Talk:Three Jewels and Three Roots

This article is rated C-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Top‑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.BuddhismWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tibet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the .

The current article links to Chinese 三根本. This is not strictly incorrect, since the article is about the Tibetan Three Jewels and Three Roots.

But a much broader treatment of the Three Jewels can be found at 三宝 (佛教) (Chinese) and a number of other links (Japanese 三宝, English 'Three Jewels', etc.). Surely this would be a better link since the Three Jewels is found throughout Buddhism whereas the Three Roots is not. Or at least there should be an easier way for users to find their way to the Three Jewels articles.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's held in Wikidata. I tried to change it but it wouldn't let me. Skyerise (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this entry modified to only show this tibetan info? What happened to the test of the entry ? 2601:645:4000:A7A0:7C9B:8752:C034:FCFE (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing this article with Refuge in Buddhism. "Three Jewels and Three Roots" is a Tibetan specific formulation, not shared by other traditions, that's why it's mostly (not all) about the Tibetan definitions. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hatnote for people who end up here unexpectedly. Skyerise (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]