Capitalized?

edit

The spelling varies wildly between "rishi" and "Rishi" throughout. Unify! Wegesrand (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit

The following addition has been reverted for the fourth time in row (3 times by me, 1 time by Vandamonde:

"Rishis are a seeker of enlightenment, who try to connect with the supreme being through meditation. Rishis are elevated humans who may sometimes ultimately connect with the supreme being through enlightenment. They may also receive direct guidance from God. Post-Vedic tradition regards the Rishis as "sages" or saints, constituting a peculiar class of human beings who have received enlightenment direct from God, in some cases rishis may also refer to Abrahamic prophets as mentioned in the earliest Vedas"

There are several problems with this "info":

  • The lead is supposed to summarize the article; this "info" is not in the article.
  • It's not about the historical rishis, but about a contemporary understanding or interpretation of "rishis". As such, it needs references.
    • "Rishis are a seeker of enlightenment" - rishis were poets who invoked the gods. The term "enlightenment" is a modern, western term, not a Vedic term;
    • "who try to connect with the supreme being through meditation" - meditation was most likely not part of the Vedic rituals;
    • "who may sometimes ultimately connect" - this is unintelligent; what does this sentence mean?
    • "connect with the supreme being through enlightenment" - this is a specific understanding of what "enlightenment means;
    • "They may also receive direct guidance from God" - like the Jewish profets?
    • "in some cases rishis may also refer to Abrahamic prophets as mentioned in the earliest Vedas" - I'm looking forward to the sources which establish this kind of connection between the Abrahamic profets and the Vedas.

All of this needs to be sourced. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Order

edit

@245CMR: Such arguements should be avoided, see this and that. Also, if we take tyhis arguement into consideration, but this is not proper reason. Please don't start edit war, for the reasons which seems totally improper and the edits seems to be POV pushing. Please you were the one who changed the sequence, you should please provide the reason. It was already also Neutrality. Also some comments like What if Gautama Buddha........ seems too inappropriate. Is it like, here you are not for religion, no one is of speific religion, as of me. Are you here for religion. Do you really do it for proving your religious ideology superior. Edit Wikipedia neutrally,pleease. You can surely have interest in specific topic, but such being the representative of religious ideology and repreasenting it seems too improper? Your such comments look like you are here categorising other editors into religious categories. No edit should be done for religion. It should be your interest not your religion here. JaMongKut (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

At least don't make such comments to me, I'm not here to represent any religious ideology, I'm religiously neutral here. PleaseJaMongKut (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 June 2023

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's a distinct consensus against a primary redirect to the prime minister and no consensus for the move. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



RishiRishi (term) – Redirect Rishi to Rishi Sunak as a wp:primary redirect, similar to how Barack redirects to Barack Obama, per pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - The Barack (disambiguation) page only has three entries: Barack Obama, Barack (name) and Barack (brandy). The POTUS is clearly the primary topic between those three. While Sunak is the primary topic at present, will he be the primary topic with long-term significance? The present arrangement is perfectly fine, with the Sanskrit term as the primary topic, and a hatnote for Sunak and the dab page at the top. estar8806 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Per pageviews, Rishi Sunak has over 32x more views than the next most viewed article linked from Rishi (disambiguation), which is Durvasa. The Sanskrit term is only viewed around 337 times a day, less than 2.5% of the views the British prime minister gets per day. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strongly oppose Hatnote is sufficient. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not though, as pageviews demonstrate. It's an inconvenience to readers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
We get it, pageviews by themselves support the move, you've made the same argument three times now. But pageviews are far from the only factor to consider in finding a WP:PTOPIC.
But is it an inconvenience to readers? Only 0.01% of readers from Rishi go to Rishi Sunak [1]; that doesn't even make it into the top 20 sources for incoming pageviews for the latter page [2]. estar8806 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 July 2023

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure requested 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

– No wp:primary topic per pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support per nom. The prime minister is not the primary topic, neither is the Sanskrit term. The former arguably has a stronger case than the latter, but neither is clearly a ptopic. These are the situations where it's best to dabify. estar8806 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nominator. No clear primary topic for this title. The safest bet is to have it go to the disambiguation page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per my previous comments. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    To save you from scrolling up, the clickstream shows only 5% to Sunak and 3% to the dab & WP:RECENTISM. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 21:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I am persuadable to the argument that the overall mass of people named one way can outweigh a single popular topic's claim to primary topic, and the Kannada and Tamil actors as well as Kapoor already attract on the whole more interest than the topic of Rishi itself, but then you'd also have to analyze the overall interest in Category:Rishis and all relevant articles there, so it's probably moot, just like the popularity of Sunak is recent. It's clear that there will be some amount of average English readers who will remember the spelling of the UK prime minister's given name but not his surname, and so helping them use the given name to navigate is worthwhile, I don't think 97+78 clicks to this effect in a month's time warrant a change away from just having a hatnote, which we already have. Let's re-examine this after a few more months to see if there's a new pattern actually evolving. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support - no primary topic, so disambiguation is preferred over hatnote. Couruu (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support but I'd use (title) instead of the proposed format. Term makes it sound like something that's hard to describe, like a religious concept but it's clearly a title of sorts. Killuminator (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

followup to previous move discussion

edit

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Rishi indicates that in September '23, there was a total incoming traffic of 10.2k, total outgoing 1.7k, and in there there were 78 identified clickstreams of Rishi Sunak at #5, and 61 of Rishi (disambiguation) at #9. In total that's about 8% of outgoing clickstreams and about 1.35% of the total views. --Joy (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply