This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regarding the Aarthi page, wanted to know whether you could add a clarification whether the rite is an act of worship of deity, as in the Catholic latria, or merely an act of homage.
Why Aarti, whereas the Hindi spelling is aartii ?
Aarti (आर्ति) is not an entry in the Hindi Wikipedia. Indeed, you have to look up the word under Aartii (आरती).
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do the brushes in the image at the right have a specific name in Sanskrit/Hindi? Is their waving part of the Aarti ritual or is it a separate ritual? Is this used in Bengal only, or is it all over India? Wiki-uk (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is called a chamara Fly-whisk and can be seen also as an attribute of some deities like Varahi or used by attendants or consorts to fan the main deity as in File:AshtaSiddhi.jpg. It is not an integral part of aarti and is a separate ritual in itself. The chamara is used for fanning the deity at any time (not especially aarti, but may accompany aarti). --RedtigerxyzTalk05:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aarti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
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.
Oppose. This is a sensible proposal, but there isn't a primary topic with respect to usage. We've got data about how many times each link on a (dab) page is followed by readers (the WP:Clickstream). The last month for which I've got easily accessible data is March: then the link to Arti (Hinduism) was clicked 15 times in total, with an unknown number of clicks for the other links (if it's less than ten, it doesn't get included in the dataset). If you compare that with the pageviews for the dab page itself for the same period (324 [1]), it becomes clear that only a small proportion of visitors to the dab have clicked on that link. There's not a very a different picture that emerges from other months: November 2020 was higher (48), but still small compared to the total views, January 2020 it was clicked 15 times (with Arti Singh getting 10 clicks), and in January 2019 it got <10 clicks, when the only link followed more than 9 times was that for the place in Russia. – Uanfala (talk)00:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment:Uanfala I just cant understand why are you showing/arguing on past data, rather we have the latest data, still if you dont believe on "daily" data, you can see this, this page is the primary from almost past 1 year, and that is a more than sufficient time to show that now this page is a primary topic PERMANENTLY. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've used the data from six months ago because it's the most recent one that's easily accessible for me. If you'd like to, you can dig up more recent data from the WP:Clickstream (but if it is indeed the "permanent" primary topic, then it wouldn't matter which period we're looking at, would it?). The data you're providing is the pageviews: they show how many times each title has been viewed (regardless of the reader paths that led to those views: most actually come from incoming links, internal and external, not from reader searches). Pageviews are one of the several tools to gauge the relative significance of the topics concerned, but they don't contain much information about usage (see Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics). Again, your proposal makes sense in terms of long-term significance, but not in terms of usage: as I've tried to show above, only a small proportion of readers landing on the dab page proceed to follow the link to this article. – Uanfala (talk)14:54, 14 September 2021 (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.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi folks, the Gaudiya Vaishnavism section doesn't have any cited sources. Can anyone provide any sources to support this section? Also, the description of the arti echoes what is described about the practice of the arti in the "practice" section but the paragraph asserts that "In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, arti refers to the whole puja ritual, of which offering the lamp is only one part." This suggests that there is some difference between general Hindu practice of arti and Gaudiya Vaishnav practice of arti-- can someone find a source to support this implied statement? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment:Uanfala I just cant understand why are you showing/arguing on past data, rather we have the latest data, still if you dont believe on "daily" data, you can see this, this page is the primary from almost past 1 year, and that is a more than sufficient time to show that now this page is a primary topic PERMANENTLY. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
