Template talk:Neopagan witchcraft

message: Several templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area, namely:
*
*
*
*
*
</noinclude>
I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles. Some articles could conceivably be tagged with 3 or 4 of these templates: indeed, Wicca already has three. I mean no criticism of the creators of the templates - but I suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page for all templates relating to this topic 

message: Midnightblueowl said:
:"Dianic Wicca" and "Georgian Wicca" etc are not forms of "Eclectic Wicca"
I was under the impression that 'Eclectic Wicca' was a term to describe all forms of Wicca that are non-BTW. I seem to remember Margot Adler popularised this term with her discussion of 'American Eclectic Wiccans', a term chosen to include traditions such as Dianic Wicca. See this page for more info, although it's probably not admissable as a reliable source. I'd need to have another look at Adler for that. Fuzzypeg★ 00:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that to be an "Eclectic Wiccan", one had to practise eclectically, like the New Age movement. As far as I amn aware, Georgian Wicca etc does not do this. That was my reasoning, though if sources say otherwise than fair do's :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: My opinion is biased, but I'd call Georgian Traditional Witchcraft, not eclectic Wicca.  If we are going to call it Wicca, I still wouldn't call it eclectic, but some sort of "non BTW, but initiatory" Wicca.  The taxonomy is difficult to work with.--Vidkun (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes "Eclectic Wicca"? 

message: The 1734 tradition was founded based on the teachings of Roy Bowers, who was very scathing of Wicca: Bowers, I believe, coined the term "Wiccan" with derogatory intent, and went to some lengths to ridicule and denounce the "Gardnerians" (another derogatory term from Bowers). Bowers claimed to represent a quite separate variety of witchcraft. I would therefore find it very strange if the 1734 crowd had adopted the name "Wicca" which their patron saint had so vilified!
...And following a quick search I discover that they have indeed started calling themselves Wiccans! Wonders will never cease. OK, leave them in the list then. Fuzzypeg★ 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite for that one, please, Fuzzy?  I wasn't aware of Bowers using "Wicca" as a derogatory term, but I had heard it about the term "Gardnerian".  And all of the Cochranites I know use witchcraft, or, more specifically, Traditional Initiatory Witchraft to refer to their practices.--Vidkun (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1734 trad Wiccan? 

message: I keep removing Ipsita because, frankly, she is not notable, as a Wiccan, on the level of the others in the list.--Vidkun (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Vidkun. It wasn't me who added Ipsita, but I personally believe that she is notable enough to warrant inclusion, after all, she is the most notable Wiccan in India, and indeed in all of Asia. She may not be very well known outside of India, but within that nation she is essentially its public face.  (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, and where's reliable sources accounting for her notability as a Wicca?  Right now, it only seems like her own webpage asserts her notability.--Vidkun (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, you may well be right there Vidkun, maybe the person who added her to the list can find their notability? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Wiccans 

message: :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. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Contemporary witchcraft → ? – As can be seen in the discussion above, this template was moved to Template:Contemporary witchcraft as part of a move to make it about more general witchcraft topics. Template:Wicca lists it as the Wicca footer box. If it is the Wicca footer box its current title is promoting the same type of confusion that the original move was intended to avoid. If it is a witchcraft box, other changes need to be made. The easier route seems to be letting it be the Wicca footer box, so I propose moving it to Template:Wicca navbox. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 August 2023