Talk:Dudjom Lingpa

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Tibet

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet 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.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Lead Section

While the introduction of Sanskrit and Wylie transliteration is useful, its parenthetical use makes the lead section of the article difficult to read.Greedyhalibut (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the article is expanded and warrants a dedicated introduction, non-English language may be spared the reader and introduced in the body of the article in explication. (Tibetan: ༄༅༎རང་བཞིན་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་རང་ཞལ་མངོན་དུ་བྱེད་པའི་གདམས་པ་མ་བསྒོམ་སངས་རྒྱས་བཞུགས་སོ༎)

B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many quotes (and single quotes at that) around terms like mindstream, which have their own references? This is a common jargon within the field of Tibetan Buddhism, thus I don't think numerous quotes are warranted for this terminology and especially when there exists a separate Wikipedia article. 50.132.101.90 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the most egregious one of these is 'meditation.' The person in question is considered someone who trained quite a bit in meditation within his tradition so I am not quite sure why we're saying it's "meditation" instead. 50.132.101.90 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question. It doesn't make any sense. --187.4.6.107 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unnecessary ones and left the ones which marked technical/specific terminology. --187.4.6.107 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text

-- 88.72.26.195 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revert

With this edit, Editor Skyerise reverted the corrections that I made to a {{cite book}} template with the edit summary yes but the book is published under the English title, the rest if there for convenience. I could always take it out.

As it was before my edit and is now after my edit, |trans-title= parameters is being misused. |trans-title= is defined to hold the English translation of the non-English title in |title= and or |script-title=. Because this book is published in English with an English title, |trans-title= has no place in the citation. The Tibetan |script-title= may or may not be kept; to my untrained eye the text assigned to that parameter may match text on an internal title page (page 1) in the amazon.com 'look inside' preview. Please do not misuse template parameters. For this citation, |trans-title= should go away.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's the transliteration of the title. I added the cite template, and this formats it pretty much just as it was before I added the template. I didn't want to diminish the work of the previous editor who thoughtfully provided all three. Skyerise (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is thought to be a problem, then I suggest that the template coders provide both translation-title and transliteration-title, so that we don't lose the transliterations which are useful for those who do not read the Tibetan or Sanskrit alphabet scripts. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]