Talk:Nāga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
Cleanup needing to be done:
- Fix the indexing sort key, which should have been done by Guanaco when the article was moved.
- Fix header capitalization.
Gene Nygaard 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions
Question: (1 December 2006) Naga is the prevailing convention for the orthography, so why is Na-ga now used in this article? b9 hummingbird hovering (user).
Question: "They are especially popular in southern India where some believe that they brought fertility to their venerators". Who is "venerators"? Does it mean, that it brought fertility to their respectful ones? -by User talk:Slidersv
[edit] Contention
Naga is the Sanskrit term that these beings/entities are commonly known as in English...but klu (as evident in the [[Himalayan}} tradition and even the Rainbow Serpent of indigenous Australians show that these beings/entities are not the cultural property of the Hindu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
- I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but no, not all legendary snake-like beings are the cultural property of the Hindu, but not all legendary snake-like beings are naga, either. You might as well say that Garuda isn't a Hindu creature, since there are eagle-man kachinas in the North American southwest. Kotengu 小天狗 05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article worth being on Wikipedia?
theres nothing helpful on this article so why shouldn't they either 1) edit the article or 2) merge it with naga or 3) delete it altogther!!!! 211.28.178.61 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you certain you are talking about the right article? This is Nāga, Naga is a disambiguation page. --Stephan Schulz 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
