From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good articleMahabharata was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Bhanumati (Mahabharata) has been proposed to be merged with this page by Kvng. Support as there is not enough content to qualify a separate article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. There is more than sufficient significant coverage on her in Ajaya: Rise of Kali. The coverage in the Mahabharata does not appear trivial (or passing mention) either. Hinduresci (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ajaya: Rise of Kali is a novel and so not a reliable source. Mahabharata is a WP:PRIMARY source, if you want to call it that, so also not a good indication of notability. Face-smile.svg other than an assertion that a separate article is allowed by WP policy, what is the benefit to readers of having coverage in a separate article? Just because a separate article is allowed (and you've not acutally made a good case for that), doesn't mean it is a good idea. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I reckon merging the article in question into the Mahabharata article will contribute to making the latter article excessively big. And aside from that, I for one really do not think the subject of the former article is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, especially for the following two reasons: 1. According to WP:BOOKCRIT, when a book's author is historically very significant, any of the author's written works may be considered notable. Similarly, since the Mahabharata is so highly notable, the consort of its arch-antagonist should in all likelihood be deemed worthy of notice. 2. Although Ajaya: Rise of Kali, for instance, is a novel and therefore presumably unreliable, the mere fact that it is a notable work and that it appears to have taken a notice of the subject in a substantial manner, seems to imply that there is objective evidence that the subject is worthy of notice. And it seems that there are at least 3 more sources of such type. Hinduresci (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, although the sources such as Ajaya: Rise of Kali, or for that matter Ajaya: Roll of the Dice, are unreliable, they are notable, and since they cover the subject significantly, their coverage could be described in the article under a section like "Novelistic accounts". Don't you think it makes sense? Hinduresci (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. The mere fact that the subject of the article in question is dealt with by a source as vital and influential as the Mahabharata in a non-trivial manner, signifies the notability of the subject for a stand-alone article. Hinduresci (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
One more thing! It seems there are several articles, if not many, that look similar to the article in question when it comes to notability, such as Ambika (Mahabharata). Should they all be merged into the Mahabharata article which already looks pretty big? I for one am convinced that the answer to that question could not be in the affirmative. Hinduresci (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support:- The article's topic is not significient at all. She is not a major character in Mahabharata. This article fails General notability guideline.ABCDE22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New destination[edit]

I suggest all such articles be either merged into this article or in the Characters in the Mahabharata. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting Merge with page Maha bharata[edit]

According to Sanskirt pronunciation,maha & bharata should be separated into two words. And all the other language wiki user connected their wikipedia page with page maha bharata. I think it be better to transport all the content into the item maha bharata and redirect this item mahabharata to the maha bharata.

Zzt514 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This will be against WP:COMMONNAME, among other things. Also worth noting that a compound word is still a word. – Uanfala (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Kuru Family Tree Correction[edit]

At the bottom of the family tree, Abhimanyu is shown married to Uttara. This is accurate, but Uttara links to a different character of the Mahabharata who is similarly named, and is in fact a male. This is the correct link: (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018[edit]

2405:204:949D:C926:D2B:8725:9F4B:618C (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Mayuri meri jaan

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. According to google translate "Mayuri meri jaan" is Finnish for "Mayuri sea junngle". I have no idea to what this is a reference. NiciVampireHeart 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018[edit]

CHANGE X great tale of bhãrata dynasty TO Y great bhãrata as it is that literally

CHANGE X The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE ........TO Y .....mahãbhãarat along with other ancient shãstras wes transmitted orally generation to generation and refers to events said to be at end of dwãpara yuga and begining of kaliyuga which corresponds to According to Puranic sources,[2] Krishna's departure marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to 17/18 February 3102 BCE.[3]... this is according to wikipedia so please consider these factors and insert necessary changes Ombaba123456 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not sure which references you want to use for this edit. (The second reference in the article's References section doesn't support the sentence where you placed the "[2]" inline citation.) Can you please provide references that support the changes you're proposing? — Newslinger talk 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Aruna Mountains[edit]

Only mentioned in this writing and things based upon that writing. » Shadowowl | talk 21:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: Aruna Mountains needs to be sourced or deleted. Merger may be an option depending upon what the source(s) say but I don't believe Mahabharata is a likely merge target (see my note at that article's talkpage). So unless you object, I'll remove the merger tags from the two articles in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I do not object. I think that all articles about places in this book should be merged into 1 article (Places in Mahabharata?) or be deleted as they do not meet WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG on their own. » Shadowowl | talk 23:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think all articles on real/mythological places mentioned in the Puranas or Mahabharata can possibly be merged into one (dozens will meet GNG, even though many articles in the category are pretty poor at present). But I agree that we should have a Geography of the Mahabharata and/or Geography of the Puranas article(s) that is the merge target for all the minor-place names mentioned in the relevant literature. There are plenty of sources on the topic. Now it's just a matter of someone picking up the baton and writing the article. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018[edit]

Kaysonsedu (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Bharatayuddha Indonesia version of Mahabharata

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)