Template talk:PaliCanon

The idea for this template was initially put forth by User:Sacca; this template was then co-developed with User:Sacca and User:Peter_jackson. The heart of the resultant discussion can be found at User_talk:Sacca#template:PaliCanon. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate representations and volume widths

It occurred to me that another, perhaps more Buddhist way of doing this would be the mandala arrangement of the World's largest book.

I see you've not made all the vols the same size. Is this based on page counts for the Thai edition? If not, I might find time sometime to get them for you. Peter jackson 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

I'll definitely take some time to learn about the World's largest book -- I've not heard of it before.

Regarding the volumes' widths, my desire was for them to be (simplistically) roughly equal in width; however, the grid-like manner in which WP/HTML works, the sizes are actually equal to the longest text-related width in any particular column. Thus, for instance, in the first row of the Abhidhamma texts, the last collection is the two-volume Yamaka of which the first volume is clearly thinner than the second. The reason for this is that the first Yamaka volume is in a column (which is 24 rows from the top of the template to the bottom of the template) that has no text (just blanks) while the second Yamaka volume is in a column that includes the syllable "vara" (from the broken, unhyphenated word, "Parivara" -- had I added a hyphen, it would have made this column even wider) in the Vinaya row. (Does this make sense?)

I believe that there are a couple of fixes. The simpliest one is just to create a standard (global) column length using multiple blanks. At this time, I've created a minimum column length of four blanks ( -- inserted into one of the Sutta Pitaka rows). If the varying widths is a true concern, then I'll simply exapnd this minimum width to five or six or seven blanks -- whatever is comparable to the longest text line (which likely is the fifth volume column due to "Dhtk" -- which is why I purposefully left the period [.] off this abbreviation). I hadn't implemented this before because I felt that it would have significantly widened the overall template for what I perceived then to be a minimal reason. Additionally, part of me felt that the arbitrary variability vaguely simulated the actual variability among volume sizes; but, I can understand your (seemingly?) implicit concern that it might be misleading to readers.

A second fix would be to make each row an embedded table unto itself. I think that this would allow different volumes in the same column to have different widths. It's a lot of work though -- both to create and, more so, to maintain -- it would be easy for people who attempt to make future edits to the table to mess things up then. If you are interested in this solution and provide the volume size information (e.g., pages or centimeters, etc.), then I'd be willing to give this a try sometime in the future.

Unless I hear back from you, I'll assume that the arbitrary volume-width variation is enough of a distraction in your opinion that I should move to standardizing with five-or-so blanks. I'll implement this probably later today or certainly by tomorrow.

A potentially related matter is that the first row of Abhidhamma texts is slightly taller than the other texts; this again is due to the "Dhtk / Pug." label; I've tried unsuccessfully to fix this in various ways, but I won't bore you with the details. Unless this is a true eye sore, I'd rather leave this matter rest for now; let me know if I error again.

Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Dhk instead of Dhtk. That's quite common. PTS tries to impose a standard system of abbreviations, but with only limited success. I don't consider the size issue all that important. It's just something I noticed. With real books of course the titles would often go along the spines. I've no idea how easy that would be: all of this stuff is beyond me. Probably it would have to be done consistently on all vols, else the reader will be irritated at having to keep changing direction, so it would only make sense if you number vols Digha 2 etc. These are all just thoughts; it's your creation & I'm happy with anything reasonable. Peter jackson 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent thoughts -- and I really do appreciate them -- even if I don't get a chance to implement them for various reasons. I like considering many options.

I'll change "Dhtk" to "Dhk" ASAP! Thanks for the additional information regarding that.

I like the idea of putting individual labels on each volume's spine -- it has an allure and I'm sure I'll be letting it percolate for a while. As it is, for me, the hold up is that titles such as "Suttavibhanga" and possibly "Khandhaka" would then have to be abbreviated (or the volume spines elongated which would significantly increase the table's height) and I think that having the full name is more meaningful in this regard (although obviously I had to make compromises on the abbreviated one-volume Abhidhamma labels). I could be persuaded differently though. (FWIW, an early draft of this template at User_talk:Sacca#template:PaliCanon, on the right, uses the down-the-spine title style on some Abhidhamma books and you can see how it lengthens the overall volume length.) (As a tangent, I'm still frustrated by wikilinked elements necessarily being shown as blue/purple, thus limiting the choice of background colors!)

If the varying volume size is not seen as obviously problemmatic at this point then -- primarily to reduce template width -- I'd like to hold off on implementing my former suggestion about adding blank spaces. And, regardless, I very much appreciate your thoughtful offer to provide acutal volume sizes.

Thanks so much again for your excellent ideas. I'll implement the Dhk-related change now and get into that World's largest book idea sometime soon. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I've read the World's largest book article and checked out some of its links (and those links' links) and have difficulty visualizing the monument's actual floor plan. Would you happen to know where I might find such (so I could better understand what type of layout is being referenced for the proposed template). Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you might find a map. there's another verbal description in Bollée's article in Pratidanam (Kuiper Festschrift), Mouton, the Hague/Paris, 1968, if that's any help. Otherwise I'll see when I can have a look myself & try to describe it to you. Peter jackson 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you're so inclined, I'd be happy to try to follow up. Perhaps given what I intuit might be a square-ish or rectangular floor plan, perhaps this could be a "footer" version (placed at the bottom of articles) to complement this current sidebar-template. (Note that if the floor plan is in fact circular, I'm not sure if curves could be simulated with HTML/wiki-markup; I believe that it'd have to be transposed into an orthogonal grid.) Take good care, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

individual volume titles

A further thought about individual volume titles. Given that the template explanation says this is the Thai edition, readers might assume the titles are translations of those that appear on/in the actual volumes, which would not always be so. Peter jackson 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might one possible solution be to add to the explanatory text a note explicitly stating otherwise, such as:

"Note on volume naming: This template designates multi-volume collections by just the name of the collection itself, such as 'Majjhima Nikaya.' However, the actual name of an individual volume within a collection is traditionally represented in various ways. Thus, for instance, the first individual volume of the Majjhima Nikaya is known as the Majjhimanikaya Mulapannasaka and can thus be abbreviated as 'Ma.Mu.' or, in accordance with Pali Text Society notation, simply 'M I.'"

Would this work? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably OK. It's broad enough to cover things. Eg, although Western scholars conventionally divide the Vinaya into 3 books, a division found in the literature, the printed editions don't use that. Instead, the Burmese & Sinhalese editions divide it into Parajika, Pacittiya, Mahavagga, Cullavagga & Parivara, while the Thai edition has Mahavibhanga, Bhikkhunivibhanga, Mahavagga etc. The article follows the scholarly sources. Peter jackson 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, once again I stumble upon my own near-utter ignorance of the Vinaya and Abhidhamma. I added the aforementioned note with two additional sentences to try to incorporate the issues of different names and volume-ordering across editions. Please wordsmith the new note (or anything else on this template, of course) as you see fit. Thanks so much again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic layout

I find this navbox troublesome in its use of strong, heavy colors and graphical elements that are ornamentary in function but will easily be mistaken for carrying some informational content, thus leading to confusion. __meco (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Meco, would it be more consistent and tractable if we used a standard Wikipedia category box? Enthdegree (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Aleksd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better! __meco (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Aleksd (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khuddakanikaya

@Khiikiat: Hello, its been a long we again met. May I know the reason for the revert of my edit, please? I expect my reason was quite clear to you from edit summary, if not please ask me here. Please let me know your reason for revert. JaMongKut (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think your edit was an improvement. This is just a basic overview of the Pāli Canon. The five Nikāyas are sufficient. Furthermore, there is no agreement as to which books should be included in the Khuddaka Nikāya. Khiikiat (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]