Talk:Priestess (disambiguation)

Is the redirect logical?

The redirect to Priest is for an article on religions that don't, so far as I can tell, have priestesses. There is a passing mention of Neopaganism and ancient religions, but the focus of the article makes redirection of the term "priestess" seem silly. I suggest redirecting this somewhere more meaningful, but I don't yet know which of the zillions of articles to suggest.--otherlleft (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to change this redirect. There do exist priestesses in some forms of Christianity. Simply because they are more common in something like Wicca doesn't mean it should just be redirected to the Wicca article, in my opinion. I look at the relationship between Priestess and Priest, much as I do between Actress and Actor or Widow and Widower. To me, they are just redirects for the same idea embodied in a different gender. That said, I'm not completely opposed to changing these redirects. I think I just need to hear a good argument as to why. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that redirecting from one religion to another wouldn't be any more helpful. I do think the distinctions between priest and priestess are more significant than the analogies you draw; there are no cultures where the surviving spouse is always male, but gender requirements do exist in religions. Maybe there's enough to create the article, but maybe not.--otherlleft (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also a redirect from the page of High Priest to this disambiguation page. The text there says: "For priestesses and high priestesses, see Priestess". That was the reason I had included some of the high priestess from Ancient Egypt (the God's Wife and Divine Adoratrix). My intention had to be mimick that page. The page The High Priestess is already taken up by the page about the tarot card of the same name. I personally still think including those pages -God's Wife and Divine Adoratrix- is reasonable, but I will leave that up to concensus (of course). I completely see the point of not having the lists included. That's my mistake. Chalk it up to inexperience as an editor if you will.--AnnekeBart (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page, not a list

This is a disambiguation page. That means it should link to articles that people could reasonably expect to find at this title, or a very similar one. It should not be a list of individual priestesses, whoever they are. Just imagine what a mess Actor (disambiguation) would be if it listed every actor we had an article for! Peter 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is not the purpose of a disambiguation page. I suggest that this page be moved to Priestess (disambiguation) and stripped of the names of individuals. The move will make it possible to create a separate Priestess article if sources can be found (Priest tries to cover both, but there are differences as noted above and it may well be possible to create a verifiable article down the line).--~TPW 13:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say first get consensus at Talk:Priest (it will be more visible there, just give a link from here saying a discussion is happening there) that there should be a separate article for Prestesses. If consensus is reached for that, then indeed this page can be moved to Priestess (disambiguation) to make room for it. Peter 14:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The list of individuals was my addition and I see (and agree with) the argument against that. My mistake. As I mentioned above my reason for adding the Ancient Egyptian priestesses (God's Wife and DIvine Adoratrix) was for the simple reason that they are examples of (high) priestesses, they were rather important in their time and reasonably I think someone who would search for these individuals might search for priestess. Having said that, I will let the discussion and the resulting consensus do it's job. Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2023

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: Moved and Priestess will redirect to Priest  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Priestess → Priestess (disambiguation) – "Priestess" should redirect as in Female priest (edit: currently, it points to Ordination of women); the dab page should be moved over Priestess (disambiguation). fgnievinski (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: You seem to be requesting the move Priestess → Priestess (disambiguation) with the stipulation that "Priestess" should then redirect to Ordination of women as does Female priest. Is that correct? SilverLocust 💬 00:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently my nomination using XfD tools got messed up. fgnievinski (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced "Priestess → Ordination of women" with "Priestess → Priestess (disambiguation)" and fixed the template. SilverLocust 💬 01:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@SilverLocust Many thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per WikiNav results [1] estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the move, but the redirect is a bad idea. Priestess should redirect to priest. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good catch, I've included female priest in the discussion and notified Talk:Priest. fgnievinski (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose "Priestess" should redirect to priest, as the ordination of women article is a subtopic. Whether a priest is ordained or not is a formality in some particular religions, and not a fixed feature of priests/priestesses. "Female priest" should point to "priest" as well. -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary redirect. Although I don't like the title of Ordination of women at all, as ordination is usually seen as a Christian term and the article doesn't just cover Christianity. The article needs to be either renamed or refocused to only cover Christianity and a new article created to cover female clergy in general. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Should "female clergy" and all other related redirects [2] be included in the current nomination? fgnievinski (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  "female clergy" should redirect to clergy, where there is some coverage; again "ordination of women" is a subtopic. There are many clergy who are not ordained. -- 65.92.244.99 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Precisely, which is why that article should only deal with Christian clergy or be renamed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2023 (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.