# Talk:Matrikas

A few very minor things before I can pass it.

Internet refs need proper formatting (use {{cite web}})
"who always appear in a group. [2]" - There shouldn't be a space before the ref there. This occurs throughout the article and needs fixing.
 Done--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox - full stop needed before ref.
 Done--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The links in the "External links" section need proper titles
The first image in the "Descriptions" section is rather large...takes up half the screen
 Done--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, there are many English spelling variations in Indian transliterations, and different entities/items may share an almost exact English spelling. However, those on the following list appear to be variations of the same entity within the article that are not part of a quote, reference title, or found only as a described variant spelling. Consider a single spelling within the article when possible and appropriate, and freely ignore the list where the spelling variation is proper. "Best" spelling is editor's choice.

Maheshvari – Mahesvari
Shakti – Sakti
Kaumari – Kumari (multiple instances of each; each variant listed, but cross-used in content)
Damuru – Damaru
Narasimhi – Narsimhi
Vaishnavi – Vaisnavi
Vaishanavi – Vaishnavi
Shumbha – Sumbha
Nishumbha – Nisumbha
trishula – Trisula
Anistoriton – Anistorion (Might be OK, the typo in the quote is also at source, but the CD-ROM is properly titled on other pages, including CDROM Edition link. The exact quote doesn't appear to be critical for the citation, so left here as a judgement call.)
I just copied the quote from the site info page. There Anistoriton was used. This is not a typos. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Spelling chosen are made italic.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Michael Devore (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the changes. All the remaining spelling differences appear to be due to differences in source titles or in quotes. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz asked me to take another look at the article, and here are my thoughts. I see some improvement from the last peer review, and there is a lot more content here now. One thing that still bogs down the article is that there are too many unexplained or redundant Hindu words. For example, 

"The Rigveda (IX 102.4) speaks of a group of "seven" Mothers who control the preparation of Soma.[15] But, their earliest clear description appears in some layers of the Mahabharata" What's the Rigveda, the Soma, the Mahabharata? Reading text like this is frustrating because there is no way get the meaning of the text. Adding a few clarifying words and removing unnecessary Hindu terms would help greatly, for example:
"A Hindu text known as the Rigveda speaks of a group of seven Mothers who control the preparation of Soma, but the earliest clear description appears in some layers of during the Mahabharata period.
I can't stress this enough. There are so many foreign terms used without clarification that it is really impossible to understand what the article says. Another example:
"There are several Puranic versions related to the origin of Matrikas..." What's a Puranic version? Rewrite it: "There are several Puranic texts related to the origin of Matrikas..." This way, we automatically understand that a Purana is a kind of text. That is enough to give the reader context to understand a term, when you do choose to have the foreign term.
Other places should remove the Hindu term where it is not relevant. Yes, keep the Hindu term in places where it is really important, but having the Hindu term followed by the English term for unimportant things makes the text very, very hard to read. For example,
"Brahmi, the Shakti (power) of Brahma, is depicted yellow in colour...she holds a rosary or pasha (noose) and kamandalu (water pot) or lotus stalk or a book or bell and is seated on a Hamsa (swan or goose) as her vahana (mount or vehicle). She is also shown seated on a padma (lotus)..."
The lead needs to be condensed, with more focus on core essential traits and less emphasis on minor details. For example, these should be moved to the first or second paragraph in the lead:
"The Matrikas assume paramount significance..."
"...the Matrikas are described having inauspicious qualities..."
While other minor details, such as all the different variations on their names can be moved down to the body.
The origins and development section is hard to follow, because in places it is too technical and does not have sufficient background information. Try to restructure it so there is a broad-brush description followed by details if necessary. It's OK to have technical details, but without context or background readers cannot follow what you are saying. You could start out by saying: Some scholars think their origins are here, while other scholars think their origins are there. Then you can describe the details about each theory.
Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything else. And let me emphasize just one more time, to make sure to put foreign terms in context. Just another example: "Often the Matrikas are confused with the Yoginis which may be sixty-four or eighty-one" What is a Yogini? It is very hard to get through the article with so many unexplained terms. Anyway, happy editing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to remove technical terms like padma which have an equivalent English word as lotus, have to retain words like Kamandalu, trisula, vahana, hamsa because they do not equivalent English words, loose translations like "water pot", trident, mount and swan or goose, are added. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Context: [1]

Based on David Kinsley's book, which uses matrika as singular and Matrikas as plural [2]
Also many sites refer to them as "Matrikas"[3]
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Bhairab Naach is a Newar festival that references a few Matrikas (Kumari at the very least).  Would a mention in the Nepal section be adequate?  I don't really know anything about the matter other than educated guesses, so I will not write such a mention. Luis Dantas (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only Kumari, but also Bishnuvi (Vaishnavi), Bramhayani(Brahmayani) seem to Matrikas, but need more references. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The sanscrit nominative singular is matr(i)ka, the plural is matr(i)kah (not matr(i)kas). Matr(i)kas is the English plural. Fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.232.235 (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC) 

मातृका (matrika) is the Sanskrit singular. In English, the Sanskrit plural is generally not used. Another option will be to use the singular "Matrika". --Redtigerxyz  Talk  18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not an English word. Hence the use of the English plural for the article (and worse still, the incorrect transliteration from Sanskrit as mātṝkās) give the impression that the original Sansktrit is reproduced in the title. Imc (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the lead and some of the transliterations to clarify this - please check for correct form of Sanskrit number. Imc (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Most English books called them Matrikas and define them in plural. [4], [5], [6]. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be so, but that does not make it an English term. I would be surprised if any scholarly work treated it as such. If a foreign word is used as the subject of an article that may be used for reference, then the original term in the original language should be made prominent at the beginning. Especially bad was the previous statement that contained this  (Sanskrit: mātṝkās, मातृका, lit. "The Mothers"), which carries a clear implication that the Devanagari is transliterated as mātṝkās. This was just plain wrong and misleading. The current lead still could be read to say that the original term is 'matrikas', and that 'matrika' is its singular. It should be made clear that the title is an English plural form.  Imc (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Coolwikicool: You keep adding unsourced content to this article. Please note that wikipedia is not a personal blog to share your wisdoms / prejudices / feelings / opinions. Instead of edit warring in this article, please provide WP:RS. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)