in Boston...not some simple library but one that serves as an archive for many different branches of the Congregational movement.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, here is the first draft of the category description. Now taking comments ...

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=c76872d8-4c53-4ead-bdce-3fb4b05c25f0&gid=6&exp=True

 

So far, very little discussion on the actual content of the category. The link is given again here. If we've run out of discussion points, I'll incorporate selected comments and move to the voting stage.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, here is the first draft of the category description. Now taking comments ...

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=c76872d8-4c53-4ead-bdce-3fb4b05c25f0&gid=6&exp=True

 

So far, very little discussion on the actual content of the category. The link is given again here. If we've run out of discussion points, I'll incorporate selected comments and move to the voting stage.

I still have a moderate objection to the inclusion of non-buildings in the category, but otherwise the content of the description looks good.

 

I do have a few suggestions for tweaks that could improve the readability of the description:

1. The Expanded Description provides historical information and then just starts talking about some posting requirements. There should either be a more obvious break (add a heading?), or these requirements should be moved to the dedicated Instructions for Posting section so they aren't missed.

2. For the link to Wikipedia, change it to link directly to the Calvinism section.

3. Explain why the name can't have "Scotland" in it. This isn't explained anywhere in the description or posting instructions. You've explained it in this discussion, but that reasoning needs to be provided to Waymark posters who may not be aware of the reason.

4. Maybe add some bolding to highlight critical posting requirements. For example, Waymarkers could easily miss the part that requires a photo if a website can't be found to prove the denomination. You could bold "a second photo" under 3). to draw the reader's eye to that clause.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is a great category description, in my opinion.

 

The general introduction could be shorter; I like it the way it is, but it might be too much for some one who is just trying to find the exact posting requirements. And I would provide direct links to the corresponding categories for the excluded sub-sets.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks to all who contributed their comments. I have incorporated many of them into the write-up. The category has now moved to an officer vote.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks to all who contributed their comments. I have incorporated many of them into the write-up. The category has now moved to an officer vote.

 

RITC -- I saw where you sent me an email through the geocaching website, but the message had no content. FYI

0

Share this post


Link to post

The category has now moved to the general review. Your continued support by voting yes is greatly appreciated.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks to all who contributed their comments. I have incorporated many of them into the write-up. The category has now moved to an officer vote.

 

RITC -- I saw where you sent me an email through the geocaching website, but the message had no content. FYI

 

Hi BB, I just sent out an individual message to posters on this thread to let them know the category moved to general review. Strange that it didn't work correctly in your case. Hope it wasn't a general problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The reason I voted yes was I think the game should be about fun first and foremost and the person did put a lot of time into creating and discussing the category. I think such efforts should be rewarded, even if these can already be waymarked into existing categories, why not vote yes???

 

And reading the category made me learn something.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The reason I voted yes was I think the game should be about fun first and foremost and the person did put a lot of time into creating and discussing the category. I think such efforts should be rewarded, even if these can already be waymarked into existing categories, why not vote yes???

 

And reading the category made me learn something.

There's a huge difference between redundancy and "can already be waymarked into existing categories". A redundant category that is completely included in an existing category has no reason to be approved, normally. But this is not the case at all, here. There was no category for reformed churches, yet. Yes, some are old enough for This Old Church, some may be in the NRHP, maybe a few for the philatelic category and some others, as well. But there was no place for a general, normal reformed church.

 

And the research, if an idea is not already covered, is also a part of the necessary effort for creating a category. Not doing this should also be rewarded in a negative way.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So this category has passed review and is now published. Thanks to all for their support. Now what about an icon? Maybe a profile of John Calvin with flowing beard and beret?

0

Share this post


Link to post

So this category has passed review and is now published. Thanks to all for their support. Now what about an icon? Maybe a profile of John Calvin with flowing beard and beret?

 

How about destitute (and seasick) Pilgrims coming off the Mayflower? :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post

The United Churches of Canada have now found a home in this category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

How about destitute (and seasick) Pilgrims coming off the Mayflower? :blink:

 

I didn't know this before but indeed, there is a link between the Pilgrims and the Congregational Church. Ya learn somethin new every day!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Woo Hoo, we have already overtaken New Apostolic Churches in waymark numbers! Setting the sights on the Catholic Churches ;-)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Woo Hoo, we have already overtaken New Apostolic Churches in waymark numbers! Setting the sights on the Catholic Churches ;-)

I have about 50 in the queue; just no time for posting.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just a note, I just learned that the traditional French Reformed Church merged with the French Lutheran Church, so there could be French Lutheran Churches showing up in this category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1