| Revision as of 04:20, 10 January 2007 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 editsm JS: Reverted vandalism by 209.81.123.92 to last version by 70.106.234.239.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:42, 4 February 2007 edit undoSnowgrouse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,358 edits →ClarificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| As an anology, ] & ] are both ''avataras'' of the same ]; does it make sense to merge the three articles together? Similarly this case. ] 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | As an anology, ] & ] are both ''avataras'' of the same ]; does it make sense to merge the three articles together? Similarly this case. ] 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| However, the Dakshayani/Sati page has more information than Parvati, which is just bizarre. Most people would mean Parvati when speaking of Devi in the form of Shiva's consort. Most of the time you'll see Sati described as the originating personality of Parvati rather than the Goddess which is seen to exist beside Shiva in the present tense. It's not so much a case of Rama and Krishna but of the butter-stealing babe versus the lover and the prince. And even then the analogy doesn't entirely work--there are plenty of legends of Parvati, but if you look for the first incarnation, you'll get the self-immolation story and little else: she simply doesn't have as big a role in the mythology and practice as Parvati does. Comparing the two articles on Misplaced Pages, you'd get the opposite idea, and it strikes me as misinformation--it's wildly in contrast with the info provided in most sources, which would fit a controversial study/interpretation by an independent scholar, but not an encyclopedia article. I don't have an issue about a different aspect having her own page, but I can't see why so many internal links within Misplaced Pages should point to Sati when what they mean is Parvati. That, I think, is what people want to acheive by a merger. I'd propose moving a lot of the information from Dakshayani to Parvati and fixing internal links to point to Parvati (and include a brief description of her first incarnation within this article) rather than a merger. After all, there's a separate Nataraja page for Shiva, a Narayan page for Vishnu, etc...--] 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hoary?== | ==Hoary?== | ||
Revision as of 18:42, 4 February 2007
 | India B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Hinduism B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Dakshayani should be merged into this article. Parvati is the most common name. Imc 10:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, unfortunately there are many hinduism pages on wikipedia that should only be one. Before there was Shiva and Mahadeva, and there are many more to still be merged. Template:DaGizza/Sg 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
no....because.......other ppl might look for parvati
- What do you mean, that makes no sense. When people are looking for Dakshayani or Parvati, they are looking for the same goddess, until you have some strange sort of Hindu cult. Template:DaGizza/Sg 08:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I predict that anyone who knows anything about Hindusism would reccomend that the two be merged. Personally, I believe the best course of action is to just change the Dakshayani page to Parvati! Sethie 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Merger is not required as there is some differences. I will add fresh inputs to these two pages to make the matter clear. --Bhadani 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Clarification
I realise that the two wives of Shiva were actually two birth (incarnations) on earth of the same goddess Uma. The first wife renounced her material self in order to be born "the daughter of a father who she could respect", was thus reborn, and wed the same lord Shiva again. I have made specific mention of all this in the Dakshayani article.
However, when I first created the "Dakshayani" page on 16/July/05, I designed it specifically to deal with the many legend and devotions regarding the FIRST wife of Shiva. This was a daughter of Daksha, hence I chose the appropriate name "Dakshayani" (which cannot be confused with "Parvati") as the title. I know that several names of Dakshayani (including "Sati", "Gowri" and "Lalitha") are also routinely applied to Parvati, second wife of Shiva and daughter of Himavan. However, the cluster of legends associated with Parvati had best be kept on the "Parvati" page while the "Dakshayani" page is devoted to the first Avatara. This is best; please keep it so.
As an anology, Rama & Krishna are both avataras of the same Vishnu; does it make sense to merge the three articles together? Similarly this case. ImpuMozhi 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
However, the Dakshayani/Sati page has more information than Parvati, which is just bizarre. Most people would mean Parvati when speaking of Devi in the form of Shiva's consort. Most of the time you'll see Sati described as the originating personality of Parvati rather than the Goddess which is seen to exist beside Shiva in the present tense. It's not so much a case of Rama and Krishna but of the butter-stealing babe versus the lover and the prince. And even then the analogy doesn't entirely work--there are plenty of legends of Parvati, but if you look for the first incarnation, you'll get the self-immolation story and little else: she simply doesn't have as big a role in the mythology and practice as Parvati does. Comparing the two articles on Misplaced Pages, you'd get the opposite idea, and it strikes me as misinformation--it's wildly in contrast with the info provided in most sources, which would fit a controversial study/interpretation by an independent scholar, but not an encyclopedia article. I don't have an issue about a different aspect having her own page, but I can't see why so many internal links within Misplaced Pages should point to Sati when what they mean is Parvati. That, I think, is what people want to acheive by a merger. I'd propose moving a lot of the information from Dakshayani to Parvati and fixing internal links to point to Parvati (and include a brief description of her first incarnation within this article) rather than a merger. After all, there's a separate Nataraja page for Shiva, a Narayan page for Vishnu, etc...--Snowgrouse 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoary?
Please see here 3. So old as to inspire veneration; ancient. VMO 11:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a more extensive list of Parvati temples; not just those in Tamil Nadu.