Template talk:Karnataka topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Karnataka (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Karnataka.
 

Re-write proposal[edit]

At the current version of this template, I have serious concerns on what the template is covering as a general Karnataka related template. The entire template concentrates mainly on places (Cities, Taluks and Districts). Except the different topics list in the top, the entire template is Geography oriented. Karnataka articles have all types of topics, and this general template should be re-written such that it covers major aspects of different topics.

Let me put it this way.

Think how this template would suit articles such as Rajkumar, Kuvempu, Anil Kumble? More examples like Kasuti, Maddur Vada, Bisi Bele Bath.

Some ideas , some brainstorming is required now to re-write. Any thoughts? - KNM Talk 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the current template, with the necessary modifications, can be considered moving into {{Geography of Karnataka}}. But lets discuss that also before taking any actions. - KNM Talk 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Yup, I too feel the same. Moreover, the current template looks huge and in some cases occupies space more than the article itself. IMO, even in the current template, the list of taluks is an unwanted addition. I suggest we should create a list of categories and add important articles related to the category. Some suggestions:

I agree. I can act upon Amar's suggestions and add all the above sections. When I redesigned the template based on the US States template, I just kept what was in the earlier Karnataka template. I think I just adde the Taluks. We can provide a link to Taluks of Karnataka somewhere on the template and do away with the list. Not a problem. Sarvagnya 03:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have made some changes by including Amar's suggestions above. I have added some articles in each section. But the list may need some tweaking. The template looks like this now. Sarvagnya 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks much better now. Thanks. Still, I do not see a why Districts as well as Cities are required, separately. Instead of providing cities, how about providing the links of Cities and Towns, Taluks and Districts categories? Like this:
Geography - Cities and Towns | Taluks | Districts
- KNM Talk 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we include Tourism?
Tourism - Beaches | Dams | Temples | Forts | National Parks

- KNM Talk 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Good job people. Tourism can be a nice addition. Also we need a section for literature. I think we have enough number of articles on Literature to fill in that section. Gnanapiti 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking good so far. You guys know best. Please dont forget Western Chalukyas. They tend to get hidden under Chalukyas. Badami Chalukyas and Western Chalukyas.Dineshkannambadi 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Further modifications[edit]

I have made further modifications to the template to incorporate some of the comments mentioned above. I did not want to replace the original template without a review and hence I have created it temporarily here. Kindly comment on whether it is proper, in which case we can move it as the actual template. By the way I am not able to create more than seven rows in the template. Any row starting with the caption 'title8' and beyond is ignored. Is that a limitation? -- Amarrg 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the changes. I feel it looks better than what we have now. Just add Western Chalukyas to it in line with Dinesh's suggestion above. As for the 8th row, I dont know. Maybe it is. We may have to check with the guys who created the {{US State Navigation box}}. Sarvagnya

Category Waterfalls seems appropriate under Tourism section rather than Geography section. What do you people think? Also can we add Literature section? I believe we have handful of articles for that section. Gnanapiti 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some modifications[edit]

I have made following changes-

  • Created a new section for literature and used some articles in that section.
  • Moved Kannada sahitya sammelana and Kannada sahitya Parishat to Literature section from Culture section.
  • Moved Waterfalls to Tourism section from Geography section.

Please feel free to make any appropriate changes. Gnanapiti 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss all new additions/modifications here[edit]

This template is being used in many pages and hence it is important that some amount of consensus is evolved before modifying or adding to it.

Shivalli Brahmin[edit]

This is a sub caste among Brahmins and a non-registered user had added this to the template. Please add below whether you want to support or oppose this addition -- Amarrg 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a little tricky. There are other Brahmin subcastes there like Hebbar Iyengar, Hoysala Karnataka etc., so somebody may argue that Shivalli brahmins also ought to be given space. But otoh, we also cant keep on adding every caste and subcaste. Maybe what we can do is, lets put Kannada brahmins or Karnataka brahmins or something like that. For now though, I guess adding Shivalli brahmins wont do much harm. Thats just my opinion, though. Sarvagnya 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss[edit]

We need to review some of the entries in the template to decide if it should be or not be there. I suggest that only those issues/topics that bring out Karnataka culture, history, literature, etc etc on a significant scale be added. Entries like Beary, Mogaveera are not heard anywhere outside Dakshin Kannada district. We need to be selective. Entries like these are better of in local district templates.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- Amarrg 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The current (28th Jun '07) looks like
Society  Beary · Bunt · Havyaka · Hebbar Iyengar · Hoysala Karnataka · Kannadiga · Kodava · Konkani · Kota · Lingayat · Mogaveera · Sankethi · Tuluva · Vokkaliga

You see names of ethnicities, castes? I suggest we follow the example of Template:Andhra_Pradesh or Template:Tamil_Nadu

Nareshov 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I dont think we need to follow others. We can set our own example.Dineshkannambadi 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine. But, _please_ do something about that casteist "Society" section. Nareshov 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The format and topics used in this template are discussed and consented by number of editors. Please see the top of this talk page to know how template looked like earlier and how/why it was modified. This template is an extended version of AP and TN templates and I don't think we need to go back again. If you have any concerns over topics used in this template, please be explicit in expressing rather than beating around the bush. If you think you have anything to contribute, visit Karnataka which is under peer review now. Gnanapiti 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Society" section is just a list of castes and ethnicities. First, why is there a need to display the caste/ethinicities articles in a template? Second, why are only some castes/ethnicities featuring there? (you haven't even used criteria such as "Major/Minor Castes/Ethnicities"). Not to mention the redundancy (notice "Kannadiga" and say "Lingayat", does that mean Lingayat people aren't Kannadigas or what?). Hope that wasn't beating around the bush. Nareshov 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Beating around the bush was for your first post which apparently was a little late reply. Anyways, I don't see any problems in displaying ethnicity topics in the template. By displaying articles in the template, we are just giving a high level view of society in Karnataka and nothing else. Nothing like we are supporting caste system or any ethnicity in particular. Religion is an important topic to be ignored in an encyclopedia. Adding both Lingayat and Kannadigas in the template doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate. It's just that they are all the different topics under Society in Karnataka. However, criteria for adding topics to that section, I'm not sure. We need to come to a consent on what to add and what to leave out. Also, we can change the section name to Society and Religion or something like that. Gnanapiti 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

  • Create a seperate field for "minorities" into which Beary, Mogaveera, etc can be fitted
  • There is no "Hoysalas" in history!! Replace Belur/Halebidu with Hoysalas.
  • Banavasi and Manyakheta are not so important historically mostly because they dont have the architecture of Belur, Halebidu, Patadakal etc. we dont need to include them unless someone can write detailed article on them with existing architecture, monuments etc. (I hope to some day)
  • In culture, include only those topics that are really popular and unique.

ThanksDineshkannambadi 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire is present under history. I have removed Belur and Halebidu. - KNM Talk 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

History[edit]

Perhaps we need to include "Mayurasharma", "Vishnuvardhana", "Vikramaditya VI" in this list, or better yet create a separate section for Kings and one for the greatest poets. How does that sound.Dineshkannambadi 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

Please include Geology under tourism since Geological Survey of India has named four sites in Karantaka as National Geological Monuments to encourage Geotourism. The four sites are: St. Mary's Islands, Karnataka for Columnar Basalts near Malpe, Udupi, Peninsular Gneiss, a Monument in Lalbagh, Bangalore, Pillow Lava, Maradihalli in Chitradurga District and Pyroclastic rocks in Peddapalli in Kolar District. --Nvvchar (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Architecture[edit]

pl. move Architecture group up somewhere near to Culture or History. Now it is added at the very bottom as group 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.121.131 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)