Talk:Asana

message: - I am somewhat astonished that you should wish to cover asanas in art only in the lead section, when there is a perfectly good "Culture" section in the body of the article. WP:MOSLEAD calls for a summary (only) in the lead, and yes culture should be covered there like everything else. But the lead is NOT the place for new material, nor for introducing citations. I will happily add more cultural material; I already found citations and an image to supplement your text, so I should have thought the topic was well handled, but there's certainly scope for more detail on the art side. What isn't right is to edit-war all the material up into the lead section of a mature article: no doubt when an article is only a couple of paragraphs long, putting everything up there goes by default, but when there is plenty of structure it just seems, well, strange. I'll have another go at it, but on the {lead=summary, body=cited-illustrated-discussion} format, there really can't be much doubt, the MoS is perfectly clear about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD is very clear that all major aspects of the subject should be mentioned there:"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points...."  Your lead was entirely about yoga. And you started reverting. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad we agree on policy for the lead, to summarize the text in the body; that now has an extended Culture section, and the lead is now extended with a new paragraph to reflect all parts of that section, something that was indeed missing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage of culture

message: With the quality of the page being continuously improved, maybe time to nominate for a feature article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's very kind of you. It's certainly a possibility. I'm not sure I want to take that on by myself, but if anyone feels like sharing the load ... My immediate priority is to get some of the other yoga GANs through the process: they have been languishing there for weeks and months. Anyone who feels like reviewing any of them will be very welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: There's a list of publications in ==Typology== and I think it would be better if they were moved to a bibliography.  The abbreviations can be maintained but should reference to the works under ==Bibliography==.Catchpoke (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the article already has a bibliography (for sources that support the referenced statements in the article) – the section is called "Sources".  It would be possible to move the sources in the Typology section there, but I'm not sure that it would make the "Typology" section more comprehensible or useful? Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article (like all the articles in the project) is correctly-structured and fully cited, and doesn't need that sort of adjustment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: another solution is to use the same reference style for the primary sources in ==Sources==.  currently, the citation style uses the christian Bible citationbible style and using 2 styles is confusing not to mention to younger readers who are less likely to even have heard of bible citation.Catchpoke (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've no idea what your redlinked bible style thingy is, but the "Sources" list contains the major books on which the article relies, often with many different page-links to the same book; there are inline links direct to the other sources, which are basically only mentioned once. I can't see there's anything terribly difficult about this really. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

text: , do I understand correctly that the only part of the article that you're suggesting modifying is the second column of the table in "Types of asana"?  If so, I agree with  that the existing presentation is fine.  For the avoidance of doubt I think that the reference style in the rest of the article is also fine, but I don't think that you are proposing to change that?  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a bibliography 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion