Talk:Western Chalukya architecture

Comments

• {{fact}} tags added
• Can the "Chaturmukha" image be brightened. The shadow is the most prominent thing in the photo.Else i suggest, it be removed.
• In Temple Deities, "The temple has two other shrines dedicated to Murthinarayana and Chandraleshwari, the parents of Mahadeva, the Chalukya commander who consecrated the temple in 1112 CE" The 2 commas make the meaning not so WP:OBVIOUS.
• "Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are the Surya (called Suryanarayana) shrine at the Kasi Visvesvara" Is the temple called Suryanarayana shrine or Suryanarayana, the other name of Surya, is quoted?
• Isn't Janardana, a name of Vishnu? Thus the temple is probably dedicated to Vishnu. Check who the main diety is. Challenging "Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are ... the Janardana and Durga Temples at Hirekerur in the Haveri district". The ref does not say so. Thus OR IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dk reply I will look into your concerns later today.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Spelling variants

Here are a few spelling variations I found when looking through the article on the first passes. I'll try to do another couple of passes later today.

• Chavudayyadanapura and Chaudayyadanapura
• Banashankri and Banashankari
• Hirehadagalli and Hirehadgalli
• Nanesvara and Nannesvara
• Basavana and Basavanna

Two are in the template Western Chalukya Temples. One is in the template Karnataka. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this today.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I have replied on FAC discussion page.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. There are still two variations left (i.e. twice you changed one of two of the same spelling). I left which ones on the FAC discussion page because that appears to be where you want them marked done. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

While reading through the article I found sentences where the structure is likely in error. I generally do not make higher-level content edits on writing style, leaving the task to those more talented in that area, but I'll list found problematic sentences should you want to make changes.

Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". This reads as a sentence fragment; as the simplest fix I would recommend adding an are before categorised.

Normally, Chalukyan temples were built facing the east – although, exceptions include the Siddhesvara temple at Haveri. Wikipedia prefers the unspaced em dash for interruption, see Wikipedia:Mos#Em_dashes. (In fact, there are editors on WP with a history of making wholesale changes from space en dash to unspaced em dash.) A second problem, potentially, is that the sentence may have too much interruption: an interruptive dash, followed by the interruptive although, immediately followed by a pausing comma. Consider dropping the comma, or perhaps the entire although, (you use a lot of althoughs in the article). This may fall under stylistic decisions, however.

Other sentences in the article have a space en dash and will probably be altered in the future by one of the aforementioned editors if you don't do it yourself, e.g. at articulation – namely, stones – each, and others.

Temples that fall in this category are the Mahadeva Temple at Jalsingi and the Suryanarayana Temple at Kalgi in modern Gulbarga district. The article probably should have a 'the' before modern. No preceding the is correct if you dropped district, or if district was capitalized as part of the full Gulbarga name. You already have a the on two other Gulbarga district phrases in the article, so consider that, too.

That wraps up my smattering of higher-level copy edit suggestions. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)]

Possible typo

In the "Stellate plans" section, a sentence says, "Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th century characteristics become prominent." Since the rest of the paragraph describes change, I wonder if perhaps the second mention of 12th century is a typo. Shouldn't the text say, "...although the 13th century characteristics become prominent"? Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The second mention of 12th century is accurate. Dr. Foekema says some 12th century chracteristics were reinforced in the 13th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Time stamps in photos

The red time stamps on some of the photos are distracting. The eye is drawn to them instead of to the temples and their architectural details. Since the date and time of data generation are given on the Wikimedia page associated with each photo, time stamps on the photos are superfluous. If you can possibly remove the time stamps from your originals and upload unstamped versions, it would improve the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will request someone who does this kind of image editing.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that the time stamps have disappeared, and I think this is a significant improvement. The temples are beautiful, and the time stamps are not. I should point out that one time stamp was missed in the clean-up. It is on the image of the Siddhesvara temple at Haveri. Finetooth (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The time stamps should be gone with the next server update.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations, simple diagrams

Although the photos are extremely helpful to this article, I long for simple visual diagrams or illustrations of some of the geometric complexities presented here. It is difficult to convey an accurate sense of these structures using only words. For example, I can't quite wrap my mind around this sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate (star shaped) or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections are projecting corners and in the latter, there are only four projecting corners." An illustration or simple line drawing might be helpful here to show the meaning of "projecting corners" and how they differ in the two basic plans. In this context, what is a "corner?" Is a corner different from a "projecting corner?" Is "projecting corner" the opposite of "recessed corner?" If so, these terms are probably unfamiliar to many readers, who will need all the help they can get. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The corners the authors refer to , I believe , are projecting corners and not the same as any ordinary corner or a recessed corner which would be a vertex. As such, in an uninterrupted stellate floorplan, the number of projecting corners would equal the number of recessed corners or vertices. This is why I provided the first two images, to present the general idea. Regarding line drawings, I will explore how I can do it, if possible. This is ofcourse time consuming.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure.

I understand what you are saying above about the number of projecting corners equaling the number of vertices. Would it be accurate to call these corners "points"? I am thinking of the points of a star (not a real star but a stylized representation of a star). When imagining a stellate design, I see "points" rather than corners, though this may be an oversimplification of the architectural reality.

Your mention of the first two images is logical. Let me think a bit more about this. Perhaps a sentence in the main text could direct readers to the particular photo or photos that illustrate the geometry under discussion. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Could you word it to that effect and redirect a reader to those images.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling variations in Western Chalukya architecture

Two more variations in spelling which refer to the same entity:

• Shikhara – Sikhara (wikilinks go to same article) Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Trimurthi – Trimurti (Temple)  DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Michael Devore (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

will take care of it in a short while.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Further Improvements-TBD

• Move the "important temples" table to another sub-article-->will do.
• Provide more disambiguiations for complex Indian words-->Will do
• Remove POV words like "famous" though not sure what to sunbstitute with. "Notable" is getting to be a cliche-->will do.
• Move the "deity" section to the bottom. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarity, Cohesion and Coherence

I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time, but as I see it, the outstanding problems in the article are ones of clarity, cohesion and coherence. Let me quickly point these out by annotating two paragraphs (3 and 4 in section Western_Chalukya_architecture:Early_developments.) (This post: started 17:00, finished 17:20, 8 January 2008).

• "In the 11th century, temple plans called for material that differed from that used in the 7th and 8th centuries." This sentence is ungrammatical, vague, and ambiguous (and very possibly redundant, in light of what follows). "called for material?" What does that mean? Do you mean "called for the use of building material?" What is the point of mentioning the seventh and eighth centuries now, when they haven't been mentioned before? In other words, what useful knowledge is conveyed when the reader doesn't know anything about earlier building materials. (And what happened to the building material and the temple plans in the ninth and tenth centuries?)
• "For the first time, soapstone, a form of greenish or blueish black stone, replaced the previously popular sandstone."
  • What is "black stone"? It has not been described before, nor is a link provided. The only black stone in Wikipedia is the holy stone of Kaba in Mecca. More perplexingly, the link soapstone, makes no mention of "black stone." My OED has no entries for "blackstone," "black-stone", or "black stone." Moreover, it doesn't help the reader, when the photograph accompanying the soapstone article is of a mineral which appears white.
  • When a reader reads "For the first time ...," she/he assumes that such changes were made in the construction of only a few temples (otherwise, you wouldn't say, "For the first time, ..."); however, in the next sentence you say, "Soapstone became the main building material, ..." This doesn't make any sense, without a change of time frame (i.e. "Soapstone soon became the main ...") Also, when you say, "For the first time ...," you should mention where right away, or alternatively, simply say, "Soapstone became the construction material of choice in the building of some/many/most temples ...;" otherwise, it sounds too vague.
• "Soapstone became the main building material, although temples such as the Mallikarjuna Temple at Sudi, the Kallesvara Temple at Kuknur, and the temples at Konnur and Savadi were built with the older material.
  • "main building material" is ambiguous. Do you mean the material most often employed in the construction of temples during that period?
  • What is "older material?" The "material" wasn't older; rather, it was the one used in older construction. Why not simply say, "sandstone?"
• "The older sandstone temples were built with a dravida articulation and are among the earliest temples attributed to the Western Chalukya builders."
  • This is very confusing to a reader. After telling us that soapstone was the principal building material used, you give us examples of sandstone temples. Shouldn't this example have been given first (or perhaps in an earlier paragraph)?

Next paragraph:

• "Soapstone is found in abundance in the surrounding regions of Haveri, Savanur, Byadgi, Motebennur and Hangal."
  • This is an article about the eleventh century. You should be telling us where soapstone was found then. (Be careful not to imply though that it is no longer found somewhere (if it still it).)
• "The great archaic sandstone building blocks of the Badami Chalukyas were replaced with smaller blocks of soapstone and with smaller masonry."
  • "great archaic sandstone building blocks?" What does that mean? Do the building blocks have an "archaic" (primitive) look? Or are they cut from "archaic sandstone" (whatever that is)? In other words, what does "archaic" tell the reader?
  • "smaller masonry?" If the building blocks are smaller, wouldn't the masonry be smaller? Very confusing.
• "Soapstone was used for carving, modeling and chiseling of components that could be described as "chubby"."
  • "carving, modeling and chiseling." Again, very ambiguous. My Webster's Unabridged says: "carve: to cut (as with knife or chisel) with deliberate care or practiced precision." And my OED says: a. To hew, cut, or sculpture (any solid figure, an image, out of stone, in ivory, etc.); to make or shape artistically by cutting. b. To fashion (a material) into some shape by cutting, chiselling, or sculpturing." In other words, carving can involve chiseling. "Modeling?" Do you mean "building models?" (Modeling is of recent vintage.)
  • "chubby" What does that mean? Are the figures themselves "chubby," or "Ruebenesque?" Or is "chubby" an architectural term, given that it is in quotes? In either case, its unannotated use is very perplexing and of little value to a reader.
• "Yet the finish of the architectural components compared to the earlier sandstone temples is much finer, resulting in opulent shapes and creamy decorations."
  • What are "opulent shapes?" And "creamy decorations?" Are they "cream-colored?" Or, is "creamy," like "chubby," another architectural term?

As you can see, in the two paragraphs I selected, pretty much each sentence in each paragraph contains major problems of clarity, cohesion, logic, and time-order. As I have already said three or four times before in the FAC, these are not the kinds of problem that can be fixed by a copy-editor alone, even a talented copy-editor like user:Finetooth. The problems cannot be fixed by changing the order of sections, or changing the names of sections. Their "solution" involves organizing the flow of prose and of the flow of information in the prose. I don't doubt that user:Dineshkannambadi will be able to "fix" these two paragraphs in light of my comments, but I also don't doubt that tomorrow, after she/he has fixed those paragraphs, I will find two other paragraphs with similar problems, and the day after, two more, ...

This page needs careful reading (for meaning) in the way that I have done above and then rewriting. That takes time. Regards (and all the best). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah. You say you dont have time and yet you choose to do exactly what would consume more of your precious time - whine. It surely takes less time to fix a paragraph for prose than it takes to whine reams about it for weeks on end. This is a wiki and having been here as long as you've been, you should know by now that this is the 'pedia that anybody can edit. If otoh, it is just that you have an axe to grind, take it elsewhere. Your nitpicking isnt going to change the fact that the article is still FA-worthy, your list of 'problems' notwithstanding. Sarvagnya 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Info boxes?

I am well known for hating info boxes unless the page is very technical. This page is actually quite complex in its terms and regions etc. It has occurred to me that this may be just one of the rare occasions where an info box is called for in the lead. Giving dates, builders, regions found and prime examples. Any opinions? I have no idea how to make one but I expect between us we know someone who does. Giano (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can show me an infobox with these details, perhaps I can get an idea how to go about it. I have used infoboxes in general history related articles, but that may not be what you are refering to.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't laugh but there is a big one here [1] perhaps it can be adapted to contain the info we want. This whole idea is only a suggestion I am far from convnced myself. The other idea, perhaps a better one, is a "time line" such as can be found at John Vanbrugh just think about it. I think the page needs something to make it simpler for people to see what is going on. Giano (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh! The info on time, region and prime example already exists in the subarticle - Western Chalukya temples.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No not that like that, I mean a proper coloured column with just the temples and facts referred to in the page itself - there probably won't be room for it anyway - don't worry about it. It is looking realy good now much easier to follow as it is. I'll look ar rge conclusion later. Giano (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Word question

The article has the sentence: The dome is constructed of ring upon ring of stones, each horizontally beeded ring smaller then the one below. Is beeded correct here? I can't find a standard or technical definition that matches beeded, but the obvious correction beaded isn't a clear replacement. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is bedded, as in: The dome is constructed of ring upon ring of stones, each horizontally bedded ring smaller then the one below. - KNM ^Talk 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The original word was "Horizontal bedding" or something to that effect. Let me check.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. Went back to Jan 4th version or so, when it was "horizontal bedding".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

minor points

"Western Chalukyan political influence was at its peak during this period and dominated the Deccan Plateau." A linking verb and a dynamic verb for the same subject stop the flow and forces re-reading. "where large medieval workshops built numerous monuments" you don't build a monument in a workshop, do you? "The remaining Western Chalukya monuments are temples built in the Shaiva, Vaishnava, and Jain religious traditions." As if the aforesaid were following some other tradition. Not the case really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.238.206.94 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected two sentences. Yes, monuments are built by workshops which collectively include architects, sculptors and many other guilds.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

more

I prefer "ornamental" to "ornamented" unless I want to use a strange expression rather than one in common usage. Especially so when talking about architecture.

The lead has been copy edited so often and each copy editor has his own preference making it difficult to have a stable article. Hope you understand.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence (In the opening paragraph itself) is platitude and serves no purpose:

"Temples of all sizes built by the Chalukyan architects during this era remain today as examples of the architectural style." "Tungabhadra region of central Karnataka" Tungabhadra is linked to the article on river. It would be good if it is explained as Tungabhadra region consisting of such and such provinces.

To avoid a long list starting from Shimoga district and ending with Bellary and Raichur, I just kept it as "Tungabhadra region". In fact going back in the history of copy edits, a list of districts may have existed, but later removed. Again, Copy editor preferences.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Later: "Most notable of the many buildings dating from this period are the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, and the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district."

Are all these districts parts of the Tungabhadra region? When I look at the article named Davangere district, I find this: "Devanagere District lies in the Maidan region on the Deccan Plateau."

All the districts named are a part of the Tungabhadra Valley. Gadag, Dharwad and Haveri are just to the north, Davangere and Bellary are to the south of Tungabhadra. Most rivers of Karnataka start from the hills and flow east into the Maidan. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"The centre of these architectural developments was the region encompassing the present-day Dharwad district; it included areas of present-day Haveri and Gadag districts." Usually regions are not named at will. I wonder if the writer knows for sure.

The information is sourced from reliable sources (see citations) and not named at will. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

--210.238.206.94 (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please log in. That would make communication easier.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolding in Basic Layout (Temple Complexes) section

Does Wikipedia convention (ie. WP:MOS) allow sub-topics to be bolded within the sentence. I had always thought only the article's name was to be bolded, and that only once in the first sentence of the article more often than not. Apologies in case this has already been discussed earlier on this talk page. I was too lazy to check. :p Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer plain text in subtopics and paragraphs that are atleast 4 or more lines long. I will change it after checking with another user. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

removed bold per WP:MoS.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• That is one of the most important sections in the page. It needs to be clear and emphasized. In a long complicated page like this you can certainly bolden the initial word of a paragraph, especially if it is one people may need to refer back to when reading the page. The paragrape can be whatever length required, because they are in fact mini-sections in themselves distinct from the subject of the paragraph below. Giano (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. I have reverted back to bold.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cpedits

I made some cpedits to the "Temple deities" section.[2] Apart from cpedits for clarity, I have also moved chunks of info into other sections.[3][4] I hope these edits have been improvements. Any thoughts? Sarvagnya 00:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC) btw, I also removed a couple of images. Can someone please bring them back in the appropriate places. I have to log off now. Sarvagnya 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take care of it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

doneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image alignment

This article seems to go against all recommendations of image alignment at MOS:IMAGE. Images disrupting headings and subheadings and images immediately below subheadings. Was this not brought up at FAC? Jack (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegible image

I cannot read the text in this image until I zoom all the way in. Someone needs to fix this (increase font size). deeptrivia (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Core area of Western Chalukya architectural activity in modern Karnataka state, India

Agreed and there should be a title on the image itself. The places should really be links overlaid on the image. Jack (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention need for a ref

The Third ref, Hardy, Adam. "Indian Temple Architecture: Form and Transformation, the Karnata Dravida Tradition, 7th to 13th Centuries". Artibus Asiae, Vol. 58, No. 3/4 (1999), pp 358–362. JSTOR. Retrieved 2007-11-28. has an interwiki link to Apple computers ! Was this undetected vandalism ? Can the main editors pls check. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, JSTOR is not a publisher, this needs to be corrected as well. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably couple of refs to templenet.com are not WP:RS. Pls check this as well. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Western Chalukya architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701065442/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701065442/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701065442/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701065442/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)