Talk:Political history of medieval Karnataka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePolitical history of medieval Karnataka is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 4, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

FAC comments[edit]

Reply:The attached main articles provide the territorial maps for a readers interest. A decision had to be made whether to clog up the article with maps or add colourful monuments. I choose the later. If there is consensus that maps are better than monuments, I shall be happy to provide that.

I thinks maps are very useful. Please add maps as per the empires or better still, please show snapshots of the region at points in time. say 600 A.D / 800 A.D (the map will show multiple kingdoms in the region as well as kingdoms of other regions.

Reply: The words "political" and "medieval" were intended to provide that reason. Prior to 4th century, the empires that ruled over the Karnataka region had their power centres outside the region. This is why some historians (K.V.Ramesh, Kamath, Adiga etc) see 4th century as the begining of a political history controlled by empires that ruled from within. Also the 16th century date was chosen with a specific intent. Normally this period onwards, the history of Karnataka and for that matter India is not considered medieval. Also the intention was not to clog up too many post 16th century events (Mysore kingdom, Keladi Nayaka, Maratha invasion, Portuguese rule in coastal Karnataka, British rule, unification of Karnataka etc) into one article. So we (the Karnataka work group) discussed it (not in the peer review) and decided to make it two separate articles.

Thatz great. Can you please add this info in the article. i think you should clearly mention in the lead para that 4th and 16th were identified as the start and end of independent kannada identity coupled with the growth of kannada culture & kingdoms. 16th century would define the change of kannada into a multiregional kingdom or the likes. i hope you see my point. In the main sections, identify the kingdoms that preceded the 4th century that controlled karnataka regions (one or many kingdoms). also in the last para, detail the environment in the post-16th century that marked the transition to modern kingdoms.

Reply: The headings are based on citations and opinions of historians. If you have an issue with any of the headings please point them out and we can tone it down

This is in conjuncture to the other point on titles. When you point out Early native kingdoms - when did they start? what was the period of their rule? were the kadamba dynasty and western ganga dynasty the only dynasties that started then? if there were others, mention them. same way, "Age of Imperlism" - when did it start? what were the main dynasties? was chalukya the only dynasty of the age? if so, why not rename it to Chalukya dynasty? what does "South conquers north"? is it south india or south karnataka? the heading needs to be specific. i hope you get my concern.

Reply: I am not sure what you mean by "contrary view" and "Karnataka govt. literature". All the schoars I have referred to concur to the citations I have provided. If you know of any contrary views, please bring it to the table and we can add it.

I shall quote an example - "In a prolific age of literature in Kannada, Tamil and Sanskrit, the Telugu language also attained its height in popularity ...". Krishnadevaraya's reign was the golden era of telugu lang. apologies for my ignorance but i never heard of 'prolific age of kannada literature' attached to his rule. the article is filled with statements like these that are centered around kannada, kannada region and kannadigas and thus my comment. you are welcome to ignore my comment but to me, the lang of the article is clearly POV in nature. that will not however prevent me providing "Support" to the article.

I hope i provided info on what made me write my earlier comments. For all my reservation, i think the articles (incl. all attached & referred articles) are well-written. now it is just the effort to bring it to FA. Kalyan 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I shall reply tonight to your comments on the FA page itself so that its visible to all reviewers. Thank you for your quick response and your guidance. Of particular interest is the Krishnadevaraya era and literature which I shall answer in detail tonight when I get home. In the meantime please find time to read the article Vijayanagara Empire Literature as it contains important info on how prolific Kannada literature was, along with Telugu and Sanskrit. Unfortunately, some historians focus on one angle which is why its important to get information from many scholars, which is what I have done. ThanksDineshkannambadi 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

Too much pictures, creating a lot of whitespace below the references. How about putting most of them into the Wikipedia:Gallery tag? Shinhan 15:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is a featured article. Gallery not recommended for FA's. Also Gallery images throw of the reader with no context.Dineshkannambadi 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about just deleting some of the pictures then? The original complaint is more than legitimate: this article has way too many pictures and it's ruining the space environment. It is absolutely silly for a 48 kb article to have nearly 20 pictures. 20 pictures is virtually silly for any article, but for one that's 48 kb, it's even more so.UberCryxic 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each image represents an important architectural/sculptural idiom of each empire. They have not been put there out of fancy. I dont see anything silly about having one map and one image per empire to show the progress of artistic developments. This is what the FA review committe wanted anyway. The article covers 1400 years of history of a region of India. Why should the size be silly now, when it was not so, for an experienced team of FA reviewers?Dineshkannambadi 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably looks better on lower resolutions. I now see that the article only sets pictures as "thumb" with no specific dimensions and I set my thumbnail size to 300 while the default is 180, so this all probably looks much better with default values. Shinhan 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is an important FA and needs to be understood in the correct perspective.Dineshkannambadi 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political history of medieval Karnataka. 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) 03:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]