Talk:Shaligram

	Hinduism portal This article 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Mid-importance).

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. New title is sourced, more recognizable and natural in English. Miniapolis 21:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sila (murti) → Shaligram – WP:COMMONNAME Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Can you elaborate, preferably with some numbers or references to reliable sources? --BDD (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, but perhaps relist? The article does say Shaligram is even a name of these stones: They are more often referred to as Shaligram Shilas, with Shila being the shortened version. The word Shila translates simply to 'stone' and Shaligram is a less well-known name of Vishnu. [1] Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shila is a generic term for a stone. [2] (Shaligram and variant spellings: 1,120,000) v/s [3] (Shalagram and variants: 112,000; Shalagram is a corruption of Shaligram) v/s [4] (sila murti: 246,000). The article uses Shaligra/Shaligram/Salagrama. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image request

This article would benefit from a photograph of a Sila / Shaligram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shaligram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819174218/http://manjeshwar.org/The%20Chariot.htm to http://manjeshwar.org/The%20Chariot.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Shalagrama shila" is rarely used in English reliable sources

It's normally just called a shalagrama. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated moves/changes of spelling

@Reo kwon: Here is where you should make a case for the most common English spelling being either śālagrāma or shalagrama (over shaligram). You have now been reverted twice, so please do not move the page again or change the spelling against the stable version or you are edit warring. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dāsānudāsa: Of the several English spellings, if you look at Google scholar very few use diacritics. Shalagrama seems, although not by a large margin, to be the most used. And the "shila' doesn't seem used much., normally just "shalagrama". Doug Weller talk 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not using IAST, then the closest approximation in English should be used. Shalagrama and Shaligrama are both used in Sanskrit texts and in English sources. However, Shalagrama seemed to be more common and hence I preferred it. I am fine with either of them. It's just a matter of relative usage. Reo kwon (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Google Books Ngram. Looks again like it's between shaligram and shalagrama, with a slight lead for the former. But it's much of a muchness. I suppose all possible spellings should be included in the lead: "also spelled shalagrama", etc.

I don't think there's any need to move the article, though, when no one spelling is clearly the most used.

I'm also not sure about moves like this, @Reo kwon: – is the version with diacritics really more used in English than the one without? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Sutras are mostly studied in academic circles rather than common folks (unlike Shalagrama Silas). On that end, thought IAST would make more sense. Also helps in pronunciation. Reo kwon (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dāsānudāsa: Either Shalagrama and Shaligrama should be the article title as the original word is Sanskrit and not Hindi. That is to say, the word is rendered differently in different Indian languages and the original Sanskrit transliteration should be used like it is for other articles on Hinduism. Reo kwon (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How the word is spelt in Hindi and Sanskrit is irrelevant -- the WP:COMMONNAME in English is the only thing that matters here. It's also incorrect to say that other articles are at the original Sanskrit transliteration (by which I assume you mean IAST): articles on deities, for example, are almost universally at an anglicised version (Krishna rather than Kṛṣṇa, Shiva not Śiva, etc.) Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Undue

Hey guys!

Having a look at the Configuration section, although it is insightful, the comprehensive information describing each shaligram does go against WP:Undue. Pulling from this policy, all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

Looks like the information has been taken from a non-English source "প্রাণতোষণী তন্ত্র at www.archive.org". Although having a foreign source is allowed, the prominence of the source is what I question of whether it is worth going into such intricate detail.

Overall, I propose that all detail regarding each shaligram should be deleted and the first paragraph remain intact for now.

Please leave your suggestions down below. Thanks! Chilicave (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a few people here @Dāsānudāsa@Redtigerxyz@Reo kwon Chilicave (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilicave, we can create a daughter list article called "Types of Shaligram". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Redtigerxyz!

Thanks for getting back to me:) Yes, I was reading up on parent and child articles the other day on WP:DETAIL and I think it's a pretty good suggestion. Of course, let's wait a few days to see what others think and then take it from there.

Much appreciated Chilicave (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz

Seems like nobody is too concerned about this conversation. Since you have experience in creating daughter articles, would you go ahead and do so?

Thank you! Chilicave (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead with creating the new article, @Chilicave. I also agree that it is undue, so you have consensus. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chronikhiles!

Yes, I agree with you. The only reason why I didn't get to do this was because I'm not familiar with creating another article. Do you want to help out? Chilicave (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's easy enough, I'll create Types of shaligrams in a bit. Do try to see if you can find more sources on your end. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 04:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chilicave I've created the article with all the content intact from the configuration section. If no one objects to it being its own article, I feel that it can either be condensed or represented in the form of a table, similar to Chaturvimshatimurti. You can go ahead with copyediting it either way. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 10:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should be a table. Thanks @Chronikhiles for creating it. @Chilicave, sorry had missed your June 23 message. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chronikhiles Thank you so much! Let me have a look and see.

@Redtigerxyz no worries. Chilicave (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]