Jump to content

Talk:Hindu temple architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hi, Is there a limit to the size of gallery online? Does it do anything more than render more thumb images on web browser? Is there a standard that a gallery should not have more than so many images regardless of anything else? I am sure it is not like a book that consumes paper/wood and it is not difficult to go though more images in a gallery unless people are extremely lazy even to browse through images online.

This is because of repeated addition of tags [| here] making this look like some kind of unexpected 'virtual-long' gallery. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 22:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed without looking at significance

[edit]

Hi, why are images removed ad-hoc here?

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halebidu - proposed UNESCO heritage site, dating back to the 1121 C.E.
  2. Meenakshi Amman Temple - dates back to 7th century CE.
  3. Pancha_Rathas - Pancha_Rathas#As_UNESCO_World_Heritage_site
  4. Kamakshi_Amman_Temple - dates back to 6th century CE
  5. Akshardham_(Delhi) - Akshardham_(Delhi)#Guinness_World_Record

One should not just delete everything based on number game. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 22:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IG. Wikipedia articles are not a repositories for images. You need to go to flickr for that, or create a commons gallery which you can link from this article. Feature articles do not have long galleries.
As for "significance", this is not even asserted. If they are that significant AND relevant to specific parts of the article's text then they can be placed into the text with very specific listing. --Merbabu (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are the images a random collection? How is significance not asserted?
I have made a point to include link to architecture of each temple as it is on corresponding page.
How is this article a Featured article?
There is [| this edit] that removed a pic of Ellora Caves, another UNESCO World Heritage Centre that is absent now. Is there a standard that says anything on such and such ie removing UNESCO World Heritage Centres from the gallery? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not need an image of every great Hindu temple. It needs specific images that illustrate specific architecture features. IMO, an example (restricting to 4-5 image gallery) would be in a section about South Indian temple architecture (currently does not exist, but should):
  • Tiruvannamalai Temple (gives an overall layout of a Dravida temple)
    Tiruvannamalai Temple (gives an overall layout of a Dravida temple)
  • Meenakshi temple. Temple tank (gopurams in background)
    Meenakshi temple. Temple tank (gopurams in background)
  • Gopuram, closer view
    Gopuram, closer view
  • Rameswaram Temple, a pillared hall
    Rameswaram Temple, a pillared hall
  • Brihadeshwara, a shikhara
    Brihadeshwara, a shikhara
The gallery have only 1 image about a specific feature like only 1 image about temple tank. No more images that have a temple tank.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so then there is no point deleting the whole image gallery. Every image in the gallery has something unique and anyways people are free to delete repeating features. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting [version] by user:Merbabu

[edit]

Hi, why is this version reverted with a comment like 'yukk' and so on! I can not see anything but a whole lot of ignorance as a justification to revert everything! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I fully agree with the editor of this page that he or she cannot place every temple image on here, but at the same time i would wish for him or her to maybe add a image of this temple door way.http://www.pakviewz.com/ancient-temple-ambh-sharif/92.236.96.38 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Caplock[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindu temple architecture. 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:

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) 04:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak article

[edit]

This article is weak. Except for the Design/Layout section and a few plans in other sections, the rest is hardly about architecture and much is unsourced. There is much published WP:RS on this subject. Example better sources would be the numerous publications, including two encyclopedias on Hindu (temple) architecture, by scholars such as Michael Meister, Stella Kramrisch, Adam Hardy, George Michell, P Acharya, etc. Further, we need care, more accurately 'a lot of care', in using images from wikimedia because there is too much OR and innocent errors piled up and floating out there. If we can't trace the discussion of a drawing or sketch or image, or something similar, in a peer-reviewed scholarly source, we must evaluate if it is misidentified / OR / wrong to use that drawing or sketch or image here or another wikipedia article. I suggest a review and rewrite of this article, based on high-quality RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all our articles on the subject are weak. I am starting to work through this. Personally I think the design, site, layout sections rather too long and dense, and probably reflecting too much what ancient texts say temples ought to be like, rather than what was actually built - see the siting section, which hardly reflects reality! They should perhaps go below the style sections. People find architecture difficult to write about, which in this subject is understandable. I'll be mainly using Harle, Michell and Hardy, with perhaps a dash of Kramrisch. I have restored the "greatest (early) hits" list for now, otherwise the article is too short on links to actual sites. Perhaps they should be worked into the text higher up. We need a gallery, selected on better principles (or just selected). The glossary section needs much expansion - possibly floating off - but this is tricky with all the different language terms involved. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: That list doesn't look right or perhaps it is just unclear. Important in what way? What do they have to do with architecture? You may want to check the cited Meister source and clarify. Some of the highly cited work on Hindu temple architecture is by Meister, and his encyclopedia co-edited with Dhaky is a really good RS. Yep, Hardy, Michell and Kramrisch are good too. Harle is light on architecture details (may be I am missing the source you have). Others that Harle cites are a better, more in depth source. I disagree with you that the design, site and layout is too long or dense given the subject. But it could be made clearer indeed, perhaps by adding sections on each architectural element and expanding those sub-sections. A vast majority of Hindu temples do follow the square-circle principle in the Sanskrit texts, per the RS (see Meister) that that section is trying to condense. This article should not remain a generic photo album that tells next to nothing about architecture (those photos may be better placed in the article on the specific temple). I agree with you on having a gallery, but perhaps a gallery of architectural principles / elements that helps understand the subject. There is a good Hindu temple architecture publication by Ram Raz... though quite old, it is a decent read and continues to be cited (see Desai's 2012 article in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians e.g.). I can help with glossary section. There are 100s of significant terms, zillion more minor terms in their Sanskrit and regional languages architectural texts, listing many will be an WP:WWIN issue, but if we pick the top 20 to 30 oft-repeating concepts/terms, we should be okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the Meister, and there are several hundred pages in the sources I do have, which is plenty to write an overview article of this sort. Harle is fine, and brings a proper art-historical perspective, which not all sources do. If expanded, the layout etc bits should certainly be floated off to their own article. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let us expand the article first, decide on what if anything to spin off. I will give you space to summarize what you have. I have most of the Meister / etc publications, and I will add summaries later. I will look into getting some SVG images, where possible, on various styles, plans, towers, mandapas, elements to help explain the subject. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. As you probably know, the Panoramio uploads and WLM have vastly expanded the number of decent photos available on Commons, though many are in the "unsorted" categories by site. But usable good images marked-up with the terms for elements would be very useful. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs a chronology. That is the most useful part of the article. In some cases the date is definite because of the inscriptions, on many cases it is the estimate of the experts. The chronology has just been removed because it lacked citations. Anyone willing to work on that would find it useful to check the deleted chronology. Perhaps Ms Sarah Welch can do it since she has access to some of the key texts.Malaiya (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is easiest if just one person works on the article. MSW has just added, in a different place and with different sources, more or less the same points I added a day ago. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod: Please feel free to merge the two, as you revise the article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List removed

[edit]

Oh well, if you insist on removing it I will add it here to check for useful links.

Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
Malaiya: The subject is architecture, which means "the art and practice of planning, designing and building" something. It includes how and why a structure is planned and designed in a certain way, how the needs, values and ideas get expressed or implemented, what were or are the architectural elements in various architectural styles and their significance. That is what this article should focus on. This article is not a 'really incomplete' list of Hindu temples with timeline. Yes, we can summarize scholarly disagreements on the chronology of specific or relative architecture styles from WP:RS with NPOV, but a meaningless badly incomplete list of a few South Asian temples with an estimated chronology, mixed in with a Buddhist/Jain temples, is neither appropriate nor okay with WP:WWIN. We can expand this list many folds. But why do so, how will that help understand Hindu temple architecture?, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historians of Indian art

[edit]

I've set this up - please add anyone who is missing & has an article. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of unreliable information in the article

[edit]

I am requesting removal of a certain part in the article> "no doubt there were earlier structures in timber-based architecture". This part is uncited and unreliable and with that "no doubt" it looks more of a personal opinion. Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - it is covered by the next reference. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the reference.... Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See citation "Harle (1994), 87-100; Michell (1988), 18". Bhagya sri113 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You of can't even open that link then how its reliable? Piedpiper186 citation instead of link Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go to a library. Williams, Joanna Gottfried (1981). "Dentils and the Question of Wooden Origins for the Gupta Temple". In Williams, Joanna Gottfried (ed.). Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India. Studies in South Asian Culture: IX. Brill. pp. 159–164. ISBN 978-90-04-06498-0. is pretty interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindu_temple_architecture&oldid=1209113669"