Talk:Women in Taoism

Requested move 6 December 2018

 * 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 section. 

Moved. See general agreement below to be WP:CONSISTENT with the main article title, Taoism. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

– Match the main article Taoism. feminist (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Women in Daoism → Women in Taoism
 * Chu (Daoism) → Chu (Taoism)
 * Support per nomination and consistency in Wikipedia's main title headers. The Taoism article's lead sentence begins, "Taoism or Daoism, is a religious…", thus confirming that Daoism is, indeed the alternative form in English. However, the main header is Taoism, which appears to be the more frequently used English form.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I intentionally used "Daoism" because it is preferred in academic usage, see Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Wikipedia titles are internally inconsistent owing to an intrinsic conflict between a general rule to use pinyin romanization (e.g., Laozi, not Lao Tzu) with a few common exceptions using Wade-Giles (Tao Te Ching, not Daode Jing). Redirects solve the problem. Keahapana (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted citation
While reformatting this article's references, I discovered one that was listed in the "References" section but actually never cited in the body. I couldn't find an online version to see where it would go, and it doesn't make sense to create a "See also" section for one little paper. Therefore I am removing this citation from the article but documenting it here, in case another contributor has a copy and wants to insert it properly.

— Molly-in-md (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)