Template talk:Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject India (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I think there should be links to Hindu music -- 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page for that, Bhajans.--Jesucristo301 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


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)

"Part of a series" ?[edit]

"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)

Since this got no replies in 4+ years, I've raised this question again below. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

proposal for new section[edit]

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)

Possible image change[edit]

This image

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. GizzaChat © 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. GizzaChat © 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Swastika replacement proposal[edit]

It has been proposed that the swastikas be removed from the following templates, as they are potentially offensive to readers.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the debate no longer applies to this template. Only to {{Hindu Links}}. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather, I think not to call it a swastika. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzoxicuvybtnrm (talkcontribs) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this swastika is a mistake. Nazi swastika spins counter-clockwise and hasn't got dots. Hindu swastika spins clockwise and has dots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I am happy that a proposal to remove the Swastika is alraedy in the talk page. Kindly remove immediately. A great living Hindu religious/spiritual/advaita master has told/opined 'We have lost the Swastika. Let us not use it any more.' So to be respectful and empathetic to a particular community, let us remove the Swastika. Kindly remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatyamMithya (talkcontribs) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism link[edit]

I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing this template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?-Andrew c 00:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the religion templates need a criticism link. I don't see them on other WikiProject templates, either. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:ScientologySeries has a whole section of critical/controversial links. Since there is a Criticism of Hinduism pages, it seems more neutral, and holistic to include that POV in the form of a single link on this template. --Andrew c 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Most WikiProject Templates (looking further than just religions) don't have criticism links. As far as I know, there's no policy saying that templates need to have criticism links. Let us know what the Christianity, Islam, and Judaism Project members think of your proposal to add criticism links to their Religion templates. Since this is really a Project-wide policy, you should also see what other WikiProjects think, for example countries and ethnic groups. The Village Pump may be the best place to propose what sounds like a new policy, rather than here. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. A centralized discussion on this general topic can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Criticism link on religion navigational boxes. -Andrew c 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There was wide support to include critical links across the board. So I'll see if I can't find a good place to put the link here.-Andrew c 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One problem is that the swastika is going the wrong direction: the hindu symbol goes clockwise, the nazi symbol goes counterclockwise, the nazi symbol is shown —Preceding unsigned comment added by HershieWafflesSrivastava (talkcontribs) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing Aum Symbol[edit]

My english is low, excuseme. I am thinking to change the aum simbol Aum red.svg to Aum calligraphy Red.svg or Aum calligraphy.svg into Template:Hinduism_small

Thanks --Wilfredor 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the artistic creativity of your version, it's done using Chinese calligraphy brush strokes - what does that have to do with Hinduism? It adds confusion in my opinion. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ॐ Priyanath. Wilfredor's calligraphy is truly beautiful, but introduces an element of cultural confusion for me. -- Lisasmall 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation vs. Rebirth question[edit]

Should Reincarnation not be Rebirth? I'm not an expert, but from my knowledge this could cause serious misunderstanding. Reincarnation means that the soul is transferred, but in Buddhism there is no soul (anatta).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baynardo7 (talkcontribs) 19:53, 16 May 2007.

But this is a Hinduism template, not a Buddhism template. See Reincarnation and Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

i belive the hindu is nopt a religion its dharma —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very similar.


I have cleaned-up and reorganized the template from this version to this newer version. My main aim was:

  • Keep the template focussed on the themes of central importance to Hinduism and remove articles that are IMO not as central (such as Vahana, Swami), or generic articles that are not focussed on Hinduism (such as Reincarnation, as opposed to Samsara, and Vegetarianism).
  • Reorder and regroup links so that related concepts are grouped together (such as the four Purusharthas; Yoga and Bhakti etc)

I am certain that the new version is far from perfect and invite feedback. Some observations:

  • Should we link to Purushartha instead of Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha individually ? Sounds sensible but also, Dharma and Moksha are too important not to link from the template. Any suggestions ?
  • I noticed that we have no good articles on Hindu practices (as opposed to philosophy, beliefs and scriptures) such as marriage, cremation etc. Hindu covers some of those topics but is in a bad state. Perhaps knowledgeable editors can look to expanding wikipedia's coverage of those topics.

Abecedare 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Caste system[edit]

Why was this item removed? It seems like that is a notable topic that is related to Hinduism.-Andrew c [talk] 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew - I removed caste system as a 'main' Hinduism link because it's already covered in the 'Criticism' article. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a separate Caste system which is key in hinduism society,politics etc further Criticism covers other aspects also.Pharaoh of the Wizards 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

90% of the Criticism article is about the caste system. For comparison, look at the Islam, Judaism, and Christianity templates. The Islam template doesn't have separate links to sections on Jihad, Dhimmi, Terrorism, and Treatment of Women. There's just the one link to a Criticism section. in the Christianity template, there aren't separate links to Crusades, Persecution, and Slavery. They are all mentioned and linked in the template's Criticism page/link. The same is true for the Judaism template. Let's be consistent, and show NPOV. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I second Priyanath's view. The Christianity & Islam templates does not have articles on their castes, slavery, or stratifications either.Bakaman 16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I third that view. The caste system is covered well and should not be given a place on the template out of fairness with other religions.

Regarding the link "Mandir"[edit]

Attending a Hindu temple is not core to the Hindu belief system. The practice of Puja occurs in the home with murtis owned by the householder. Should we remove "Mandir" from this section?--ॐJesucristo301 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I've edited the link "Deities" to "Devas."--ॐJesucristo301 17:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Deities" is much broader - it covers devas, devis, avatars, Trimurti, Gandharvas, and much more. Note that the article it links to is titled Hindu deities for that reason. Please discuss and get consensus here before changing a template that's used on hundreds of articles. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Deities is an improper word as it insinuates polytheism. I won't edit it any more, but can we try to think of a better word?--ॐJesucristo301 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is one, yes. "Devas" is just as bad in that regard, so it's not an improvement. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Jesuscristo, you are right that "Deities" does not necessarily capture the complexity and diversity of the Hindu concept of God/god. However, as Priyanath has pointed out it still seems to be the best single word, and an improvement over "Devas", which refers to a specific sub-genre of divinities. Can you think of some better term ? Abecedare 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are many concepts from Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma that don't have English translations that are accurate. This is one of them. As far as I can see it's the most accurate, or rather the least inaccurate approach. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some but they are a bit wordy. How about "Celestial Beings," "Divine Beings," or "Numen?" I do not think the term "deities" does these individual concepts justice.--ॐJesucristo301 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesucristo301, This idea needs to be discussed in a wider forum, since it would affect so many articles and templates. In addition to the hundreds of articles that this template affects, there is Template:Hindu Deities and Texts, the article Hindu deities, and many articles that use the term "deities". For the sake of consistency, and in order to change a term that is used so widely, you should begin a discussion at the WikiProject Hinduism Notice Board: WT:HINDU. If there is a better term, that's the place to find consensus. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, I am new here Priyanath, I never thought of that. I assumed because of the wide use of this template I should come here first, but I will post this in the aforementioned section.--ॐJesucristo301 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Devi bhakta's recent edits[edit]

I have undone the edits by the aformentioned user. He/she added "Denominations" to the template which was unneccesary and innaccurate. --ॐJesucristo301 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You feel adding "Denominations" to the template is "unneccesary and innaccurate."

So let's discuss. Why is it unnecessary? How is it inaccurate?

I would think, on a template purporting to guide users to Hinduism resources, that links to the three or four major denominations of Hinduism -- i.e., Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism and (the arguable fourth) Smartism -- would be a no-brainer.

"Denominations" is already linked as a separate topic (meaning it is apparently *not* unnecessary?) -- and that article is in a pretty iffy state. In my reconfiguration, that page remained available, but separate links to the stronger individual articles about the main Hindu schools were added -- which would seem a really obvious and basic addition?

If this seems fantastically wrong for some reason, then I'd like to hear counter-arguments -- I am open to the possibility that I am missing something big? Otherwise, I think I made a pretty respectful and useful addition without harming or removing original content -- so why revert? I am open to compromise.

Thanks! (Devi bhakta 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree with jesucristo that it's unnecessary. All the "Denominations" are already covered in the template with the "Denominations" link. Better to work on that article if you think it needs work. For the same reason, "Vedas" is the link in the template, rather than a link to each of four main vedas linked separately. "Upanishads" rather than listing ten different Upanishads. "Hindu Festivals", rather than listing each of many Hindu Festivals. If each Denomination, Upanishad, Hindu Festival, etc. were linked it would get unwieldy. And then you would get smaller denominations, festivals, etc. insisting they were big enough to be in the template, ad infinitum. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave it to you. I don't think the "slippery slope" argument goes that far, though. Pick up virtually any book on Hinduism -- Western or Eastern -- and the organizing principle is the three (or four) major denominations. It is a useful starting point simply because *every* subdenomination in Hinduism fits into one of them. This basic division of the three main branches of Hinduism has stood for ages -- to me it seems like a really glaring omission. It is not like listing ten Upanisads separately; it is more like grouping Vedas, Upanisads, Epics and Puranas all under one title. It is also not like festivals -- in that festivals really could expand indefinitely, whereas the basic schools of Hinduism have been stable for centuries. My two paise ;-) (Devi bhakta 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
I think you would be surprised by how slippery the slope already is. I've seen Ayyavazhi scriptures added to this template (and in other areas of Wikipedia), because someone thought it a notable denomination of Hinduism. But it also helps to make an already unwieldy template a reasonable size. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Devi bhakta, first I would like to say two things. 1) Welcome to Wikipedia! 2) It was not my intent to be rude. I myself am a practicing hindu.

Another arguement is that these "denominations" can not cover the entire spectrum of Hindu beliefs and will leave out many groups leaving readers semi-misinformed. Also, I'm merging this with my original subject.--ॐJesucristo301 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What a paining colour!!!!!![edit]

IMO, the present colour is very bright. An eyesore to my eyes atleast. Please revert to the previous more soothing orange.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Om Symbol[edit]

Om hindu.jpg
Aum red.svg
Om .jpg

I have added this om (first image) because the previous om was not a correct representation of the symbol. The previous om (img2) is misleading and false. An om does NOT look like the second image. Anyone opposed to it? Nikkul (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The newer red Om is great. I think it should remain.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The new image you propose is problematic from a technical standpoint. It is compressed too much so there are artifacts, and the image is not transparent. If we can have a consensus that the form of the new image is superior to the form of the old image, I highly suggest requesting to the graphics lab to create a transparent, SVG version based on the image. That said, I believe it is much more common for the "tail" of the om to turn downwards (like the long standing image) not upwards (like the proposed new image). Can you please be more specific about how the image is misleading and false? A search of google images shows a great degree of variation between images, so it would be nice to know what criteria you are using to establish what is and isn't a proper aum. -Andrew c [talk] 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Both versions are fine in terms of representation, they are just different styles. So the new one is ok IF we can get it into the hands of someone who can create a high quality image without artifacts, without pixelating, without white background, without low resolution, and in non-bitmap format - i.e. svg, scalable format. In other words, the same quality as the "old" one. Otherwise we need to go back to that version. –priyanath talk 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please take the image to the graphics lab? Im not really sure how to do that. The image is misleading because it shows the om in a very unusual format. The image is very odd and it doesnt show the traditional om. the new image is closer to the traditional om that you would find in a temple or a chain. Nikkul (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Thoughts: How did I miss it? As pointed by User:Andrew c, IMO, the tail usually turns downwards. (When I draw it, I often draw it that way) The shape of new Om is more conventional than the abstract Image:Aum red.svg. But the narrower pointed end of the tail joins at the lower end. The tail goes up first, then moves to right with circular curve, moves down and then joins back at its origin or if not joined, comes near to it like the one uploaded before (pictured). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Filed this on the graphics lab. 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Return from the graphics lab: Both are legitimate images, they're just handwriting differences. (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I love the new Om! --ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the new om (was ok with the previous one too!), but like Redtigerxyz, I too find the orange colour too glaring. Are there any objections to changing the colour so that it matches the swastika ? Abecedare (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Maybe we can give this template a new look as this template currently looks a bit plain and boring?
Have a look at Template:Islam, and you'll understand what I mean.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


In this teplate, the articles are not arranged in proper order. The major concepts of hinduism such as Brahman (the absolute truth) and its representation - Om are not mentioned at all. There is no mention of hindu philosophies - samkhya, yoga, nyaya, vaisheshika, mimamsa and vedanta. Hindu scriptures should include vedangas - shiksha, chandas, vyakarana, nirukta, kalpa and jyotisha, because of their educational value. In the present teplate, the hindu denominations, which are of not much importance are placed in a prominent place. That can come under a heading like belief and practices / culture / society. Hindu laws, calendar, artforms, festivals etc. can calso come under this head. Festivals are a part of hindu practices. Not to be included under related topics. To complete the metaphysical, epistamological and axiological concepts of Hinduism, which is more a philosophy than a religion, such an ordering is necessary. Hindu mythology is actually a repetition of the concepts in other articles. So it can come under the head - related topics. There is no mention of hindu educational systems. All there require a complete rearrangement in the template. --Naveen Sankar (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Also please learn to use edit summaries—it's a courtesy to other editors. Just to be clear, your edit was more than a reorganisation, it was a complete remake of the template. So it can be discussed more clearly, these were the changes you made (which I reverted so that consensus can be reached) and thus I assume what you would like to propose:
  1. Main Section - remove Denominations and Mythology and replace them with Om and Brahman
  2. Scriptures - remove Ramayana and replace with Vedangas
  3. Beliefs and Practices - move the section down the template and add Varnas, Asramas, Japa, Tapasya, Mythology, Arts, Temples, Calendars, Festivals
  4. Related Topics - Remove Hinduism by Country, Reforms, Hindu Law, and move Ayurveda and Jyotish to top of list, and move Festivals to the Beliefs and Practices section
  5. Add a Hindu Philosophy section that includes: Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta
I will post a message about this at WT:HINDU so other editors can give their opinion. Since this is an important template that appears on countless articles, there should be the involvement of other editors, discussion, and consensus before making major changes to the template. I don't have time right now to get into details, since there are so many changes you would like to see, but in general several of the new topics you would like to add are covered suffiently, imo, in other articles. I also believe that Mythology and Denominations are important enough to be in the top section. Om and Brahman, I don't think so, since they are much more specific while the others are a general overview. I will add more feedback later.... Priyanath talk 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note the following points.
  1. I never meant to remove Denominations and Mythology from the template. I meant only to bring them under the appropriate title.
  2. I never ment to remove Ramayana, but to add Vedanga also.
  3. I wish to bring Denominations also under the title 'Beliefs and Practices'
  4. Never meant to remove Hinduism by Country from the 'Related Topics' section. It can be there.
  5. Hindu Philosophy section is a must. Because, it is very particular and peculiar to this religion.

--Naveen Sankar (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Philosophy" definitely needs a link, but not each individual one - Vedanga, Nyaya, Vaisheshkika, etc. The template is confusing, because the heading "Beliefs and Practices" is (was, by the time you read this) a link to Hindu Philosophy, which doesn't make any sense. For now, I removed the link from that header, and put a link just under it titled Philosophy that goes to the Hindu Philosophy page. That Philosophy page has links to the main philosophies. Priyanath talk 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits were recently reverted so wanted to clarify:

  • A violation of WP:OVERLINK: Om (2 links) • Brahman (3 links) • Ishvara (3 links) Hindu (2 links) • History of Hinduism (2 links)
  • Deities: Brahman, Ishvara are not strictly deities, they are concepts. Ayyappa is a regional deity (WP:UNDUE). The name Murugan is the most famous name. Trimurtis is incorrect English, Trimurti refers to the group.
  • The templates are supposed to repositories of subjects that the reader can browse through. Thus, red links are a strict no-no as they do not add any value to the template.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Modifications:-

  • I hope you like the new look of Hinduism template.
  • Since the subjects Om, Brahman, Ishvara, Hindu and History are somewhat primary and priliminary, I wish to retain it outside the subject-wise boxes also. Retaining these topics outside also gives a better appearance.
  • "Brahman" is required under Deities heading because a major sect of Hinduism considers Brahman as Sagunabrahman - which has attributes. It is also required under Hindu philosophy because it is a major concept of Hindu Philosophy. There is no repetition under same titles. So please do not consider it as an over link.
  • If required, let us remove the topics "Hindu" and "History of Hinduism" from "Other Topics" section.
  • Ayyappa may be a regional deity, but prominent all over South India. Some temples are there in North India also.
  • In the case of Murugan, it is the regional name of the deiti. The name Murugan is not so much famous in North India. Kartikeya is the famous name in North India. I assume Subrahmanya is known in entire India. Tamilians and Malayalis also use the name Subrahmanya. But necessary, the name can be changed.
  • Based on your points the title Trimurtis can be changed to Trimurti.
  • The considerable modifications made on the template is very reent. Please wait for some days. I have a plan to "bluing" the red links.

Thanks.. Naveen Sankar (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hare Krishna[edit]

It seems like someone added "Hare Krishna"-centric links to the top of the Hinduism template. Many of the links were contained elsewhere in the template and it appeared as if they were placed at the top of the template only to attract attention to them, implying that the Hare Krishna organization and Vaishnavism as a whole are the entirety of Hinduism and I found it misleading.ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Part of a series" redux[edit]

I repeat verbatim User:JimWae's question above:

"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)

Most articles that have this template are not part of any series; often they aren't even included in the template. Can we please avoid sticking this template on every single article, and avoid such grasping language? For now, I've changed "Part of a series on Hinduism" to "An article related to Hinduism": improvements are welcome, but please not "part of a series". Shreevatsa (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Code updates[edit]

We've got a problem with uncommunicative editors undoing some significant cleanup of the underlying code for this template which turns it into an instance of {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}, presumably for minor aesthetic quibbles which could be easily fixed. I'll be updating the code again (to the version in the sandbox) in a few days: if there are any particular issues with the new code please specify them and I'll try to accommodate productive suggestions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now re-synced this. If editors still have problems with the colours (which I can only assume was the issue here, given the complete lack of constructive discussion) then please feel free to tinker with them in the new codebase. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism Title Text Color[edit]

Might it be better to have the template's "Hinduism" title set in a color that is not red? The reasoning for this being that, on first glance, it looks like a red link. Perhaps it should be set in either the standard link blue or a different color that is representative of the religion. -Martinman (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit by Thumperward[edit]

Thumperward, U changed the entire font of the template to a horrible size and width on 5th March. Would u like to explain your edits here ? (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It was part of a complete overhaul of the codebase which ironically was partially in order to make it easier to change the colours in future. I'll see if I can preserve the current garish layout when once again restoring that code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this unconstuctive edit warring. Anonymous, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continually reverting with no constructive input? This template is not going to remain an ugly and unmaintainable mess indefinitely just because one IP likes the pretty colours. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013[edit]

please add in the portion practices of Hinduism and in the portion of festival edit Durga puja (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)siliguri I am Amit Talukder I am a bengali hindu:

Note: I corrected the formatting of this and I'm going to leave it open for someone a bit more familiar with the subject area to address. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Done with this edit. I added a link to Durga Puja in the Practices | Festivals list section. I hope that's correct. Begoontalk 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Assorted issues[edit]

I'm not really an editor, but I've been poking through the Hinduism articles looking for some demographic statistics (which I have yet to find, although there's plenty of info on how many billion useless fictional units of measure are in another useless fictional unit of measure), and I've noticed the "Hinduism" infobox has some issues. The "Panini" link goes to the character of the same name from the C.H. Greenblatt cartoon Chowder, and the "Saiva" link goes to a genus of Asian lanternbugs.

The actual Shaivism page opens with the assertion that it's "one of the four most widely followed sects of Hinduism". Likewise the Shaktism page asserts that it is "along with Shaivism and Vaishnavism, one of the primary schools of devotional Hinduism", which was slightly perplexing to me as I wasn't sure what "devotional" meant, the article didn't explain or link the word to an explanation, and the Hinduism articles are so inconsistently written in general that I was tempted to think it meant nothing of consequence and the two articles simply disagreed on whether there were three schools or four. Although whether schools are the same as sects is still not entirely clear to me, this infobox lists SIX "Astika" schools, one of which is Vaishnavism, (and then three more in parentheses, or perhaps those are subschools of the last school on the list?), and then five "other orthodox schools", one of which is Saiva. Shakti is not mentioned in the "schools" section of the infobox at all, but IS listed in the deities section, while with Shaiva it's the reverse.

Sisterly harmer (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


I was tempted to think Shaktism was some upstart cult or something, but no, if you go to the page "Hindu denominations", it says quite unambiguously:

Hinduism is the dominant religion of the Indian subcontinent. It comprises three major traditions, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism, whose followers considered Shiva, Vishnu and Shakti to be the supreme deity respectively.

This is (to my untrained eye, at least) a simple, comprehensible, fairly ontologically basic distinction, which explains why the hinduism infobox ignores it entirely and instead gives you lists of things like "Samskaras". You may ask "What's a Samskara? If it's an important enough concept in Hinduism that I'm expected to learn it rather than be provided with a translation, why isn't it in the list of Hindu "Concepts" earlier in this same fucking worthless infobox?"

Here's what I say to you, hypothetical cranky wikipedia user. First, there's no need to be rude. Second, did you actually READ the list of Samskaras? Did it occur to you that perhaps the term could be concisely and comprehensibly defined by simply listing its members?

Samskaras Garbhadhana Pumsavana Simantonayana Jatakarma Namakarana Nishkramana Annaprashana Chudakarana Karnavedha Vidyarambha Upanayana Praishartha Keshanta Ritushuddhi Samavartana Vivaha Antyeshti

• silently running away into the distance, having crept out of earshot while you were reading the list of Samskaras •

Icon change and edit war by Pradyumnas741[edit]

@Pradyumnas741: Do not make major changes to the icon without a prior proper discussion and consensus. Do not edit war.

Consider the scholarly literature. Hinduism is complicated. It is a way of life. It has a lot of diversity. It has many schools, many deities, many paths (e.g. Bhakti - Hare Krishna versus Yoga versus Vedanta versus etc), and even monism and atheism are part of Hinduism according to scholarly literature (Read: Julius Lipner, Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-45677-7). Indonesian Hindus have their own system of beliefs. If you wish to make changes, propose your changes here, and justify your proposal with verifiable and reliable scholarly sources. Then wait for comments. Once a consensus is reached, appropriate changes to the icon can then be made. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, the svg version is better (and has proper transparency for the background). Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014[edit]

Within "Gurus, saints, philosophers", move Annamacharya from "Ancient" to "Medieval". Guijauregui (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)