Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive of discussion from WP:WPN's February 12, 2006 to October 26, 2006.

Stub Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Paganism vs Neopaganism in stubs

I think that the vast majority of the articles I have seen with a {{paganism-stub}} refer to neopaganism and should reflect as such Phoenix9

Have we reached a point at which so many articles are tagged with Template:Paganism stub that it needs to be further broken down? Jkelly 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I initially thought that renaming the stub template/category to "neopaganism" would be a good idea, but now that I've had a chance to reflect, I'd say that since neopaganism is a subcategory of paganism there's no reason to rename. Also, there are several articles in Category:Paganism stubs that really wouldn't fit if we renamed the category, like Pantheon (gods), Crypto-Paganism, Finnish paganism, etc. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wicca-stub

I'm not sure if a separate category for Wicca stubs is necessary, since this would split up Category:Paganism stubs about half and half, with neither half having enough stubs to meet the minimum threshold (60). While the threshold requirement may be waived for stub categories associated with a WikiProject, I really don't know that we need to separate them out at this point, since the entire contents of Category:Paganism stubs still fit on one page. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then let us not be in a rush to granulate, while remaining open to the idea of refinement in the future. Jkelly 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out, and the stub category has been approved, so I'm taking down the notice of the discussion from the main WikiProject page. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pentagram (?)

As I stated on the Stub Sorting page I think that the fact that a pentagram is not univesaly a symbol of neopaganism should exclude it from use on the stub, personaly when I'm browsing on WP I'm much more likely to notice a stub tag (and perhaps expand the article) when it has an image Phoenix9

So what do you suggest? Jkelly 19:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Phoenix9 meant to say, "the fact that a pentagram is not univesaly a symbol of neopaganism should NOT exclude it..." That would match up with Phoenix's comments on WP:WSS/D that "a Pentagram is a perfectly acceptable symbol" and "The fact that its not used universaly is not a sound argument." My response, here as there, is to point out that the pentagram generally refers only to Wicca, that only 48 out of the current 82 paganism stubs are Wicca-related articles, and that many of the people working on the other 34 articles would be extremely offended by a stub template with a pentagram on it. It would be like using a picture of the Pope on the Christianity stub template. I don't see why we even need an icon; in fact, I think that not using an icon is in the best interests of Wikipedia as developer has urged that decorative or navigational images be removed because they cause server load problems. Also, note this line from the stub template creation instructions at Wikipedia:Stub: "It is also possible to add a small image to the stub template (the "stub icon"). However, this is discouraged because it increases the strain on the Wikipedia servers." - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to keep the conversation in one place. Jkelly 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paganism vs Neopaganism

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Current practice regarding the use of "pagan" vs. "neopagan" to refer to modern groups is all over the map. This is complicated by the fact that many of these modern groups use the term "pagan" rather than "neopagan" to refer to themselves and their practices. Should we use "neopagan(ism)" in articles on people and groups like Selena Fox who refer to themselves strictly as "pagan"? Should we refer to all modern pagan groups as "neopagan," or only the ones who self-describe that way? Or should we use "neopagan(ism)" to refer to all of the groups/people we categorize as "neopagan" at Neopaganism? Also, should "pagan(ism)" and "neopagan(ism)" be capitalized? Discuss. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First, here are a few O.E.D. definitions to get us started.

Neopagan

(noun) A. A modern adherent of a pagan religion; a modern pagan.

(adj) B. Of, relating to, or characterized by a modern form of paganism, or a revival of ancient paganism.

Pagan

(noun) A.1.a. A person not subscribing to any major or recognized religion, esp. the dominant religion of a particular society; spec. a heathen, a non-Christian, esp. considered as savage, uncivilized, etc. Now chiefly hist.

(noun) A.1.b. A follower of a pantheistic or nature-worshipping religion; esp. a neopagan.

(noun) A.2.a. euphemism; A prostitute. (obsolete definition)

(noun) A.2.b. A person of unorthodox, uncultivated or backward beliefs, tastes, etc.; a person who has not been converted to the current dominant views of a society, group, etc.; an uncivilized or unsocialized person, esp. a child.

(adj) B.1.a. Holding, characteristic of, or relating to those who do not subscribe to any major or recognized religion, esp. the dominant religion of a particular society; spec. heathen, non-Christian or pre-Christian (usually with connotations of savagery or primitiveness). Now chiefly historital.

(adj) B.1.b. Pantheistic, nature-worshipping; (now) esp. neopagan.

(adj) B.2. In extended use: immoral, spiritually lacking; uncivilized, backward, savage.

Scholarly usage of the two terms tends to follow the suggested differentiation in usage according to the O.E.D.- 'pagan' for the older generations, and 'neopagan' for the generations reviving pagan practices after various local interregnums for such in lands around the world. As far as I know, the only major form of paganry that has survived to our present time is the collection of beliefs and rituals which most folk since the 19th century have (erroneously) called 'Hinduism', (as if there were one unified religion of Hinduism, that being the error involved). Various tribal groups around the world are known to have continued to practice a wide variety of animistic traditions, but well-defined paganry is hard to find aside from 'Hinduism', modern revivals of European, Amerindian, and Mediterranean paganry, and, some would argue, Catholicism. ::wink::

Keeping all of these things in mind, the decision as to which term to apply in any given case should be rather simple in nearly all instances as we fill out the articles that are included in the purview of this Wikiproject.

One final thought: for those who would argue that 'reconstructionists' should be able to claim the term 'pagan' in our present age- that is a misnomer. No amount of reconstruction is going to bring everything back, and we would not want to do that anyway. Reconstructionism is a good way to go (and is my own way besides), but we have to be realistic: there are no time machines available to us, so claiming 'pagan' instead of 'neopagan' makes one appear a bit silly in this context.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with, Padraic for the most part. I don't think there are any groups or beliefs - reconstructionist or not - who can claim to be wholly "pagan". (Although I guess this is up for debate, with some indigenous religions which were never Christianized in the first place, depending on semantics.) Therefore, almost every modern group is "neopagan" by definition. As has been discussed at Talk:Paganism, I feel that there is scholarly bias primarily from an Abrahamic POV in the academic usage of the term "pagan" and "neopagan", being that they are terms which have been watered down to signify all "non-Christians". We do not refer to other cultures or ethnic groups as "non-whites" or "non-Europeans" in modern times, even though this was common academic and scholarly usage up until recently. The very terminology we are using is lacking, in my opinion, as a result.

If "pagan" or "neopagan" is the terminology which is going to be used, we need to agree upon capitalization. Note "Catholic", "Islam", "Christian", "Bahai", etc. are all capitalized when specifically referring to an umbrella term which signifies a religion in the form of a proper noun. "Pagan" or "Neopagan" should be capitalized as well for consistency. Bonewits talks about this phenomeneon and the naming scheme at length HERE Also, for consistency, we need to decided upon the hyphenation. This is not consistently applied across wikipedia. (See Neo-) WeniWidiWiki 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But paganism is not a religion, in that you can't really identify any common beliefs or practices that all pagans share. Other umbrella terms like "monotheist", "animist", etc are not capitalized. As for hyphenization, I'd say let's go with whatever's more common... and I honestly don't know which is more common. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to use neopagan in talking about modern groups, and pagan when talking about ancient (paleopagan) groups. Mesopagan is fairly rare, as most of those groups get otherwise-categorized by external eyes. At least, that's my impression from the articles I've seen, although it's by no means exhaustive research. Capitalization is favored for individual religions, but I'm torn when it comes to Pagan/Neopagan; for some people, that IS their religious tradition, like it or not. 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

this is a valid point. So should pagan and neopagan be lower-case and Paganism/Neopaganism be capitalized? Phoenix9 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AdelaMae, I think there are enough people out there who self-identify as "Pagan" or "Neopagan" (and, to throw another flavor in the pot, what about spelling it NeoPagan, as I have seen done?) that it should be capitalized. Furthermore, I think it's sufficiently different from "monotheist" and "animist" that we can capitalize it without being inconsistent. Good Gods, we capitalize "New Age," and if that's not a fuzzy umbrella term, I don't know what is (it's my feeling that if "Neopagan" is the umbrella, "New Age" is like the cloud: amorphous, tenuous, without any real substance, and inclined to rain on people at unpredictable intervals)

I'm inclined, myself, to say "Neopagan" when I'm being precise, and "Pagan" in casual usage; that's where I draw the line.

Septegram 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary defines a pagan as: "A person who follows the religious doctrine of that other than Christianity, Islam or Judaism". Brenton.eccles 10:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pagan activism

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May I call your attention to the discussion on Talk:Pagan activism? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why in the Nine Worlds Pagan Activism redirects to Reclaiming? This would seem to imply that Reclaiming are the only politically active Pagans, or that all Pagan activism is somehow related to Reclaiming. If the subject doesn't have enough material to stand on its own, that's fine; let's have no article. But this redirect seems odd to me, to say the least. Septegram 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As you requested

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I created stubs for most of the requested articles -- I hope you like them. I skipped some because

(1) I found insufficient material to create an article that will not get deleted. For instance, they lack Google hits or have insufficient notability. These are An Slua Sidhe, Green Egg, Correllian Wicca, Cherry Hill Seminary, Vivienne Crowley, T. Thorn Coyle and Robert Ellison (Rev. Skip Ellison).

(For instance, one I created, Y.S.E.E., was already tagged as lacking {{importance}}.)

(2) Leanan sidhe, Cath Puluc, Witchvox, Pagan Pride international and Áes Dána are already covered thoroughly in existing articles. Redirects are best for them.

(3) Phyllis Curott (this is the correct spelling), I think, is better redirected, for now, to her autobiography Book of Shadows (biography).

Enjoy! --Perfecto 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all of that hard work! I have added more information on the organization's significance to the article on YSEE, which should be more than enough to prevent its deletion. I am not sure where the articles you listed in (2) should be redirected; could you go ahead and create those redirects? I have created the redirect for Phyllis Curott. Of the article titles you listed as not sufficiently notable, I believe that Green Egg may be a viable article title, as this magazine existed for quite a long time and was important to the development of the neopagan community. It may take time to research this, though, as most of the useful references will probably be in books rather than online. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be a large amount of vegetarians within the neopagan community and I would like to request some help adding neopaganism to Vegetarianism and religion. If anyone here is interested in helping please let me know. Thanks - Solar 09:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Urgent Solved NPOV problem - X in Neopaganism

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Having run across several "X in Neopaganism" sections that struck me as very "off," especially in their claims about the practices of Hellenic polytheists (who they erroneously called "Hellenistic"), I have discovered that they are coming from two editors, both of whom were active only in August 2005: 67.132.243.203 and LucaviX.

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, from the anon user's edit to Cronus:

"Modern Neopagans have what may be percieved as a rather New Age view of Cronus, particularly Hellenistic Neopagan sects in the United States hold many metaphoric interpretations of the myths regarding Cronus. In many ways Cronus takes on imagery of Christian myths regarding Satan. Cronus is believed by many to be a cruel and malevolent god that feeds on dominance and subjugation. Rather the many new age roles attributed to Cronus is grounded in actual mythology does not seem relevant to many pagan sects."

As a Hellenic polytheist, I believe I can quite confidently say that this is just plain wrong. I am tempted to say something stronger but I will restrain myself. See my comments on Talk:Tartarus for details. I don't have time this morning, but we desperately need to go through all of these mythology articles and weed the good information out from the bad. Many of the sections also seem biased against eclectic neopaganism, taking every opportunity to take a stab at eclectic practices by calling them "New Age," and there are also many broad generalizations about Neopagans that may or may not have any truth to them but are completely unreferenced regardless. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is a list of the sections I've found that are unreferenced and may have serious problems:

In a few places (Aries^{[disambiguation needed]}, Demon, Demonology, Helios, Tartarus, Persecution of Ancient Greek religion) these sections have already been removed for being completely off base (confusing Aries/Ares, claiming that Hellenic polytheists believe in demons, etc). - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: This has been taken care of and I'm taking it off the front page. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Universal Eclectic Wicca

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs some definite TLC. It started as almost an exact copy of CUEW's "Tradition Info Sheet" at Witchvox, but it's not a CopyVio, because the person who wrote the articleowns and can license the text.

This article needs some objectivity, or it may need to be deleted under WP:VAIN. The big problem is, while I'm no longer associated with CUEW, I'm a former member who left on good terms, so I don't have the objectivity to write anything but a praise peace. Justin Eiler 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tunday

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's currently an article up for deletion (for lack of notability and verifiability on an alleged tradition in Lancashire called "Tunday", when "significant" date/time combinations such as the recent "01:02:03 04/05/06" are apparently celebrated. Frankly the whole thing looks like a tissue of nonsense, but the proponent (or proponents; there seems to be a lot of puppetry going on) is now claiming here that this is based on a Druidic ritual. Per an alleged book by someone called Anthony Langdon (who is not apparent on Google) entitled "Lesser known traditions of England and Wales" (which is not findable anywhere either):

“Tunday has been an Celtic tradition since circa 230AD, the tradition was a ritual preformed by believers of pre-roman druidism, the ritual was preformed on the hour of the calendar day of the subsequent number of the month of the subsequent number” it goes on to say that “The tradition no longer includes a human sacrifice, but the custom of praying to the Celtic gods for desires has remained. This appears to have evolved into the current practice of wishing. It appears that the tradition has been passed on through a relatively small area of Celtic ancestry to lead to today's current Lancastrian tradition along with several small Welsh communities who also practice this tradition. The old rituals of sacrifice were replaced over time, when Druidism as a religion was practically destroyed in circa 60BC by the Romans, by those less loyal to the tradition by simple good will gestures, to be in accordance with Roman rule.”

This looks deeply suspect to me, but in the interests of good faith I thought I'd ask here whether anyone familiar with Druidic traditions has ever heard of this or anything like it. Thanks. Tonywalton | Talk 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That whole Druidic survival looks like nonsense to me. The person that made it up doesn't even know who the Coligny calendar worked. I suspect its a joke,or perhaps an experiment to see how rapidly it gets replicated into hundreds of web pages . --Nantonos 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiccan Church stub

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Wiccan Church stub still needs citations. I have restructered it some, and written a couple of sentences to help the article flow more readily. I only included knowledge I had from participating in a coven, and being a former Solitairy practicioner. I have no reference material at the moment. Almost each paragraph needs a citation or reference. The three most important areas would be 1. The Introductory paragraph. 2. The Legal Status of Wiccan and Pagan orginisations. And 3. A citation noting that there is debate on the origin of the word 'Wicca'. Thanks

69.245.175.43 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. I don't know that the "Wiccan Church" article really needs any kind of discussion about the word "Wicca"; we can link to Wicca for that. Jkelly 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sex magic blanking and POV/advertisement

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone, I would like to alert your attention to the Sex magic article, as there is a User:White adept who has several times in the last few months (including thrice yesterday) attempted to insert an advertisement for a "Gnostic White Lodge" [1]. These changes also included blanking most of the existing page in all but the last attempt. Please see the notes this user left on my talk page after I reverted their changes. I have left a couple of warning/informational messages on White adept's talk page, but I hope I am not the only person who will be dealing with this in the future. I simply request that more eyes be trained on this user, their actions, and this article. Aside from that, the article in question needs a lot of work, so anyone interested, please help out! Thanks, roma rin [talk ] 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles needing help of some other kind

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone. I'm going to take on the Altar cloth article. You can view my changes in my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudoin (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 July 2006

Any reason not to handle it at the article itself? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Neopaganism WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of article cleanup

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and BB all! I just joined up after making serious edits to Llewellyn Worldwide and Silver RavenWolf. I'd like to get some peer review of the articles, in particular my POV scrub to Silver's page. --Roninbk 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

History of paganism as it relates to neopagan beliefs

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm taking a class on paganism and neopaganism and I have a lot of information about ancient pagan religions; would you like me to add this information as it relates to modern beliefs about ancient pagan religions, using my textbooks to source it? What I mean is, a lot of neopagans hold beliefs about ancient pagans that don't hold up to historical records, and I could write some sort of section in an article (maybe wicca?) about it-- origins of holidays, druidic practices, early christians, et cetera. Where do you want me to put that? Kuronue 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a fantastic idea. I would suggest a ==History== section of certain traditions, like Wicca, Stregheria, etc, and if you can't sort out where it might go, ask on the talk page of a related article (or here, as a last resort, since it doesn't get a lot of eyeballs). -- nae'blis 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great... but please be careful about Wikipedia:No original research and avoid drawing connections that no reputable scholar has. Adding material to Druidry about ancient practice and modern practice, and even the differences between the two, would be great, as this has been extensively written about, but adding information about, um, "ancient Italian Pagan Witchcraft" / Religio Romano / Etruscan myth to Stregheria would be not so good. Wicca probably doesn't need a section devoted to its differences from some generic original Paganism, but there's a lot of referencing to do in that article and it sounds like you could help with that. So do please engage with editors on the Talk pages of the different articles you are thinking about, and I'm sure that your interest in good sourcing will be very welcome. Jkelly 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And just a history/research reference towards that end: Dame Sybil Leek's A Ring of Magic Islands, which in places delves into the survival of ancient paganism within local custom, and also with her own ideas/speculations about the meaning of ancient pagan belief/ritual. Photos by her son Stephen, with writeups on all the "little islands" ringing Britain and Ireland and the cults and mysteries associated with each. Noteworthy because it's a modern-era pagan history that was written before neo-paganism started taking itself all high-and-holy and laying on post-counterculture morality/ideals. She doesn't wince, as neo-pagans might, in discussing human sacrifice, for instanceSkookum1 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll just be adding factual information from my textbooks and the conclusions the scholars drew, mostly what's different than what I was taught by pagan friends and websites. I'll be doing this probably until december, as the class is still ongoing, but we've finished the unit on ancient pagans and we're now halfway done with the unit on witchcraft trials (two very controversial topics where I feel facts tend to be lacking in neopagan sources). I'll get on that probably later tonight or tomorrow Kuronue 02:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

needs rewrite, or removal:

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Public nudity#Variable sexualized environments lists skyclad and Neopagan gatherings as being variably sexualised. Somehow this doesn't jibe with what the article on skyclad says, and borders on insulting. No, I'm not here on wiki to be un-offended, but there isn't any citation, really, for that claim. I'll slap a citation needed tag on it, if it stays uncited for more than five days, I'm pulling the statement.--Vidkun 12:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement removed.--Vidkun 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look at it and excised it. It didn't really say anything, except that "sometimes, people have sex near where people have skyclad rituals!". Well, Duh. Add that to a lack of citation, and the burden of proof for something which appears to be negatively POV falls on the adder, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of Thelemites

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I need a third opinion at Talk:List of Thelemites. An editor very much insists that both French Renaissance author François Rabelais and Gerald Gardner belong on this list. I suggest that this inappropriate. Can someone other than me comment, as I have nothing more to say about it and we seem to have descended into sterile reverting. Jkelly 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jkelly. I've put my two cents worth in on the talk page, but it seems to me that the crux of the problem is the same as arguing against including King Solomon in a list of Freemasons: that's the dogma of the particular group, and (considering the amount of "documentation" available, dubious or not), that's going to be the party line. I agree that the questionable names need to be removed, but I would strenuously urge working with 999 to gain his understanding of the difference between the dogma he's been handed and more objective documentation. Justin Eiler 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Correllian Wicca / Witchschool

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seen on the main project page:

Correlian Wicca, due to the Witch School connection

Does this need to be listed as a "Requested Article?" There are no articles linking to these pages (except the WP:WPN page), and while I am aware of both the tradition and the school, I'm honestly not sure they would meet the criteria of Noptability that Wikipedia requires. Justin Eiler 00:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WitchSchool has over 170,000 registered users, is unique (to the best of my knowledge) in offering Wiccan degree training and clergy training online, and has a physical location in Hoopeston, IL that is open to the public on a daily basis. The associated Correllian Nativist Tradition claims over 120 local groups (I think they call them Shrines?) around the world and members in 80 countries. They run some kind of a TV station, and their "Daily Spell" mailing list has over 4500 subscribers. I think an article on both (I'd favor Correllian Wicca as a title) would survive AfD, no problem. I have seen more than one newspaper article on them, so we shouldn't have a problem with verifiability. That said, I'd like to make it known from the outset that although I am not a Correllian or a Wiccan, I have been a paid member of WitchSchool for several years. They are a commercial entity (though the First Degree course is one of the free ones), and some of their classes are very badly researched and poorly written. (They have a class on "magical names" where the suggestions include "Mr. Sun Guy" and "Spring Pixy Sparks" - no joke!) The lack of links coming in also bothers me, so I would say maybe we should hold off, but I do think they're notable. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Valheim Hof

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion here about the mystery of this name. Would be happy for any info or input from other people. Ffranc (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. It is a bit Christian-centric as currently written, so the opinions of those with knowledge of other religions is especially welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

GAR of Thelema

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thelema, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Category renaming proposal

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the proposal for renaming the Category:Neopaganism to Category:Modern Paganism here. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional category renaming proposal

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the new naming proposal for various related categories from Neopagan to Modern Pagan. I did not begin the proposal, though do support it. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Neopaganism articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Neopaganism articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heathen holidays#Requested move 10 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heathen holidays#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)