This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gavaksha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Gavaksha appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The good news is I made some improvements using
WP:SFN. However, I inadvertently introduced an error for a "listed reference" which I am unable to locate and correct. I apologize, as I would prefer to clean up my own mess.
"Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEHarle199449.2C_166.2C_276" is not used in the content (see the help page)."
Would appreciate some Help.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
User: Johnbod, You are right. I was wrong. I should have posted a notice under
WP:CITEVAR. I thought that it did not change the substance, and presented everything you had, albeit in a better more functional way. I apologize.
See
WP:Own.
"Cite banditry" indeed.
Apparently the interest of the readers is secondary for you. You wanted to make a point. Touché. That being said, the article was better and more useful before your revert. Cheers.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
12:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: The first sentence of the main article and First stage section needs some clarification/rewrite: "The arched gable-end form seen at the Lomas Rishi Cave and other sites appears as a feature of both sacred and secular buildings represented in reliefs from early Buddhist sites in India, and was evidently widely used for roofs made from plant materials in ancient Indian architecture" is long, dense and confusing sentence. Is that section trying to explain the history of "gavaksha"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod: you left the link Toda+hut+chaitya for me to review. We have two separate articles on Gavaksha and Chaitya, thanks to your effort. The Toda hut-related literature better fits the Chaitya article, doesn't it? Even there, one needs to better explain Zimmer's / etc proposal and the scholarly disagreements that followed. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gavaksha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Gavaksha appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The good news is I made some improvements using
WP:SFN. However, I inadvertently introduced an error for a "listed reference" which I am unable to locate and correct. I apologize, as I would prefer to clean up my own mess.
"Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEHarle199449.2C_166.2C_276" is not used in the content (see the help page)."
Would appreciate some Help.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
User: Johnbod, You are right. I was wrong. I should have posted a notice under
WP:CITEVAR. I thought that it did not change the substance, and presented everything you had, albeit in a better more functional way. I apologize.
See
WP:Own.
"Cite banditry" indeed.
Apparently the interest of the readers is secondary for you. You wanted to make a point. Touché. That being said, the article was better and more useful before your revert. Cheers.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
12:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: The first sentence of the main article and First stage section needs some clarification/rewrite: "The arched gable-end form seen at the Lomas Rishi Cave and other sites appears as a feature of both sacred and secular buildings represented in reliefs from early Buddhist sites in India, and was evidently widely used for roofs made from plant materials in ancient Indian architecture" is long, dense and confusing sentence. Is that section trying to explain the history of "gavaksha"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod: you left the link Toda+hut+chaitya for me to review. We have two separate articles on Gavaksha and Chaitya, thanks to your effort. The Toda hut-related literature better fits the Chaitya article, doesn't it? Even there, one needs to better explain Zimmer's / etc proposal and the scholarly disagreements that followed. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)