Talk:Golconda

India: History / Hyderabad Low‑importance

	India portal This article 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hyderabad (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Military history: Fortifications / Asian / Indian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of World Heritage Sites in India#Tentative list of Heritage sites|tentative list]] The anchor (#Tentative list of Heritage sites) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ramdas

Was Ramdas arrested at Golkonda?

Please be clear. It was told that the fort was built by Kakatiyas(language points to Ganapati Deva)but in the same statement,it is also mentioned that a Qutubshahi built it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.63.4 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wheres the map showing the site?

id like to see a map showing the location of this place in relation to the city limits of Hyderbad. 99.164.123.146 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fort section is rambling and repetitive

In several places the text reads like it was pieced together from multiple tourist brochures. Some features are mentioned repeatedly and in general there's an overabundance of superlatives. To me (and I expect many American or European readers) this style of exposition doesn't leave the intended impression. However, not being familiar with the topic or the original source material, I didn't feel qualified to edit it myself.76.191.214.212 (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Golconda

Please mention about the architecture of Golconda.....Dravidian or something extra??. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.181.131.76 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda fort → Golconda Fort – "Golconda Fort" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, as proved by Google Books Ngram Viewer. The graphs show that in reliable English-language books, "Golconda fort", "Golkonda Fort" and "Golkonda fort" are all less commonly used than the proposed "Golconda Fort". Google search results also corroborate that the spelling "Golconda Fort" is, by far, more common. Khestwol (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be cautious about interpreting the ngram results. Some % of results are always going to be capitalized because they appear in title-case contexts. e.g. Here's a similar ngrams search for "tort law" vs. "Tort Law". This is clearly not a proper noun, but the capitalized version still gets around 20% the results of the uncapitalized one. It's important to click through to the actual google books results to see the usage in context. Colin M (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think tort law is a common noun (and your ngram graphs proved it) but Golconda Fort is a proper noun. Please check Google Books search results, it seems "Golconda Fort" with capital spelling is more common than "Golconda fort". For example, the first 9 books that I see all appear to use "Golconda Fort" (including A Guide to Golconda Fort and Tombs, Tourism Development in India: A Case Study, Islamic Heritage Architecture and Art II, Majestic Monuments of India: Ancient Indian Mega Structures, Census of India, 1991: Mahbubnagar). In addition, the Google search quoted earlier returns results for "Golconda Fort" almost exclusively. I think "Golconda Fort" seems to be at least ten times more common than "Golconda fort" on Google search. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying I disagree with this move, just making a point about the interpretation of one of your pieces of evidence. i.e. that just because 'Golconda Fort' outnumbers 'Golconda fort' by a ~2:3 ratio doesn't imply the (seemingly obvious) interpretation that 60% of sources are treating it as a proper noun.

Also, I think by citing that first example ("A Guide To Golconda Fort And Tombs") you're falling into exactly the trap I'm talking about. Yes, "Fort" is capitalized in the title, but that's because it's the title - they're capitalizing all the words. The Google Books result for that reference doesn't give any indication about whether they capitalize "fort" in the running text. Fortunately, that work is in the public domain, so you can see the full text on archive.org. It seems it doesn't actually use the term 'Golconda [fF]ort' anywhere in the body (only in the title, and some of the titles in the list of illustrations), though it does include the following phrases (capitalization preserved): "fort of Golconda", "fortress of Qolconda", "Golconda forts". Colin M (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Proper name. This confusion is unfortunately rather common for buildings in countries that do not have English as a first language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the proposed title "Golconda Fort" is also WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles listed in the List of forts in India, most of which have "Fort" in the second part of their names (None of the articles I saw had "fort"). Khestwol (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree, good case for this being the proper name. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dynasty

There were findings which uncovered the facts of its(Golconda Forts's) construction way before it in 12th-13th CE in Kakatiya Dynasty. Dronal Bhardwaj (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This place seems more notable than other Golcondas as seen here. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda Fort → Golconda – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Privybst (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time-travelling Pratāparudra

"The fort was originally built by Kakatiya ruler Pratāparudra in the 11th century out of mud walls." states this article, and it backs up this claim with a source Special:BookSources/9789353245733. Unfortunately, I can't access this book for free to verify this information, since some internet archive services are down right now. It seems the wrong Pratāparudra (the II) was used, so I fixed that, but even the XII century Pratāparudra (I) couldn't have built anything in the 11th century! Can someone with the access to this source verify this claim? Thanks in advance. To me it just looks like someone not knowing how centuries work. Karton Realista (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the edit and the hoodlum responsible for it using Wikiblame. @Prismboy7, do you have anything to say for yourself?! On a more serious note, please verify this information. Karton Realista (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]