Talk:Kristubhagavatam

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

Sanskrit alphabet composition: How form conjuncts (e.g., "kri" and "stu")?[edit]

Text copied from India-related topics Noticeboard:

Hello, I've created a new page at Kristubhagavatam for a notable (and multiple award-winning) Sanskrit poem. I'd like to express the name of the poem itself in Devanagiri script. However, even after viewing the Devanagari page, I'm not sure how to create the necessary conjuncts where several letters are written together. I've succeeded in making kr, but not kri. Similarly, I've made st, but not stu. So the Sanskrit version of the name looks miserable, as I've just stuck in "i" and "u" as placeholders: "Sanskrit: क्रiस्तuभागवतम". Can the two needed conjuncts even be formed within WP? Any suggestions? Or if anyone knows how to simply implement such conjuncts, the text in question is on line 1 of the lede. Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'd just fixed the page before noticing your message here. For future reference, see Help:Multilingual support (Indic)#Other input methods (or the rest of the page), or the external links at Devanagari transliteration, or any online transliteration tool such as this one. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Kristubhagavatam quality assessment[edit]

This paragraph, requesting an explanation of the quality assessment, was just added (diff) to the talk page of User:Maclean25:

Hello Maclean25, Thank you for your quality assessment of Kristubhagavatam, here, in which you rated it class C. To help with further improvements, I was hoping you might put a few remarks on the talk page HERE about what specific features the article lacks that could enable it to become a class B article. Hopefully this will not require much time for you to do, because I see from your contribution log that you performed your original assessment amazingly quickly (it seemed to me), on 12 Feb 2011 between two other edits at 19:07 and 19:08, in less than a minute! Many thanks in advance -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned on my talk page, my initial review was a quick overview. I am relucant to provide a "B-class" without a more detailed review because it has specific B-Class criteria. As requested, I have done a more in-depth review. Currently, I find the article well-written and conforming to Wikipedia's style. The "Canto Titles" table is a particularly nice touch. I compared the article to the specific "B-class" criteria and found it to reasonably meet every criteria. With this edit I am changing the grade to "B-class". Assessments below "GA-class" are open to interpretatin and opinion so it can be over-turned by anyone who disagrees. For a more formal review I encourage those involved with this article to apply for that "GA-class" at WP:GAN which can be a rewarding experience. However, I also encourage those involved with the article to consider the following points:
      • WP:EGG - "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible." wrt "Maharani Sethu Parvati Bayi Prize" pipe-linked to "Travancore Royal Family" which doesn't seem to mention the prize.
      • The article seems to rely on 2 references: the book itself and the Encyclopaedic dictionary of Sanskrit literature. Adding additional references could help develop the article further, specifically with genre/structure, analysis, and background.
      • The article could benefit from more developed background or context on where the book is coming from. In this respect, the current article only mentions that in the lead that it was "composed by P. C. Devassia (1906–2006), a Sanskrit scholar and poet from Kerala, India...in 1976". For a good background section see Midas (Shelley)#Background and Midas (Shelley)#Writing and publication.
      • See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#Recognized content for additional well-developed articles on a similar topic. --maclean (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristubhagavatam devanagari needs more updating[edit]

Discussion copied from User talk:Savitr108 (DIFF) by User:Health Researcher on 29 April 2011:

Hello Savitr, thanks for your work on Kristubhagavatam. I edited the devanagari text you added to fit into the table at the appropriate place. But while doing that, I noticed that the romanized version of those two verses (XII 1 and 3), which I had entered myself a while back, was incorrect! Mostly the problem was putting ms and hs instead of anusvaras and visargas, though I also had misspelled krtva as krstva. So I was wondering if you could rerun the updated romanized text through your software, and generate some correspondingly updated devanagiri? (and perhaps insert it where the current devanagiri resides?) Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, HR, I put in the revised Devanagari. Doing that brought me to noticing some other oddities. Do please look at your KB text to make sure the Devanagari I put in matches it.
And yes, I did wonder about the word 'kRstvA', and I did expect 'kRtvA' there. I also found 'aca~nvalam' in what you'd entered, which I just now changed to 'aca~ncalam,' meaning 'unmoving' or 'not shaking.' I changed it in the Devanagari too. Presumably that is what you meant to enter there? Furthermore, I split up some of the words, using dash marks, in the transliteration. Why? Well, the only reason they are together in the Devanagari is due to a writing rule -- not even a sandhi rule, but a writing convention. I see no reason to complicate the readability on that account. Agree?
But again, please check it again against the original, and do revert my corrections if you find them faulty. And while you are considering that, take a look at the original word which you entered as 'tapattapaḥ'. I would expect some long vowels in that word, such as maybe 'tApat-tapaH' or 'tApAt-tapaH'.(and note that I am using a simplified iTRANS writing style, to save time here, rather than putting in the diacritics.) Savitr108 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: 1) Yes, thanks, you were correct in changing 'aca~nvalam' to 'aca~ncalam - the latter is what appears in the book; 2) Yes, introducing spaces seems fine - the transliterations are not part of the original text, so there is no issue with precise fidelity to the original text (and this is so mechanical that it doesn't constitute original research); 3) In looking at the word 'tapattapaḥ' in the book (last part Canto XII, verse 3), I do not see any long vowels. I suppose it's possible that this could be a typo (maybe good Sanskrit proofreaders are hard to find?). If so, I suppose we could add an "sic" or a footnote that says "sic". Or perhaps we should seek a 2nd opinion from a Sanskritist, who might see a reason why a long vowel might not be needed? -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HR: I managed to find a copy of the original KB text. What you have here matches it. How can we gainsay Devassia himself? He was surely lots more of a Sanskrit expert than I am, a mere enthusiast. No need to contact any other authority, IMO.Savitr108 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savitr, I moved the opening verse (canto I, verse 1) up into the table along with the verses from Canto XII. But it also needs the Sanskrit original. Any chance you could run those through your program and insert in the places where it says "<need devanagari>"? Thx Health Researcher (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Savitr108 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More clarity needed on whether or not to eschew Global Vision[edit]

This is a section to discuss the purging of all citations to material published by Global Vision. Perhaps that should be done, but I'm not yet completely satisfied. Therefore I will restore the content by WP:BRD, inviting a discussion here. Please note that the Global Vision content on this page was mentioned earlier in content now archived HERE: RS Archive 89. Note the last few paragraphs of the "Potentially a big problem" subsection discussion, in which User:Sreevatsa mentions this article in arguing against blanket bans of particular publishers, even though some of them (such as Global Vision) clearly have enormous problems. His point was that some of their content may occasionally still be useful and valid for Wikipedia's purposes. And he seemed to draw agreement from the other editors in the discussion.

My question is: In view of the points made in that discussion, what's the best way to handle the Global Vision references here. Do they serve a unique function for the present article, that might be a consideration in keeping them? I'm concerned that the large-scale purge being carried out does not seem to take such factors into consideration. --Presearch (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristubhagavatam&oldid=1208043565"