Talk:Profane (religion)

Requested move 4 July 2021

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. Consensus against move(s) as proposed. Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Profanum → Profane
• Profane → Profane (disambiguation)

– article on the concept of Profane in the english wiki belongs at the primary namespace rather than a latin term for it. Darker Dreams (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Darker Dreams and Lennart97: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Darker Dreams: wouldn't it make more sense to have this article at Sacred–profane dichotomy instead? That title seems to describe the subject better than just "Profane". Lennart97 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Lennart97: The more I'm working through this the more I think the whole network of sacred/profane start/stub-class pages should be folded into the core sacred article. But I'm not quite ready to tackle that merge. The sacred/profane dichotomy isn't a base-level for the concept/conversation; and when the base page isn't developed there's no point in spinning that kind of material which is relevant to developing that into its own also-stub/start level page. Regardless, wherever this whole thing lands, a disambig on the root Profane page and Profanum as the core concept page isn't right and these shuffles move us closer to something that is. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Darker Dreams: You may be right, but I'm not entirely convinced that an article that appears to be dedicated to the sacred/profane dichotomy should be located at Profane. But regardless, I don't think this move can be considered uncontroversial, so I suggest converting this request into a formal RM. Lennart97 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Lennart97: The irony in objecting that the majority of the contents on the Profanum page are on the sacred/profane dichotomy is that it makes my point; I just merged those pages. However much this string of topics gets rolled up into fewer pages and what remains will need significant development and the base Profane page shouldn't be a disambiguation page. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• It makes the point that you may have merged to the wrong destination. Anyway, this is not a place for extended discussion and I'm not going to move the page. Just start an RM. Lennart97 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Profanum should not take precedence over Profanity as a potential meaning of "profane". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: "profanity" is the clear main topic of "profane".  Mysterymanblue  06:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @King of Hearts and Mysterymanblue: Any thoughts on my suggestion above to move to Sacred–profane dichotomy instead? That seems to most accurately describe the content of the article. Lennart97 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, Darker Dreams should have mentioned that they merged that article here just before requesting the move. I agree with the merge, btw, just, it would be easier if it was indicated. I would propose sacred and profane (damn, there's an obscure novel there) but would accept swapping back to Sacred–profane dichotomy. No such user (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment No such user I figured if anyone was interested enough to argue that a page in the english Wikipedia should stay at a random latin word would catch that the last major edit to the page was that merge. King of Hearts and Mysterymanblue while I agree that Profanity is the more common word, that concept has a page and can be referenced/redirected in a hatnote. Meanwhile, the Profanity page defines itself by way of this concept without ever using the term- because this isn't a term used in English, which was my point with the move suggestion. In fact, I'll probably copy some of the material from the Profanity article into this one because it's good coverage on the topic. Maybe the answer is to make this concept a subsection of the Sacred article. My concern is Profanum is not a fitting article title in the English wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Darker Dreams: Your concerns may very well be justified, but I think that the solution you are looking for would be to rename "Profanum" to "Profanity (religion)". The parenthetical disambiguator would still be necessary because "Profanity" most commonly refers to offensive language in general.  Mysterymanblue  22:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: just to be sure there's no confusion; I'm not suggesting the name be Profanity with or without a disambiguator. I was trying to move this page to "Profane," then add a hatnote pointing to a disambig page that is currently at that page and Profanity. Darker Dreams (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Prior to the recent Darker Dreams' edits, the article was a rather incoherent collection of thoughts on the level of a (poor) high-school essay [1]. Religion is organized primarily around the sacred elements of human life and provides a collective attempt to bridge the gap between the sacred and the profane. - O RLY? The material merged from Sacred-profane dichotomy is much better and can serve as a material for more coherent article, plus the etymology material from Profanity.
I think we all agree that the title "Profanum" is unacceptable. However, I think whatever title we choose will work best when contrasted with sacred, either in the title or by merging the contents into Sacred. As in "sacred", I'm willing to violate WP:NOUN and keep "profane" in the title–it's much more recognizable in this sense than "profanity", which is instantly associated with cursing.
As a step forward, I'll move the novel to Sacred and Profane (novel) and make a dab page at Sacred and Profane – there are several works of art by that name. No such user (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If the concept of "profane" is going to be displaced to "sacred profane dichotomy," I think it's probably better to just merge this start-class article with the Sacred start-class article and several other related stub/start class articles (sanctify, desanctify, desecrate, etc) and try to make on higher quality center of gravity for the concepts that necessary sub-pages can spin off of later. This also gets to live at a page name that is shorter and more natural for searching. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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.