Talk:List of Hindu temples outside India

Giant Tamil Nadu section

This section is really huge. Does anyone think it should be split off, or should it be kept? Sci girl 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: There are too many temples in the state and hence the section is giant. But someone can try claissfiy the temples into regions like Kongu, South, Cauvery Delta (Most temples are located around here) & North.

There is another page which lists the temples in TN, regionwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Temples_In_Tamil_Nadu Why cant these two pages be merged? Karthik 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think eventually this page will have to be split, i.e. refer to pages for each country (outside India) and probably for each state in India. If all temples were added this page would be huge. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created new pages for all the countries that had sub-sections of their own. The new TN section still needs dealing with though. Polar (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Austria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Austria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indu (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nanpaya

Nanpaya is not Hindu temple.JaMongKut (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the lists of Hindu Temples have an history section?

I have not seen any list of Hindu temples with an history section, except the list of Hindu temples in the United States. You can see a discussion about this in the talk page of this list. When I told the person, Ram1751, who added this section that no other list of Hindu temples does that, this person replied that all these lists should have a history section. At the least, there is an agreement here that a consistent approach over all lists is good. It is not that the proposed organization is fundamentally flawed. As long as the accuracy, neutrality, relevancy, etc. of the content is checked by the volunteers that maintain Wikipedia and that links are provided to easily find the content, it does not matter where the content is located. A consistent and natural approach will make it easy for the volunteers to check the quality of the content. However, I don't like big modification that does not seem necessary, because we need to make it simple for the volunteers. This will be a lot of extra work for the volunteers that maintain the content on Hinduism. It seems more efficient to provide the history context to the list using a link. But the person kind of insists, so I am asking the question here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I did not "kind of insist." I merely said these articles would benefit from the addition of a History section - just a suggestion, not an insistence.

Ram1751 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant an insistence to have an history section in the list for the United States, but I am very concerned about the quality of the content, it is really my main concern, and I feel strongly that the only way to guarantee this quality is to have a consistent approach that makes it easy for volunteers. Some volunteers might do the check, if we request it now, but it is not the same thing at all. Not as many volunteers will do it in a natural and regular manner as if the content was located where it is naturally located for all other countries. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dominic Mayers: I wanted to chime in with a clarification of my position on Issue #1 over at the List of Hindu temples in the United States RfC, since you’d asked for my thoughts on the content of the lead. I think that the existing lead section can be modified into a suitable lead for the list, much like the one at this article.

With regard to information regarding history of Hindu temples in the US, I do think it provides valuable background and context, and it is well-written and sourced. However, if there is some WP policy setting forth that lists should not be contextualized in such a manner (I’m not sure there is), then an alternative approach may be to use this content to improve Hinduism in the the United States#Hindu temples. Then, a link to that section can be included in the lead to this list. This will also prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not about formal policy, but about common sense. I already mentioned that we might have opinions about the quality of the content, but it will never be the same level of attention, especially over time, as if the content was located in Hinduism in the the United States#Hindu temples as you suggest. There is no comparison between these two approaches in terms of level of attention and guarantee of quality. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

One aspect that concerns me, in terms of quality, is relevance. Not every information that is relevant to Hinduism or to the history of Hinduism is relevant to Hindu temples. I don't want to go in the specific. However, I do agree with you that information in (or that would fit in) the Hindu temples section of the US article on Hinduism is very likely to be relevant to the list. This is not true for information in (or that would fit in) the history section. Take note that the Hindu temple section has its own history aspects, for example, it starts with "The Vedanta Society was responsible for building some early temples in the United States starting in 1906, but they were not formal temples", which is much more relevant to the list of temples than much of the content in the history section, including the speech of Swami Vivekananda. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This was a diversion from the main question, because we are not specifically considering the US list here. The question is, in general, while accepting that there might be special considerations in some countries, should there be an history section in the list-article instead of a link to the Hindu temple section of the main article, which includes history aspects and more. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)