Talk:Vihāra

message: This article and "Vihara (monastery)" seem to cover the same topic; both describe a type of Buddhist monastery found primarily in S and SE Asia.  The page for "Vihara" is much more comprehensive than that of "Vihara (monastery)", but "Vihara (monastery)" does not seem to add anything that could not be added to "Vihara".  However, there is some additional information under "Vihara (monastery)" along with some nice images, so a merger is more appropriate than a deletion.
:Definitely, this is a no brainer. It seems to be just carelessness that led to the creation of the other page. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Jafeluv (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with Vihara (monastery)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vihara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090809033739/http://www.tathyabangla.org.in:80/public/i_cadeprt/archeology/arch3.asp to http://www.tathyabangla.org.in/public/i_cadeprt/archeology/arch3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says:
* In Thailand and China (called jingshe; Chinese: 精舎), "vihara" has a narrower meaning, and designates a small shrine hall or retreat house.
This is not correct for Thailand. The wihan never is really small. In Northern Thailand it is usually the largest religious building of a wat, larger than the ubosot. In other parts of Thailand the ubosot is the largest religious building and the wihan is smaller, but not a small shrine hall. --FredTC (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wihan not always small 

message: :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: Not moved. There is consensus that two separate topics exist, Buddhist monasteries in general and this particular type. Content about Buddhist monasteries in general should be covered at Buddhist monasticism.   (t · c) buidhe 03:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Vihāra →  – Per ngrams the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for what? As pointed out just above, the "main page for Buddhist monasteries more generally" is Buddhist monasticism, plus we have Gompa for Tibetan Buddhism. You obviously think this proposal a bad idea, so why not oppose? Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddhist monastery currently redirects here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it shouldn't - see above. I still don't understand your point. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just neutral, as the material on the article is a conflated mixture of two separate subjects: both Buddhist monasteries in general and Indian rock-cut structures. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 April 2022