India Template‑class | |||||||
|
Pakistan Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Archaeology Template‑class | |||||||
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
excellent template, the colour coding of overlapping eras is a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
India's constitution came into effect on 26 January, 1950. So India got the status of republic in 1950. So, I think it should be from 1950 onwards. Thanks -- Shyam ( T/ C) 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I see conflicting information about the Chola Empire. Edicts of Asoka (273 BCE to 232 BCE - maybe issued around 250 BC) acknowledges the presence of Chola, Pandya and other Empires to the South that are not under Mauryan Empire. But the time line for Chola Empire shows it starting from 848 AD. Shouldnt that be corrected?
I have a added a nonsectarian image to the India template. The image there should be as objective and neutrally as possible, and the Emblem of India seems to fulfill this. This should be ovious for anybody with a knowledge of Indian history. (Besides the edicts of Ashoka focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices). But I think it would be better to have no image at all. Another good neutral image is the "History of Indonesia" template. If a sectarian images should be added, images representing all religions of India of India must be added, but then the template should be horizontal like the "IndiaFreedom" template [1]. The Taj is by most people associated with Islam, wether righly or wrongly is not the question. (One of the reasons is that that it has inscriptions of the quran on its walls.) No single image would represent the history of the whole Indian Subcontinent better than the Emblem of India or the Edicts of Ashoka. That is not to belittle the Taj, it is a great building, but it is unsuitable to represent the whole history of India. (Besides the building is also associated with Shah Jahan, a man of doubtful moral character). -- Combes 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does the template link to Cemetery H? The Localization Era has 3 cultural phases (Punjab, Jhukar, Rangpur). Cemetery H represents only one of these 3 phases (Punjab Phase). Would it not be better to link to Indus_Valley_Tradition#Localization_Era? -- Rayfield 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems Garwig (who may be pro-Christian) has been attempting to change the date format to a BC/AD format. If anyone disagrees with the original BCE/CE date format, please give valid reasons here for why it should be changed. Jagged 85 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I included it in the timeline because for the following reasons:
1) The Article is History of South Asia. The Ghaznavids administered land in a significant portion of Pakistan (Balochistan/NWFP/Northern Punjab/Makran etc.) in addition to Iran/Afghanistan and other Central Asian regions.
2) Most of the area under the Indus valley civilization fell under his administration.
3) Various Rajas sent tribute and provided right of way when he traversed on his raids and he did have a significant realm of influence even if he did not administer the area. See Kalinjars attack on Kannauj as an example, or reasons for one of the wars with Anandapala.
4) To make the timeline given more reasonable. The initial entry Islamic Sultanates and their date was absolute bunk the only real precense during the early 200 years of that timeslot given was infact the Ghaznavids. There was just the Ismailis at Multan and another bunch of muslims at Makran/Sindh coast which eventually came under Mahmud. The Slave dynasty and the other sultanates preceding the Delhi Sultanate such as the Lodhis et al came after the Ghurid advance which is around 1160 onwards.
5) While Ghazni was the initial capital early on, later on the capital shifted to Lahore.
Too many kingdoms have been added to the Middle Kingdoms section by Tigeroo. As a result, the template has become a bit too bloated. We will need to remove many of those Middle Kingdoms and only keep the significant ones. Jagged 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. thankyou user Talk:Dewan357
I noticed this template (which is way too big, BTW) at the Partition of India article. It had been relabeled as "History of the Indian subcontinent" and "History of India" had been turned into "History of greater India". What is this? India is going to reconquer everything? India uber alles? Lebensraum? Arrant Indian nationalism is offensive to the other nations that share the sub-continent and should not be countenanced in an international endeavour. Zora 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed the Mughal era link to Mughal empire -- all other links refer to individual empires. I also propose inclusion of a link to Sikh Kingdom since it was an important pre-British political entity. ElvenHighKing
-- Ksyrie 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Can/should Myanmar be added to the template, as sharing a similar stretch of history? Chris 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This page has been the victim of a number of anonymous date warriors changing style from BCE/CE to BC/AD against consensus and Wikipedia policy. Interested parties please keep an eye out. -- Steven J. Anderson 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
British India was formed in 1765 or 1858, what is the exact year? 96.229.179.106 ( talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The flag is representing exiled Tibetans and the Central Tibetan Administration, a political body. It has nothing to do with the geographical location of Tibet
"No Need to Revert" is hardly a reason/counter-argument. 219.79.27.59 ( talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted edits with nonsense edit summary, "that has been a part of the template for a while" or something like that sounds more like an excuse rather than an argument. 219.79.27.59 ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I revert POV pushing like this. The editor who inserted the POV obviously made false claims in his/her edit summary, as revision 223502569(by IP 58.111.87.99) never mentioned this placename. 116.48.63.112 ( talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
They ruled small parts of the subcontinent not the whole. Since when is the history of punjab the history of south asia? Gqegg ( talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Sikh Empire at its peak under Ranjit Singh spanned from Peshawar in NWFP to the current day Punjab of both India and Pakistan, as well as Kashmir. His was the largest empire in North India at the time before the rise of the British.
As far as the Maratha empire goes, the northern and the western boundaries of modern India correspond to the northern and the western boundaries of the Maratha Empire. Hence they had a significant impact on the history of South Asia.
that is true the Maratha Empire is more important then Sikh Empire! (Dewan 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
Changed back to 'History of South Asia'. Khokhar ( talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
this template is quickly becoming unusable. It will need to be collapsed, and instead of a good and detailed template, this will amount to no template. It needs to be cut down to something that doesn't hog half the screen when transcluded. -- dab (𒁳) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. Thankyou User Talk:Dewan357
the recent eits have turned this into an abhorrent example of what navigation templates should not be. For some reason people keep confusing navigation templates with Wikipedia's categorization system, linking every possible and impossible article related to the topic. This is pointless. A navigation template should link to a handful of chief articles. Anything else simply isn't useful to the reader. Instead of "browsing" collapsed gigantesque templates, users can browse categories. Or, if this must be a giant link collection, at least turn it into a collapsible footer which will not take up any space at the top of articles. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
so this template is now stuck somewhere halfway between "collapsible" and "not collapsible". It is now worse than ever, it is now not only extremely large but also extremely ugly. Please do something about it or I will see myself forced to revert to the last halfway acceptable revision. -- dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
for some reason, people still keep adding material without discussion in spite of the repeated calls to reduce template size. -- dab (𒁳) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this mentioned under a separate section? I propose including that in the National History section. Sabih ( talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Something has gone wrong with the formatting of this template, meaning that (at least) the 'List of Indian Monarchs' and 'History of South Asia' pages now have a peach background with the article text included in the template table, as of 2010-10-02 09:48 UTC. I'm afraid I am merely a wikipedia reader, not an editor, so I cannot be more specific about what needs to be changed. TCS
82.45.204.54 ( talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to understand why the section 1100–1800 CE is considered "Muslim Period." There might be some confusion among new readers about: why it is considered Muslim when there is the Vijayanagara, Maratha, and Sikh Empires. Is it possible to change it to something else such as "Medieval" period. It will be more neutral and clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.241.214 ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas " Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters ( talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas "Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters ( talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Muslim period is used as reference term by some authors but it is not a recognized period unlike recognized terms like Middle and early modern(1500-1800). stop pushing ur POV. HotWinters ( talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Early modern period refers to 1500-1800 AD whereas Middle Kingdoms refers to 200BC-1200 AD. These are recognized terms. HotWinters ( talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"In any case, political trends dominant in early twentieth-century India justified the separate religious nationalisms by referring to (among other things) the Hindu and Muslim periodization, endorsed by many Indian and non-Indian historians. Only a few questioned its validity. But such a periodization of Indian history is misleading in its emphasis, apart from being questionable in its assumptions. The religious affiliation of rulers was not the pre-eminent motivating factor of change in Indian history, as these categories would imply: it was among a number of factors."
- Joy1963 Talk 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, its you who is pushing his "personal view" here, there is no such recognized term as "muslim period". HotWinters ( talk) 17:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Are these examples also their personal views only? Joy1963 Talk 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As per User:Fowler&fowler's desire and parameters of mentioning unconventional categories of timeline we will end up having even more categories like "Maratha Period", for example used by government of India here or "Sikh Period" for exmple mentioned here. HotWinters ( talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And why not to add "Mauryan Period" as a category used in fowler's favourite Britannica here. HotWinters ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Joy1963 Talk 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And btw fowler, I am not putting up any views here unlike you, who want to write the history of India in colors of religion rather than the way it should be. HotWinters ( talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added the topic Portuguese India to the list.I totally forgot to comment on my edit.Please excuse me for that. Thank you. Nijgoykar ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Would someone clarify what is the event in 1803 which ended the Mughal Empire, or is it supposed to be an approximate year? I couldnt find anything on the Mughal Empire page either. Shaad lko ( talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See [2]. I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller ( talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
India Template‑class | |||||||
|
Pakistan Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Archaeology Template‑class | |||||||
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
excellent template, the colour coding of overlapping eras is a good idea. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
India's constitution came into effect on 26 January, 1950. So India got the status of republic in 1950. So, I think it should be from 1950 onwards. Thanks -- Shyam ( T/ C) 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I see conflicting information about the Chola Empire. Edicts of Asoka (273 BCE to 232 BCE - maybe issued around 250 BC) acknowledges the presence of Chola, Pandya and other Empires to the South that are not under Mauryan Empire. But the time line for Chola Empire shows it starting from 848 AD. Shouldnt that be corrected?
I have a added a nonsectarian image to the India template. The image there should be as objective and neutrally as possible, and the Emblem of India seems to fulfill this. This should be ovious for anybody with a knowledge of Indian history. (Besides the edicts of Ashoka focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices). But I think it would be better to have no image at all. Another good neutral image is the "History of Indonesia" template. If a sectarian images should be added, images representing all religions of India of India must be added, but then the template should be horizontal like the "IndiaFreedom" template [1]. The Taj is by most people associated with Islam, wether righly or wrongly is not the question. (One of the reasons is that that it has inscriptions of the quran on its walls.) No single image would represent the history of the whole Indian Subcontinent better than the Emblem of India or the Edicts of Ashoka. That is not to belittle the Taj, it is a great building, but it is unsuitable to represent the whole history of India. (Besides the building is also associated with Shah Jahan, a man of doubtful moral character). -- Combes 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does the template link to Cemetery H? The Localization Era has 3 cultural phases (Punjab, Jhukar, Rangpur). Cemetery H represents only one of these 3 phases (Punjab Phase). Would it not be better to link to Indus_Valley_Tradition#Localization_Era? -- Rayfield 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems Garwig (who may be pro-Christian) has been attempting to change the date format to a BC/AD format. If anyone disagrees with the original BCE/CE date format, please give valid reasons here for why it should be changed. Jagged 85 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I included it in the timeline because for the following reasons:
1) The Article is History of South Asia. The Ghaznavids administered land in a significant portion of Pakistan (Balochistan/NWFP/Northern Punjab/Makran etc.) in addition to Iran/Afghanistan and other Central Asian regions.
2) Most of the area under the Indus valley civilization fell under his administration.
3) Various Rajas sent tribute and provided right of way when he traversed on his raids and he did have a significant realm of influence even if he did not administer the area. See Kalinjars attack on Kannauj as an example, or reasons for one of the wars with Anandapala.
4) To make the timeline given more reasonable. The initial entry Islamic Sultanates and their date was absolute bunk the only real precense during the early 200 years of that timeslot given was infact the Ghaznavids. There was just the Ismailis at Multan and another bunch of muslims at Makran/Sindh coast which eventually came under Mahmud. The Slave dynasty and the other sultanates preceding the Delhi Sultanate such as the Lodhis et al came after the Ghurid advance which is around 1160 onwards.
5) While Ghazni was the initial capital early on, later on the capital shifted to Lahore.
Too many kingdoms have been added to the Middle Kingdoms section by Tigeroo. As a result, the template has become a bit too bloated. We will need to remove many of those Middle Kingdoms and only keep the significant ones. Jagged 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. thankyou user Talk:Dewan357
I noticed this template (which is way too big, BTW) at the Partition of India article. It had been relabeled as "History of the Indian subcontinent" and "History of India" had been turned into "History of greater India". What is this? India is going to reconquer everything? India uber alles? Lebensraum? Arrant Indian nationalism is offensive to the other nations that share the sub-continent and should not be countenanced in an international endeavour. Zora 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed the Mughal era link to Mughal empire -- all other links refer to individual empires. I also propose inclusion of a link to Sikh Kingdom since it was an important pre-British political entity. ElvenHighKing
-- Ksyrie 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Can/should Myanmar be added to the template, as sharing a similar stretch of history? Chris 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This page has been the victim of a number of anonymous date warriors changing style from BCE/CE to BC/AD against consensus and Wikipedia policy. Interested parties please keep an eye out. -- Steven J. Anderson 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
British India was formed in 1765 or 1858, what is the exact year? 96.229.179.106 ( talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The flag is representing exiled Tibetans and the Central Tibetan Administration, a political body. It has nothing to do with the geographical location of Tibet
"No Need to Revert" is hardly a reason/counter-argument. 219.79.27.59 ( talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted edits with nonsense edit summary, "that has been a part of the template for a while" or something like that sounds more like an excuse rather than an argument. 219.79.27.59 ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I revert POV pushing like this. The editor who inserted the POV obviously made false claims in his/her edit summary, as revision 223502569(by IP 58.111.87.99) never mentioned this placename. 116.48.63.112 ( talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
They ruled small parts of the subcontinent not the whole. Since when is the history of punjab the history of south asia? Gqegg ( talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Sikh Empire at its peak under Ranjit Singh spanned from Peshawar in NWFP to the current day Punjab of both India and Pakistan, as well as Kashmir. His was the largest empire in North India at the time before the rise of the British.
As far as the Maratha empire goes, the northern and the western boundaries of modern India correspond to the northern and the western boundaries of the Maratha Empire. Hence they had a significant impact on the history of South Asia.
that is true the Maratha Empire is more important then Sikh Empire! (Dewan 07:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
Changed back to 'History of South Asia'. Khokhar ( talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
this template is quickly becoming unusable. It will need to be collapsed, and instead of a good and detailed template, this will amount to no template. It needs to be cut down to something that doesn't hog half the screen when transcluded. -- dab (𒁳) 07:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose to add the "hide option" for the Middle Kingdom and separate it into early and late periods (with hide option). This make the template detailed and reasonable. We don't have to have a long and hard decision about what kingdom is important or not! I believe all the kingdoms played an important in the history of India and should be mentioned and respected. So this will prevent edit warring and unnessary discussion. Separate the middle kingdom into early and late middle kingdom with "hide option". I know hide option is the last resort. But it is the neutral idea. Thankyou User Talk:Dewan357
the recent eits have turned this into an abhorrent example of what navigation templates should not be. For some reason people keep confusing navigation templates with Wikipedia's categorization system, linking every possible and impossible article related to the topic. This is pointless. A navigation template should link to a handful of chief articles. Anything else simply isn't useful to the reader. Instead of "browsing" collapsed gigantesque templates, users can browse categories. Or, if this must be a giant link collection, at least turn it into a collapsible footer which will not take up any space at the top of articles. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
so this template is now stuck somewhere halfway between "collapsible" and "not collapsible". It is now worse than ever, it is now not only extremely large but also extremely ugly. Please do something about it or I will see myself forced to revert to the last halfway acceptable revision. -- dab (𒁳) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
for some reason, people still keep adding material without discussion in spite of the repeated calls to reduce template size. -- dab (𒁳) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this mentioned under a separate section? I propose including that in the National History section. Sabih ( talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Something has gone wrong with the formatting of this template, meaning that (at least) the 'List of Indian Monarchs' and 'History of South Asia' pages now have a peach background with the article text included in the template table, as of 2010-10-02 09:48 UTC. I'm afraid I am merely a wikipedia reader, not an editor, so I cannot be more specific about what needs to be changed. TCS
82.45.204.54 ( talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to understand why the section 1100–1800 CE is considered "Muslim Period." There might be some confusion among new readers about: why it is considered Muslim when there is the Vijayanagara, Maratha, and Sikh Empires. Is it possible to change it to something else such as "Medieval" period. It will be more neutral and clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.241.214 ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas " Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters ( talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Early modern period refers to the time period from 16th to 19th century as mentioned here, whereas "Middle Kingdoms" refer to Kingdoms from post Maurya to 13th century. There is nothing such as MUSLIM PERIOD, unless some pro muslim fans might want to push there POV here. HotWinters ( talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Muslim period is used as reference term by some authors but it is not a recognized period unlike recognized terms like Middle and early modern(1500-1800). stop pushing ur POV. HotWinters ( talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Early modern period refers to 1500-1800 AD whereas Middle Kingdoms refers to 200BC-1200 AD. These are recognized terms. HotWinters ( talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"In any case, political trends dominant in early twentieth-century India justified the separate religious nationalisms by referring to (among other things) the Hindu and Muslim periodization, endorsed by many Indian and non-Indian historians. Only a few questioned its validity. But such a periodization of Indian history is misleading in its emphasis, apart from being questionable in its assumptions. The religious affiliation of rulers was not the pre-eminent motivating factor of change in Indian history, as these categories would imply: it was among a number of factors."
- Joy1963 Talk 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, its you who is pushing his "personal view" here, there is no such recognized term as "muslim period". HotWinters ( talk) 17:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Are these examples also their personal views only? Joy1963 Talk 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As per User:Fowler&fowler's desire and parameters of mentioning unconventional categories of timeline we will end up having even more categories like "Maratha Period", for example used by government of India here or "Sikh Period" for exmple mentioned here. HotWinters ( talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And why not to add "Mauryan Period" as a category used in fowler's favourite Britannica here. HotWinters ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Joy1963 Talk 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And btw fowler, I am not putting up any views here unlike you, who want to write the history of India in colors of religion rather than the way it should be. HotWinters ( talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added the topic Portuguese India to the list.I totally forgot to comment on my edit.Please excuse me for that. Thank you. Nijgoykar ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Would someone clarify what is the event in 1803 which ended the Mughal Empire, or is it supposed to be an approximate year? I couldnt find anything on the Mughal Empire page either. Shaad lko ( talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See [2]. I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller ( talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)