158.57.150.68 (talk) |
Dai Pritchard (talk | contribs) →Large-scale section blanking: corrected diff |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Hi! After 69 editions I think I finally fixed the format of this article. It was a mess. I also enforced chronological order. Now we should work on referencing it and checking the lists themselves, which sometimes differ from those in the main articles on each dynasty. --[[User:Againme|Againme]] ([[User talk:Againme|talk]]) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi! After 69 editions I think I finally fixed the format of this article. It was a mess. I also enforced chronological order. Now we should work on referencing it and checking the lists themselves, which sometimes differ from those in the main articles on each dynasty. --[[User:Againme|Againme]] ([[User talk:Againme|talk]]) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Large-scale section blanking == |
|||
For the past four days, large sections have been removed from the article, mostly without comment. Now that editing on this article has gone quiet for the day (about midnight DST), I'd like to understand these edits better. At the moment ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_monarchs&diff=641422875&oldid=640068942 current diff]), removed monarchs include all of the foreign emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD), the Hellenistic kings, and all of the British Raj monarchs. I can't see a good reason why these should be removed: for completeness, the article should include foreign imperial monarchs, regardless of whether or not they ruled the country legitimately. I 've stopped reverting the blanking for now per [[WP:3RR]], as the editor doing the removal is relatively new to Wikipedia, and seems to be acting in good faith. [[User:Dai Pritchard|Dai Pritchard]] ([[User talk:Dai Pritchard|talk]]) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:42, 7 January 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Comment
Shouldn't you use the more accepted B.C.E instead of B.C and C.E instead of A.D?
Untitled
This is a good work and appreciable efforts made by you.
But in the Sun Dynasty section, you have mixed up the names of monarchs from the Sun Dynasty and the Moon Dynasty (Suryavansh and Chandravansh).
Aryaputra
Bharata, Yayati, Nahush etc are monarchs from the Chandravansh (Moon Dynasty)
Andhra Kingdoms
There is a glaring omission of dynasties that ruled Andhra region e.g. Ikshvakus, Anandagotrikas, Brihatpalayanas, Vengi chalukyas, Kakatiyas and Musunuri nayaks.
BCE/CE - BC/AD
Shouldn't the dates on this page and this entire Project use the BCE/CE format?
Monarchs
-This list is pretty interesting. Only thing is: A lot of it comes from folklore and mythology. Perhaps the list should begin with fact-based dynasties rather than dynasties, whose existence we can only trust based on scripture or who may be combinations of several real people. I am really pleased with the acknowledgement of the Achaemenid and Indo-Greek rulers. -[[Afghan Historian 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]]
Keeping the king lists real
I totally agree with you. It's like a curse with the Indian history pages in general, specifically south Indian dynasties. Some writers tend to exagerate the antiquity of the Tamil dynasties, even going to the absurd lengths of claiming an unbroken list dating back to c 9000 B.C.E!! See Pandya
I have restricted myself to writing NPOV articles on Cholas. I have therefore modified the list of Cholas to keep within reality.
parthi 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Shakyas
Should the Shakyas be listed here? I think it's doubtful whether their position in society should really be described as monarch. Right now, we're listing three such monarchs for the same time period. Also, if the Shakyas are listed, should they be under Magadhan emperors? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Vijayanarar Dynasty
For any one working on the Vijayanagar Dynasty of south India. I've up loaded two photographs of the dynasty tree. The was made by the archeological department at a site in Hampi. May be of help to people who are enthu on expanding the so called 'king list' Pratheepps 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Bahmanids
Why are the Bahmanids not in the side box? Surely they're important enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.90 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Big copyediting
Hi! After 69 editions I think I finally fixed the format of this article. It was a mess. I also enforced chronological order. Now we should work on referencing it and checking the lists themselves, which sometimes differ from those in the main articles on each dynasty. --Againme (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Large-scale section blanking
For the past four days, large sections have been removed from the article, mostly without comment. Now that editing on this article has gone quiet for the day (about midnight DST), I'd like to understand these edits better. At the moment (current diff), removed monarchs include all of the foreign emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD), the Hellenistic kings, and all of the British Raj monarchs. I can't see a good reason why these should be removed: for completeness, the article should include foreign imperial monarchs, regardless of whether or not they ruled the country legitimately. I 've stopped reverting the blanking for now per WP:3RR, as the editor doing the removal is relatively new to Wikipedia, and seems to be acting in good faith. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)