![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How Can Ramakatha Rasavahini Comapared with Valmiki Ramayana? I know that Sai Baba has told this story and I am devote too. But this should historical grounds not upon our Beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.73.201 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has suddenly taken on the appearance of being basically a family tree. Much of it is gibberish and I suspect a lot of it might be contested, bearing in mind that the primary sources have many forms, were written over many centuries and are in some cases incomplete. Is it really worth it? Are our secondary sources actually discussing the dynasty or is this a case of synthesis etc? - Sitush ( talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Adhra Ikshvaku dynasty and the Ikshvaku dynasty mentioned in this article are one and the same. Anciently Andhras were subtribes of Satavahanas. I feel having two articles is redundant. Correct me if I am wrong about this. :-) Nagarjuna198 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
Hello Sitush ( talk · contribs), Ikshvaku is not a mythical dynasty but an actual one from history. There are significant evidences of Mahavira, Parshvanatha and even Gautama Buddha to actually exist in history. All of them were from Ikshvaku Dynasty, so how can you claim that its a myth? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2fhCH-NRatUC page=20 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 02:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty, before we decide which, if any, articles to merge, we need to clean these articles up so that their content is sourced, and reflects what the source say (I am ok with the articles containing lineages, as long as there are solid secondary sources for the content). Right now, the cited sources I checked at random don't always support what they are being cited for; there seems to be synthesis/confusion between Ikshvaku dynasty and Suryavansha; and worse, between these mythological dynasties and Andhra Ikshvakus (which I believe is historical) etc. Any help in clean-up appreciated. Pinging @ Ogress, Sitush, and Capankajsmilyo:. Abecedare ( talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to bring attention, we are discussing two separate mergers here. One brought here from Ikshvaku (Person) discussion by Abecedare and another of Ikshvaku (dynasty). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ikshvaku dynasty has been replicated with various names over Wikipedia. Most of the other pages talking about Suryavamsa, Lunar Dynasty etc. lack significant cited content. The content can easily be contained in this article itself. Another alternative is shifting the content of Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa etc. from this article to their respective articles thereby leaving only few names here prior to Surya. I am not able to comment on Andhra Ikshvaku, since it being considered the only historical article in this discussion and rest all being mythological. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a revised proposal on how the articles should be merged/reorganized:
Pinging @ Capankajsmilyo, Ogress, and Sitush: for comments. Abecedare ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Regarding 3 visit both the articles, they both talk about lunar dynasty and source about that is rare in both. So I am proposing alia to be merged into lunar dynasty.
Regarding 5, its mostly about Jainism. The only sourced info about Hinduism is the father. Is there a need for separate article for just 1 point? Can't it be a subsection of Rishabha as in hinduism.
Regarding 4 I am saying that a disambig might not be required. We can simply add at top of article that for ikshvaku in Hinduism see suryavamsha in Rishabha and ikshvaku dynasty.
Apologies for sign thing -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that there is a broad consensus as regards Ikshvaku here. So shall we move Ikshvaku to Ikshvaku (Hinduism) and Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to Ikshvaku? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Also everyone seems to agree on merging Aila dynasty into Lunar dynasty and Raghuvaṃśa dynasty into Suryavansha, so shall we proceed? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I arrive here because I and others participating in wp:DPL's Monthly Disambiguation Challenge are now seeing Ikshvaku (or Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to which Ikshvaku currently redirects) as the current top disambiguation page in the challenge. It has 38 inbound links. These are not allowed; they all need to be changed either a) to link directly to an item in the disambiguation page instead, or b) be delinked. IMO sometimes disambiguation-focused editors damage Wikipedia by delinking because they don't know what is a better target, disconnecting articles that should be linked. I want to ask editors here to please help quickly to do better in disambiguating these 38 inbound links. All you need to do is go to this "dablink-list" report for Ikshvaku, and then select "FIX" for one of the remaining ones (which brings up wp:DabSolver applied to it), and then use DabSolver's great functionality to select one of the disambiguation page's items from a drop-down menu. To save requires two steps: you have to select either "Preview" or "Show changes" at the bottom, then it brings up another page where you can select "Save". It's easy to apply the tools, what is needed is you with your expertise about the terms.
For the record, and if anyone wants to check whether the disambiguation was done correctly, afterwards, the 38 mainspace pages that link to Ikshvaku currently are: Gautama Buddha, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Jagannath, Kaikeyi, Kakudmi, Kartikeya, Kartikeya Temple, Pehowa, Kashyapa, King Mandhata, Kosala, Krishna River, Kusha (Ramayana), Lava (Ramayana), Legendary early Chola kings, List of Hindu soldiers, Manu (Hinduism), Muchukunda, Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve, Nalgonda, Origin of the Western Ganga Dynasty, Outline of Telangana, Palnadu, Pancharanga Kshetrams, Parikshit, Pasenadi, Raghuvanshi, Raju zamindaris, Scion of Ikshvaku, Shakya, Shraddhadeva Manu, Suparshvanatha, Suryavansha, Timeline of Guntur, Tumuluri, Varuthini Ekadashi, Velanadu, Vimalanatha and Vishvamitra.
TIA, -- do ncr am 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: The disambiguation page has now been moved to Ikshvaku, and the links that doncram mentioned are again ambiguous (there are 36 now). - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose to shift Hinduism part of this article to Suryavansha as per the discussion above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ikshvaku dynasty → List of Ikshvaku dynasty rulers – I suggest we move this article to a list and start afresh. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Something needs to be done here because the article is a complete mess and makes little sense to me. There was a prolonged discussion - see here - but that, too, became a confusing mess. Can we perhaps start over in working out what needs to be done? It isn't a subject with which I am particularly familiar, which I guess also explains in part why I do not understand the article (but, of course, the article should be geared towards people like me). - Sitush ( talk) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
copied content from Solar Dynasty to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties#Ikshvaku_dynasty; see Solar Dynasty page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd ( talk) 09:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How Can Ramakatha Rasavahini Comapared with Valmiki Ramayana? I know that Sai Baba has told this story and I am devote too. But this should historical grounds not upon our Beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.73.201 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has suddenly taken on the appearance of being basically a family tree. Much of it is gibberish and I suspect a lot of it might be contested, bearing in mind that the primary sources have many forms, were written over many centuries and are in some cases incomplete. Is it really worth it? Are our secondary sources actually discussing the dynasty or is this a case of synthesis etc? - Sitush ( talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Adhra Ikshvaku dynasty and the Ikshvaku dynasty mentioned in this article are one and the same. Anciently Andhras were subtribes of Satavahanas. I feel having two articles is redundant. Correct me if I am wrong about this. :-) Nagarjuna198 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
Hello Sitush ( talk · contribs), Ikshvaku is not a mythical dynasty but an actual one from history. There are significant evidences of Mahavira, Parshvanatha and even Gautama Buddha to actually exist in history. All of them were from Ikshvaku Dynasty, so how can you claim that its a myth? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2fhCH-NRatUC page=20 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 02:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty, before we decide which, if any, articles to merge, we need to clean these articles up so that their content is sourced, and reflects what the source say (I am ok with the articles containing lineages, as long as there are solid secondary sources for the content). Right now, the cited sources I checked at random don't always support what they are being cited for; there seems to be synthesis/confusion between Ikshvaku dynasty and Suryavansha; and worse, between these mythological dynasties and Andhra Ikshvakus (which I believe is historical) etc. Any help in clean-up appreciated. Pinging @ Ogress, Sitush, and Capankajsmilyo:. Abecedare ( talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to bring attention, we are discussing two separate mergers here. One brought here from Ikshvaku (Person) discussion by Abecedare and another of Ikshvaku (dynasty). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ikshvaku dynasty has been replicated with various names over Wikipedia. Most of the other pages talking about Suryavamsa, Lunar Dynasty etc. lack significant cited content. The content can easily be contained in this article itself. Another alternative is shifting the content of Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa etc. from this article to their respective articles thereby leaving only few names here prior to Surya. I am not able to comment on Andhra Ikshvaku, since it being considered the only historical article in this discussion and rest all being mythological. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a revised proposal on how the articles should be merged/reorganized:
Pinging @ Capankajsmilyo, Ogress, and Sitush: for comments. Abecedare ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Regarding 3 visit both the articles, they both talk about lunar dynasty and source about that is rare in both. So I am proposing alia to be merged into lunar dynasty.
Regarding 5, its mostly about Jainism. The only sourced info about Hinduism is the father. Is there a need for separate article for just 1 point? Can't it be a subsection of Rishabha as in hinduism.
Regarding 4 I am saying that a disambig might not be required. We can simply add at top of article that for ikshvaku in Hinduism see suryavamsha in Rishabha and ikshvaku dynasty.
Apologies for sign thing -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that there is a broad consensus as regards Ikshvaku here. So shall we move Ikshvaku to Ikshvaku (Hinduism) and Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to Ikshvaku? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Also everyone seems to agree on merging Aila dynasty into Lunar dynasty and Raghuvaṃśa dynasty into Suryavansha, so shall we proceed? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
I arrive here because I and others participating in wp:DPL's Monthly Disambiguation Challenge are now seeing Ikshvaku (or Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to which Ikshvaku currently redirects) as the current top disambiguation page in the challenge. It has 38 inbound links. These are not allowed; they all need to be changed either a) to link directly to an item in the disambiguation page instead, or b) be delinked. IMO sometimes disambiguation-focused editors damage Wikipedia by delinking because they don't know what is a better target, disconnecting articles that should be linked. I want to ask editors here to please help quickly to do better in disambiguating these 38 inbound links. All you need to do is go to this "dablink-list" report for Ikshvaku, and then select "FIX" for one of the remaining ones (which brings up wp:DabSolver applied to it), and then use DabSolver's great functionality to select one of the disambiguation page's items from a drop-down menu. To save requires two steps: you have to select either "Preview" or "Show changes" at the bottom, then it brings up another page where you can select "Save". It's easy to apply the tools, what is needed is you with your expertise about the terms.
For the record, and if anyone wants to check whether the disambiguation was done correctly, afterwards, the 38 mainspace pages that link to Ikshvaku currently are: Gautama Buddha, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Jagannath, Kaikeyi, Kakudmi, Kartikeya, Kartikeya Temple, Pehowa, Kashyapa, King Mandhata, Kosala, Krishna River, Kusha (Ramayana), Lava (Ramayana), Legendary early Chola kings, List of Hindu soldiers, Manu (Hinduism), Muchukunda, Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve, Nalgonda, Origin of the Western Ganga Dynasty, Outline of Telangana, Palnadu, Pancharanga Kshetrams, Parikshit, Pasenadi, Raghuvanshi, Raju zamindaris, Scion of Ikshvaku, Shakya, Shraddhadeva Manu, Suparshvanatha, Suryavansha, Timeline of Guntur, Tumuluri, Varuthini Ekadashi, Velanadu, Vimalanatha and Vishvamitra.
TIA, -- do ncr am 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: The disambiguation page has now been moved to Ikshvaku, and the links that doncram mentioned are again ambiguous (there are 36 now). - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose to shift Hinduism part of this article to Suryavansha as per the discussion above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ikshvaku dynasty → List of Ikshvaku dynasty rulers – I suggest we move this article to a list and start afresh. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 05:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Something needs to be done here because the article is a complete mess and makes little sense to me. There was a prolonged discussion - see here - but that, too, became a confusing mess. Can we perhaps start over in working out what needs to be done? It isn't a subject with which I am particularly familiar, which I guess also explains in part why I do not understand the article (but, of course, the article should be geared towards people like me). - Sitush ( talk) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
copied content from Solar Dynasty to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties#Ikshvaku_dynasty; see Solar Dynasty page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd ( talk) 09:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)