Talk:Samanera

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

I have redirected this stub article to Sangha as it treats the entire topic of Buddhist monks / nuns in more detail. --Sepa 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored article[edit]

This is an article which requires further development. Specifically, the Samanera-level monastic's role, practices and cultural relevance vary from one Buddhist tradition to another. Deebki 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added link to to Samanera in the article Shramana. Merge?[edit]

I added a "See also" link to Samanera in the article Shramana. We may want to merge Samanera into Shramana. Discussion? -- 201.19.77.39 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article[edit]

This article should be renamed something like "Novice monk". The title "Śrāmaṇera" is not English! At the very least the title should be written using only English characters (i.e. without any accents which do not exist in English), e.g. Sramanera or Shraamanyera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugops (talk • contribs) 07:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sramanera is already a redirect to this page, and many articles on Wikipedia do not have English names for good reason. For example, Theravada, Mahayana, and Bhikkhu. In the case of this subject, śrāmaṇera is the most common term that applies across Buddhist traditions. As indicated by your post, there are numerous alternate romanizations that are possible if the diacritics are removed (sramanera, shramanera, shraamanyera, sraamanera, shraamanera, etc.). However, all of these are inaccurate representations of the original word śrāmaṇera. Tengu800 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any representation in English of a word which contains accents or letters not in the English language is inaccurate; only the original language version can be truly accurate. However, this is the English section of Wikipedia, and śrāmaṇera cannot be considered an English word because of the accents. All the other examples you give, Theravada, Mahayana, and Bhikkhu do not contain accents. I would suggest therefore that this page be renamed sramanera, or if there is a more accurate romanization (i.e. using only Roman letters, a-z), then that be used instead.Rugops (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point that you are missing is there are multiple ways to wrongly spell it without diacritics, and one right way to spell it with diacritics. Using and not using diacritics does not make it an English word either way. You cannot anglicize a word if you make it something else. So it has to stay as it is 92.24.17.23 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Śrāmaṇeri[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Alexander Roumega (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Śrāmaṇerī basically duplicates the rules and regulations. Thus a section here dealing with them will be sufficient. Zenwort 08:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwort (talk • contribs)

I agree. If no arguments oppose this for a long time than merging into Samanera. Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2017 (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.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samanera. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]