This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Labeling Mari traditional religion as neopagan is as correct as calling Hindus neopagans. The fact that officially registered organisations focusing on Mari religion were allowed to form only after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was hostile to existing religious organisations, e.g. the Orthodox Church, and blocked the formation of new ones) does not mean that the tradition is a neopagan one. -- Ohpuu (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
I think this one makes sense, and it's entirely possible that there may have been support for it if anyone had proposed this alternative title at the RM that was closed last week. But because of that RM, we can't process this request as uncontroversial. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That RM ended only about 14 hours ago. The suggested title seems reasonable to me, but was not the title chosen by the consensus in that RM. It may be more prudent to hold a (new RM) discussion about the further proposed refinement of the title. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... I closed this RM and moved to the current title by consensus. Why not just open another RM? Unless I remember it correctly, reopening the current RM would mean that I will have to revert the move. – robertsky (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.