Talk:Chaulukya dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverting Intro and removal of Gujarati Indic Script[edit]

Sitush, On what basis are you removing that intro and Gujarati script? You haven't given a valid reason. ShamusHarper (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We avoid scripts per WP:INDICSCRIPT. The infobox is as much a part of the lead as the opening sentence of the lead, and this has been discussed on countless occasions. Furthermore, in this particular instance, we had a situation where someone changed an existing script and there was no source for either the extant or revised version. Those sort of changes, in this obscure area, are exactly the sort of thing that INDICSCRIPT was intended to stop because of the potential for vandalism etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Messages overlapped, so I've merged the sections. I believe that I did link you to INDICSCRIPT. If I am reverting your changes at articles then that is because I believe them to be either poor or darn well incorrect. You keep hitting articles that are on my watchlist - I've no idea what other articles you may be editing but I am beginning to think that perhaps I should take a look. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over those links on scrips in lead sentences. Not sure how the infobox can be counted as lead sentence. Changes to the intro however, you haven't given any explanation for. The sentence: "The Solanki dynasty were an Indian royal house, whose members ruled parts of present-day Gujarat. " - implies that the ruling Solanki dynasty could have been from any part of India/South Asia, from Kerala to Kashmir, which is not factual.

"The Solanki dynasty was a ruling dynasty of the present-day parts of Gujarat", on the the other hand, is clear and a more accurate description, since it was a local Dynasty and not affiliated with other ruling dynasties of greater India. ShamusHarper (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has the same prominence as the lead, so we tend to treat it similarly. The fact that you were fiddling with the script (rightly or wrongly) merely emphasises what a mess those things are. Please do avoid them.
The Solankis were a royal house in India - there is no suggestion of affiliation except perhaps in the minds of Gujarat separatists etc. More people know where India is than know where Gujarat is, so it makes sense to allude to the location. And "present-day parts of Gujarat" is not even grammatically correct. If you must change it then you would need to say something like The Solanki dynasty once ruled parts of what is now the Indian state of Gujarat.
I hope you are going to retract your absurd claim that I am stalking you. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the indic script from the infobox. I personally see no issue in including Gujarati and Hindi indic scripts, but I can see how it can become an issue.

While Gujarat is a state, a region of the Union territory of with India, the two are not synonymous. ShamusHarper (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have linked to an article about the state. If you mean the region then you are going to have to explain that (and I assume you have sources for it being such also). - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article[edit]

"Solanki dynasty", the current title of this article, is a vernacular term that appears in works composed several years after the dynasty's end. Although the term has several Google results (partially because of Wikipedia's popularity), this name doesn't appear in the dynasty's inscriptions or any other contemporary sources.

The dynasty's self-designation was "Chaulukya" (IAST: Caulukya), which is used in its inscriptions and in the works of its Jain chroniclers. This name is also used in virtually all modern scholarly / academic sources that focus exclusively on this dynasty or have a chapter / section that focuses on these topics. For example:

Also, the term "Solanki dynasty" is ambiguous, as it may refer to the minor dynasties that claimed connection to the imperial dynasty, and ruled princely states, jagirs and zamindari estates such as Bansda, Lunawada, Mirpur, Nasvadi, Roopnagar, Sathamba, Sansari, or Surehra.

I think this article should be moved to Chaulukya / Caulukya. I don't want to make a bold move since the article has been here for several years. If nobody objects, I'll move the page in a few days. If there are any objections, we can have a formal move request. utcursch | talk 01:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Chaulukya" for the page title, as that is what I see in the RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Utcursch, Kautilya3, I am OK with Chaulukya but one common problem is that it is often confused with south Indian Chalukya dynasty. So it is referred as Western Chalukya sometimes due to another confusion. There is another Chalukyas of Lata also. So many Chalukyas makes people confused. It is more popularly referred as Solanki dynasty in Gujarati sources so I had used that name. --Nizil (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mulraja I who used the name Chaulukya but after him every ruler of this dynasty used the name Solanki , it is so because as the Chalukya's of south came to Gujarat they were pronounced as Chaulukyas they are not different from Chalukya they are the descendents of Chalukya and later the name Solanki came into provenience because of pronunciation and now no Rajput of this dynasty use Chaulukyas they use Solanki. -- Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to produce historically reliable sources if you want to carry arguments like that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The dynasty doesn't exist any longer, so I'm not sure what you mean by "now no Rajput of this dynasty use Chaulukyas". The claims of descent by modern "Solankis" are just that: claims. Not a single king of the dynasty (from Mularaja to Tribhuvanapala) used the term "Solanki" to describe himself. As references in the article state, the dynasty used the self-designation "Chaulukya" or its variants. If you believe otherwise, please present a source to support your claim, as advised by Kautilya3. utcursch | talk 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat: Besides the secondary sources (mentioned above and cited in the article), here's a link to the Vadnagar praśasti inscription of Kumarapala. It directly debunks your claim that every ruler of the dynasty after Mularaja used the name "Solanki". Here's a direct quote from verse 15: "This scion of the race of the Chaulukya kings…". The word "Solanki" is not mentioned even once. utcursch | talk 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change the heading of the article to Solanki dynasty Kunal Singh Solanki Nathawat (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

find spot map[edit]

Hi, User:Utcursch. I noticed while working on Saindhava.

  • TODO
    • Bhima I - Mundaka grant (1086 VS / 1030 CE)
Don't know.
    • Bhima II - Diwara image inscription (1253 VS) -- doesn't seem to be same as Diwara in Sawai Madhopur district. Dilwara?
As it says inscription on image, I believe it must be from an image/idol of Jain Tirthankara at Dilwara Temples on Mount Abu.
How to make labels visible on map? Needed so on Saindhava. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About Diwara -- the reference says "Diwara". There is a good chance that it's a typo for "Dilwara", since Vastupala-Tejapala belonged to that period. But I'm not 100% sure. Abu is already on map, so this is not a big concern.
As for making map labels visible, I've done that at the Saindhava article -- you can take a look at the diff. utcursch | talk 23:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temple chronology[edit]

This source provides complete chronology of temple built during rule of rach ruler of dynasty. Very detailed information by Madhusudan Dhaky. This ref is already used at Roda Group of Temples.

@Utcursch:, have a look if you want to add temples built during reign of each ruler. the site is also great source for people interested in Indian temple architecture. All open access. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good find! Feel free to add it to the article. The site is too slow for me -- I'm seeing just blank pages right now. utcursch | talk 19:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation infobox[edit]

Chaulukya dynasty
((c. 940–1244)
Chavda dynasty
Mularaja (c. 940 – c. 995)
Chamundaraja (c. 996 – c. 1008)
Vallabharaja (c. 1008)
Durlabharaja (c. 1008 – c. 1022)
Bhima I (c. 1022 – c. 1064)
Karna (c. 1064 – c. 1092)
Jayasimha Siddharaja (c. 1092 – c. 1142)
Kumarapala (c. 1142 – c. 1171)
Ajayapala (c. 1171 – c. 1175)
Mularaja II (c. 1175 – c. 1178)
Bhima II (c. 1178 – c. 1240)
Tribhuvanapala (c. 1240 – c. 1244)
Vaghela dynasty

Category:India history templates


The current template navbox at bottom is less comfortable to navigate. I use this type of navinfobox for list of rules e.g. in Gujarat Sultanate. Do you like have it instead of current one in all Chaulukya king articles?--Nizil (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with vertical table-based templates is that they are often less responsive, and may interfere with image layout on the page. They may look good on one screen, but may not look good on a different-sized screen (example). Also, non-standard templates may not look good with all the skins. utcursch | talk 17:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I got your point. Thumbs up icon--Nizil (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should be speedily delete because... (because in Chaulukyas any inscription do not mentioned chavda and solanki or other caste) --Ajnabh (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of Rajput or Gurjar identity in lead section[edit]

The Rajput and Gujar identity of the Chaulukyas should not be mentioned in the lead section due to the fact that most scholars in the sources dispute those claims. Please utilize the talk page to reach a consensus instead of reverting and using edit summaries.Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent revert by Chariotrider555[edit]

chariotrider555 reverted my edit on this page and one other page citing proxy editing for some blocked sockpuppet. Such serious accusation will be dealt be discussed on your talk page but regarding removal of the sourced content. How is that consensus one page is related to another page, as far as I know there was no such consensus regarding Chaulukya dynasty in particular was discussed on Rajput page let alone reached. On the basis of such imaginary consensus, you are removing cited and researched content from the page.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is not willing to discuss this on talk page and didn't give any reply since 2 days despite being active on wiki, I am going to revert his edit. If he doesnt agree, we can always discuss this in the talk page here.Sajaypal007 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2022[edit]

The Chalukya dynasty ( [tʃaːɭukjə]) was a Classical Indian dynasty that ruled large parts of southern and central India between the 6th and the 12th centuries. During this period, they ruled as three related yet individual dynasties. The earliest dynasty, known as the "Badami Chalukyas", ruled from Vatapi (modern Badami) from the middle of the 6th century. The Badami Chalukyas began to assert their independence at the decline of the Kadamba kingdom of Banavasi and rapidly rose to prominence during the reign of Pulakeshin II. After the death of Pulakeshin II, the Eastern Chalukyas became an independent kingdom in the eastern Deccan. They ruled from Vengi until about the 11th century. In the western Deccan, the rise of the Rashtrakutas in the middle of the 8th century eclipsed the Chalukyas of Badami before being revived by their descendants, the Western Chalukyas, in the late 10th century. These Western Chalukyas ruled from Kalyani (modern Basavakalyan) until the end of the 12th century. Indianhistorymaker (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish[edit]

Almost all information written over this page is false . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagruti (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chaulukya_dynasty&oldid=1212654732"