Template talk:Infobox Upanishad

I have no problem with this infobox in principle, but people seem to think it's ok to post completely unreferenced content because it is "just" in an infobox. Obviously every bit of info in the box must be referenced in the article body, or don't post it.

Also, I have misgivings about "Core philosophy" (what is the "core philosophy" of any given mystical 2000-year old text? You have three words. Also, cite your source, but the summary must be uncontroversial and universally accepted. Further, "previous" and "next", if this is supposed to reflect the "muktika" order, you'd have to say so. Also, it's meaningless because Upanishads do not come in "order" and are not "sequels" of one another. Don't overburden these infoboxes with needless slots that tempt people to post random nonsense. Yeah, and we can also forget about the "authors" slot because these are anonymous traditional texts, not novels. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)