Talk:Shasta (deity)

A fact from Shasta (deity) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 2,725 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the South Indian Hindu deity Shasta (statue pictured) is considered the son of Shiva and Mohini, a female form of Vishnu?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/January.

Wikipedia

India: Kerala / Tamil Nadu Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Tamil civilization (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil civilizationWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTemplate:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTamil civilization articles

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move to Shasta

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Shasta is the proper spelling, Śāstā is IAST. The wiki article is Shiva NOT Siva, whose IAST is Śiva. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

O.K no probs but it is a disaam now Taprobanus (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done Taprobanus (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Repetition

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph, "Agent of syncretism," repeats much of what is said in the first paragraph. I think it should be rewritten. I would be happy to do it if so desired. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:LEAD says we have to summarize from the whole article, what we need to do is improve this from a stub to atleast B grade. There are losts of RS sources. Taprobanus (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic