This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This template was considered for deletion on 2018 April 28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".
I have no problem with this infobox in principle, but people seem to think it's ok to post completely unreferenced content because it is "just" in an infobox.
Obviously every bit of info in the box must be referenced in the article body, or don't post it.
Also, I have misgivings about "Core philosophy" (what is the "core philosophy" of any given mystical 2000-year old text? You have three words. Also, cite your source, but the summary must be uncontroversial and universally accepted.
Further, "previous" and "next", if this is supposed to reflect the "muktika" order, you'd have to say so. Also, it's meaningless because Upanishads do not come in "order" and are not "sequels" of one another. Don't overburden these infoboxes with needless slots that tempt people to post random nonsense.
Yeah, and we can also forget about the "authors" slot because these are anonymous traditional texts, not novels. --dab(đł)06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
