Talk:Vaikuntha Gadyam

Untitled

i am in the process of adding to it. i have already added stubs for the context, style and content.

I don't think that style is the issue. The article doesn't state the information about the topic clearly (Is this a national day of celebration? Is it a religious celebration? Both? Something different? That's the empty portion) but of greater concern is that it's not immediately apparent what is notable about the topic. --Walter Görlitz 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i added the historical context portion--what it is, who finds in important and where. this is my first article so i appreciate your help in fleshing it out. Mythri achar 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: It has been decided to move the page from Vaikunta Gadyam → Vaikuntha Gadyam Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaikunta Gadyam → Vaikuntha Gadyam – Sanskrit: (वैकुंठ गद्यं) should be spelled Vaikuntha Gadyam and not Vaikunta Gadyam Nagarjuna198 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was entirely unreferenced, I added one, which happened by chance to be Vaikuntha gadyam small g. Do we have a WP:SANSKRIT guideline for romanization of Sanskrit? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but the article Vaikuntha uses right spelling. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. spells it "Vaikuntha".Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shrI vaikuNTha gadyam Actual text calls it "Vaikuntha Gadyam" Nagarjuna198 (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (This was not likely to be a contested move, and could have been moved with a reference.) Imc (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:30, 27 May 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.