Talk:Holy Writ

I see someone has prodded this. I redirected this to religious text; this was reverted. Any better ideas as to what to do with this page, or how this might be expanded in a way that is not redundant to that page, which is also where scripture redirects to? - Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the redirect to religious text would be the best option. I just don't think there's much information to be found about who exactly uses the phrase "Holy Writ" and that this would best be perhaps a usage note on Wiktionary, not so much fit for an entire Wikipedia article. Kevin Smith 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review on my own, I've found that the description here could possibly be inaccurate. To say it is often used by "older persons" generally in the "King-James-Only Movemement" is unsupportable, or at least unsupported by any serious source I can find. I should also note that Holy Writ can be a figurative expression to mean any authoritative text, especially religious ones, and especially the Bible. A redirect to religious text would be appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines: "Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms" because the difference in meaning is trivial, and "related words" because the meaning difference here is a better candidate for a Wiktionary entry (hint: it already has one) than its own article. In fact, this phrase would not receive its own subtopic under "religious text" so it can hardly have a substantial Wikipedia entry. A redirect would be the best solution. If no redirect is added, or the deletion message not removed, this entry will be up for deletion in two days. Kevin Smith 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that has a problem with a redirect, please explain it here, as it has not been contested on the talk page. Kevin Smith 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I explained in the edit summary but not here. This article serves a purpose, to explain an encyclopedic term. Neither of the pages that this article was redirected to contains the same information or even the barest mention of it, so this one is not redundant to either of those articles. If it is redirected, the information is lost. If you adhere to the procedure outlined at WP:MM and merge the text of this article in with Holy Scripture first, then redirect, I will not complain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but ...

"Holy Writ" is in fact used by older persons, particularly those in the King James Only movement, but is hardly restricted to them, and I think that one would be hard pressed to cite documents showing this, although it would be relatively easy to cite documents using the term. I think that this is a topic well-suited to a dicdef, and suggest transwikiing by someone interested in Wiktionary. Rlquall 02:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but I think codex feels that this is more encyclopedic in nature, and though I tend to disagree, he will probably revert any redirect. Any comments? Kevin Smith 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]