Talk:Chennakeshava Temple, Belur

Propose to move to Chennakesava Temple (Belur)

The Somanathapura Temple is another famous Chennakesava temple, so it would be good to not have a title which implies that the temple in Belur is the only Chennakesava temple. --BostonMA ^talk 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Somanathapura Temple is known as Kesava temple and not Chennakesava temple. The only Chennakesava temple famous and notable is the one in Belur, the subject of this article. My 2 cents. - KNM ^Talk 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the Somanathapura Temple is not also widely known as Chennakesheva. Please see this google listing. Some of the links are to pages that happen to mention both the Belur and Somanathapura, but certainly there are many references to the Somanathapura temple as a Chennakeshava temple. A good number of these google hits are tourism packages. But this hit from the Archaeological Survey of India, on an official government website, refers to the Somanathpur temple as a Chennakesava temple--BostonMA ^talk 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BostonMA. I support the move now. - KNM ^Talk 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please ask User:Dineshkannambadi first because I believe he feels the same as KNM ^Talk above. He has stated so in the past, so please at least get his opinion. (I know you don't like his opinion but he is a temple expert.) Mattisse(talk) 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is a topic about which I did write to Mattisse about some days back. There are several Keshava temples (of Kesava temples if one prefers) built by the Hoysalas. There are also several Chennakeshava temples and their names are at times interchanged.

Our options are:

1. Keep the name as is, as this is the most famous Chennakeshava temple in Karnataka(I dont think its popularity will change soon) and use for all other Chennakeshava temples the format "Temple name(town)". The Somanathapura temple is most popularly known as Keshava temple, though one may find a few links with Chennakeshava used. The reason for this is, the name Chennakesava temple along with Hoysaleswara temple are proposed as World Heritage sites. So we may want to consider an independent identity for them. Also, a sentence reading like this may look odd.

"The Chennakesava Temple(Belur), the Hoysaleswara temple(Halebidu) and the Keshava temple(Somanathapura) are the finest works of Hoysala art."

When it should be written as: "The Chennakesava Temple at Belur, the Hoysaleswara temple at Halebidu and the Keshava temple at Somanathapura are the finest works of Hoysala art."

Also, Indian web sites are famous for using slightly varying names for places, temples. So we cant always use that as a yard stick.

2. Make it a habit to attach the town name "Temple name(town)" format henceforth for all conflicting temple names (of which there are plenty).

I prefer the first choice, but I am ok with the second also.

Also, we need to make sure the "temple" starts with either upper case "T" or lower case "t" to be consistant. I will change Hoysaleswara temple to upper case "T" if that's ok with you guys (or is it Hoysalesvara with a "v"). I am not a temple expert, just an enthusiast, but thanks for the compliment anyway.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do not understand this comment however:

a sentence reading like this may look odd.

"The Chennakesava Temple(Belur), the Hoysaleswara temple(Halebidu) and the Keshava temple(Somanathapura) are the finest works of Hoysala art."

When it should be written as:

"The Chennakesava Temple at Belur, the Hoysaleswara temple at Halebidu and the Keshava temple at Somanathapura are the finest works of Hoysala art."

I completely agree that the second sentence preferable by far. However, I don't see how the title of the article (or articles) prevents one from writing good prose such as the second sentence. Perhaps I am missing something, and I hope you will explain.

With regard to the Somanathapur temple being mostly known as "Keshava" and not "Chennakeshava". Chenna just means beautiful. The difference in calling a temple Chennakeshava vs Keshava, is to me, like the difference between a Vishnu temple and a Mahavishnu temple. So, I think it is not right to think of one of the temples as Keshava and the other as Chennakeshava, they are each both.

That being said, I do agree that the Belur temple is far more famous. It has crowds of visitors, is larger, better preserved and so on. So, I would be willing to have this article keep its name provided there is a disambiguation notice at the top

"This article is about the Chennakeshava Temple in Belur, for other Chennakeshava Temples, see Chennakeshava Temple (disambiguation)"

or alternatively,

"This article is about the Chennakeshava Temple in Belur, for the Chennakeshava Temple in Somanathapura see..."

Would you be agreeable to either of these solutions? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Disambiguation

Reply The first "disambiguation" format looks good I think. Also, there may be other reasons for differentiating between Chennakeshava and Keshava and may need more digging into. However, as I said earlier, if the consenses is to go with Chennakesava Temple(Belur), I am ok with it.Dineshkannambadi 02:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's let it sit for now. Tomorrow (US time) if there is no more discussion, I will be WP:BOLD and set up a disambuation page, and put the disambiguation notice at the top of this article and the Somanathapur temple article. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As we go along, there are bound to be numerous such cases and we will have to "play it by ear".Dineshkannambadi 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: It is good that this article is being kept under the same name without moving into a name such as Chennakeshava Temple (Belur).

However, I am little confused about disambiguation page. As of now, only article about Chennakesava Temple is this article. Are we putting link to Somanathapura in disambiguation page? It may not be accurate to put that way. We will need to create Keshava Temple (Somanathapura) or something like that, and then put its link in disambiguation page such as Chennakeshava Temple (disambig).

Or simplest way is to put this message in top of this article:

"This article is about the Chennakeshava Temple in Belur. For the Chennakeshava Temple in Somanathapura, see Somanathapura".

What are your thoughts BostonMA and Dinesh? - KNM ^Talk 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In a disambiguation page, I think it is fine to link to pages that don't have similar titles. So in the disambig page it could say

There are a number of Chennakeshava Temples. The most widely known is

The Chennakesava Temple in Belur.

Other temples known by that name include:

The Chennakesava Temple in Somanathapur

--BostonMA ^talk

I believe, since there are only two concerned articles here, a separate disambig page is not necessary.

We could write the message in this article itself as below:

"This article is about the Chennakesava Temple in Belur. For the Chennakesava Temple in Somanathapura, see Somanathapura".

Which serves the same purpose for the reader. There is no disambig message required in Somanathapura article. - KNM ^Talk 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, with this approach, the reader who is looking for the information on Somanathapura temple will be sent directly by clicking the link in this page, instead of first going to disambig page and then to Somanathapura article. In future, if we have more articles on Chennakesava temples, probably we should have disambig page then. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also Chennakeshava temples at Pushpagiri, Macherla, Aralaguppe, Marle and Gangapur. There are not articles on these lesser known temples, but there could be some day. A disambig page would provide room for such expansion. --BostonMA ^talk 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chennakesava Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104095148/http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm to http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104095148/http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm to http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chitralakshana.com/articles/UB
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chitralakshana.com/articles/UB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104095148/http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm to http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chitralakshana.com/articles/UB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chennakeshava Temple, Belur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chitralakshana.com/articles/UB%20githa/hoysala.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701065442/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chitralakshana.com/articles/UB%20githa/hoysala.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chitralakshana.com/articles/UB%20githa/hoysala.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)