Talk:Divine (disambiguation)

Clergyman

On another page, I read:

Edward Fowler (1632 - August 26, 1714), English divine...

What is a "divine"? This page should tell us! (and much of the current material could perhaps be cut) -- Tarquin 16:44, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good question. The problem here is that wikipedia has many articles imported from the 1911 Britannica without the terminology being updated. The meaning when describing a person is a cleric or priest - see Divine (noun).--JBellis 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional religion of Wayism worships

What is wayism and why is it included on this page. Who or what is a Pictureuploader. Can this reference be removed?

'wayism' (if I have the reference correct) has come up on a couple of different science fiction TV shows (most recently "Andromeda") and is usually some riff on new age/taoist beliefs. the word 'tao' translates as 'the way', and the word itself - if not the actual philosophy behind it - has been translated over into mainstream new age thinking. this can certainly be removed, along with the reference to Divine (the transvestite entertainer), and when I integrate this into the divinity section (assuming it meets no opposition) I can do that.

'pictureuploader' I don't see - that might be some Wiki specific thing going on. where on the page are you finding that?Ted 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add here that Wayism is an ancient philosophy with members worldwide, more popular in the East than in the West. Its name comes from 1st century use of Jesus' followers of The Way, as it was called. True, its name was used in the Andromeda TV series and scifi but it is a well attested and oft quoted bona fide spiritual movement. ^[1] 124.248.177.179 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://wayism.org

Redirect

since the content on this page is quite sparse (and either overlaps what is on the divinity page, or is mere disambiguation, I've decided to simply redirect this page over to Divinity. I don't see any loss in that move. disagreements?

I agree completely. Gflor e s^Talk 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Commander Keane 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I think I'll be bold and do this. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about this word, could it be derived from the idea that something or someone is divine, meaning that they are "of the vine" or what Carl Jung called "the rizome" meaning that which attaches like an umbilical cord to "God-energy" ? What say you?

Requested move 22 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divine (disambiguation) → Divine – There is no obvious primary topic, and we should not prioritize a dictionary definition of the common adjective. The redirect to "Divinity" set up in 2006 is no longer appropriate, given the relatively large number of articles about people and artistic works called "Divine". — JFG ^talk 13:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per pageviews. Divinity is only the fourth most viewed topic, and, 'Divine' isn't even the primary search term that readers are likely to use to search for that article. When I see 'Divine', I immediately think of the coprophagous drag queen. For others, it'll be the rapper, and for others it'll be the religious concept. No primary topic. (Also, at time of writing this comment, there are 9 mainspace links using the [[Divine]] redirect, and 3 are mistargeted (2 for the rapper, 1 for the drag queen). Colin M (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic, I don't see anything on that dab page that even comes close. PC78 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, already at the primary redirect. Divinity as a concept holds the long-term historical significance across many centuries and cultures. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But... we're discussing the title "Divine", not "Divinity". This is not a request to move "Divinity" to a dab page, that would be indeed ridiculous. However "Divine" per se does not have an article, and that title does not have a primary-topic article. — JFG ^talk 05:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the RM pertains to the redirect "Divine" and if it should move to the dab or stay redirected to "Divinity" as the primary redirect. The Divinity page has the "redirects here" hatnote - "'Divine' redirects here. For other uses, see Divine (disambiguation)" - the common way to handle a primary redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the two editors above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every use of the word "Divine" on the disambiguation page is intended to invoke the concept of Divinity. bd2412 T 14:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as not moved - holy cow, holy cow, criterion 2 of primary topic Red Slash 03:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I understand the opposition, but it feels illogical to me. If "Divine" must redirect to "Divinity", why should Magnanimous not redirect to Magnanimity, Serene to Serenity, or Joyful to Joy? What would be a good venue to discuss the general case of an adjective redirecting to its noun instead of having its own dab list of title matches? — JFG ^talk 09:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joyful probably should redirect to joy. Serenity doesn't have its own page, which is strange - the forgotten emotion? Maybe a case by case basis rather than an overall guideline because of the variety of options. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case-by-case basis because, for instance, not many people are going to type in serene looking for the concept of serenity, as evidenced by the fact that we literally do not have an article on serenity. But most adjectives about big-time encyclopedic nouns do, in fact, redirect to the noun form. Happy, slow, sweet, spicy, dark, angry, and many more go exactly where you'd expect. Most that don't (e.g., fast) have a very good reason why they cannot go directly to the main article (in this case, the rival primary topic claim of fasting). Still, a few probably could be moved (quick is a disambiguation page) but haven't been discussed yet. Red Slash 23:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, each should be evaluated separately. Of your list, I'd move "slow" to a dab page, the rest look fine as adjectives directly derived from a noun. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

[1] ttp://wayism.org

[1]