Talk:Medieval Kangleipak
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 27 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Early Modern Kangleipak. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Requested move 27 February 2023
[edit]- 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: no consensus. No consensus to move, with neither side presenting evidence as to whether this period of Manipurian history is termed "Medieval" or "Early Modern", but both presenting reasonable arguments for why the current title is appropriate.
A future move request, with evidence of how reliable sources describe the period, may be successful.
The alternative proposal, of merging to History of Manipur, cannot have found consensus as the target page was not notified, but the lack of opposition to that proposal suggests that a bold merge would not be contentious and any interested editor is encouraged to do so. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Medieval Kangleipak → Early Modern Kangleipak – This is not the medieval period, it is the early modern period Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 15:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Haoreima my impression is this is a translation issue as in English the Middle Ages goes from about 500-1500, while in Meitei the analogous word may refer to a different time period. Regardless I find the term Medieval unfitting for English or Simple English wikipedia. If you have no objections I think it is a good idea to simply move this page there on both wikipedias. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Immanuelle No need for move. Every place doesn't need to have the same timing of medieval era. The timing of bronze Age in Greece is different from Bronze Age in India. Same case here too. In the history of Kangleipak, medieval era starts with the arrival of Hinduism in the region. Everything before that is called ancient times. Local context is different from global aspects. --Haoreima (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. It should be Manipur anyway, not Kangleipak, given our article and most sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, Kangleipak is itself an obscure term in English. Gotitbro (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not purely obscure. The question will rise if Kangleipak was named "Manipur" during that time or not. Because "Manipur" was a newly renamed title of Kangleipak in early modern era. Haoreima (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- That would be if we were talking about a specific kingdom, but we are talking about an idiomatic phrase here, a period of history as pertains to a particular region where WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Gotitbro (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not purely obscure. The question will rise if Kangleipak was named "Manipur" during that time or not. Because "Manipur" was a newly renamed title of Kangleipak in early modern era. Haoreima (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think this article should be merged into History of Manipur. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, there is not nearly enough information in this article to justify it being anything more than a section in the history of Manipur.
- Evansknight (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: See also: Talk:Ancient Kangleipak#Requested move 2 March 2023. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- As Immanuelle suggests above, I think the best solution here is to merge this article into History of Manipur. However, if merges are judged to be an out-of-scope result for an RM discussion, then I'd support this move; most readers would find it WP:ASTONISHing for an article titled "Medieval [Location]" to cover the 15th through 19th centuries. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose move: No need for move. Every place doesn't need to have the same timing of medieval era. The timing of bronze Age in Greece is different from Bronze Age in India. Same case here too. In the history of Kangleipak, medieval era starts with the arrival of Hinduism in the region. Everything before that is called ancient times. Local context is different from global aspects. --Haoreima (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)