Template talk:Hinduism small

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is the scriptures section titled mythology? It has very negative connotations - whether they are true or not - they are scripture (some accounts and some philosophy) and the title should reflect that. Any objections? As a comparison - the Genesis and bible would be categorized as scripture but not mythology. --Pranathi 02:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Hindu scriptures are a part of the Hindu mythology. We do have a separate template for Hindu texts. If you want you can some more mythology-related topics to the list --Deepak|वार्ता 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, do you mind if I change mythology to scriptures, since this section includes the Upanishad etc, which are not stories. I find mythology a bit offensive when applied to religion - also see (Christian mythology. Unless there are objections, I will change shortly. --Pranathi 20:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mythology is a part of every religion in the world.. Anyway how about having the section title as Mythology and scriptures. --Deepak|वार्ता 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you see Christian Mythology, it is only stories that have 'developed' around texts, and stories that have 'accumulated' around scripture and fundamental stories of Christianity. It includes only what Christians think of as myth (it implies falsehood as mentioned in page). Parallels would be Jataka tales etc in Hinduism. The only place it could be sometimes called myth would be to differentiate belief from literal history - and is offensive to the members of the religion.

Our template includes Shruti, Upanishads, Vedas, Brahmana, Smriti, Bhagavad Gita, Sutras, Itihasa under mythology. I can see none of these, except maybe some of the puranas to be mythology. Even those are not considered by all Hindus to be mythology - only the logical thinking ones that limit the reach of the supernatural.--Pranathi 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do get your point. I hope you have gone through the article on Hindu mythology. It kinda contradicts your point. I'm against removing the section on Hindu mythology from the template - not very constructive --Deepak|वार्ता 10:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have added to the existing discussion questioning the title in that page. Also let's move this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Hopefully we can get a consensus there.--Pranathi 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Part of a series" ?

"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? ---JimWae 06:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ganesha Murti made in Indonesia have a second face. I have seen it on back of Ganesha's head mand also incorporated into Lord Ganesha's face. What can anyone tell me about these murtis? Lakshmiji

[edit] proposal for new section

Just as the islam template has a section called 'societal aspects', i propose the hinduism template should also add a similiar section with topics concerning sciences, society and arts. Leafy 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible image change

Hello an editor of the Hinduism article has suggested a change in the Aum picture, he has recently uploaded the image you see to the right. He wants to change it because he says that the color saffron would much better suit the article and the fact that saffron is a holy color in Hinduism. Does anybody agree with this.--Seadog ^♪ 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys plz replace the black image with this saffron one.Sarvabhaum 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure but I feel of having seen Ohm in deep orange colour. If the editor agrees, we should try to see how it looks in deep orange. swadhyayee 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the Aum a bit darker/less bright. It hurts my eyes at the moment. Maybe a more reddish-orange would be better. Gizza^{Chat ©} 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would make a new one but I don't know how, you will have to ask Sarvabhaum. I have actually tested out the template with the new Aum and it actually looks pretty good. — Seadog 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the template it appears small but if we were to replace every black Aum with this one, there are going to be places where it will appear at this harmful-to-the-eyes size. Gizza^{Chat ©} 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)