Template talk:Middle kingdoms of India

Template fork

Jguk appears to have created a fork of this template at Template:Middle Kingdoms of India and is in the process of changing articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] to use the fork instead of this template. Mirv has demonstrated that the only difference in Jguk's fork is era style [19]. Jguk's fork clearly violates the guideline, and this action is especially inappropriate in light of the fact that Jguk is in the midst of his second arbitration case for pushing his preferred era style on Wikipedia. Note complaint at WP:AN --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Relook required

I removed Pandyan kingdom as it was being shown that it existed during the 6th BCE which I think is factually wrong. I think somebody needs to take another look at the template especially the Southern kingdoms column. Most of the dynasties/empires seem to have been advanced by 200-300 years. Sarvagnya 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pandyan kingdom

There are many sources including Greek travellers sources from the period of the 6th to 4th century BCE that mention the Pandyan kingdom. Therefore it was readded to its place. Wubbabubba 08:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The first mentions of Chola, Chera and Pandya are only in Ashoka's edicts of the 3rd century. Not before that. Please keep out original research. Other than this, almost everything is wrong about this template. Its also very difficult to edit without breaking something else. Chalukyas for example are from the 5-6th century but have been pushed into the 8th century! Satavahanas who ruled over Karnataka and AP apart from Maharashtra and other parts dont even find a place in the Southern kingdoms! I tried fixing all this but this template is too confusing to edit. I'll try editing it again later maybe, but for now I will be removing the original research added by Wubbabubba. Sarvagnya 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually many sources including Tamil literature, Roman and Greek travellers including Megasthenes (350 BCE - 290 BCE) (4th century BCE) in his Indica mention the Pandyan kingdom before Ashoka. So try getting your facts right. Wubbabubba 09:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Other sources as well as Ceylon history points to the existence of the Pandyan kingdom from atleast the 6th century BCE. Although there are very few mentions for this 6th century BCE period that are present and completely reliable, this all points towards the unknown ancient antiquity, like with the Cholas and Cheras, of the Pandyan dynasty.Wubbabubba 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek accounts, Sangam literature, 6th BCE. Please. Where are your sources? Even Pandyas contradicts your claims. I'll be removing it unless you show exceptional evidence for your exceptional claims. And ofcourse, like I've said before, the whole template is royally messed up, not just Pandyas. Sarvagnya 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you read? Read my posts again before you revert. See what I wrote ABOVE, as well as BELOW. Pandya dynasty (of unknown antiquity) have been put in the 4th century BCE bracket for now. Read Britannica article on Pandyas.Pandya dynasty Learn some history. If you insist on pushing your POV, and reverting, I will be forced to seek administrative action. Wubbabubba 08:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For compromise, I have placed Pandyan dynasty in the 4th century BCE bracket for now (during Megasthenes' time). Wubbabubba 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

4th century? eh. THIS is your latest edit and unless I am seeing things, the Pandyas have yet again been pushed back to 5th century BCE. What do you take readers for? Not just Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras too. Your dating is at odds even with the info on Pandya, Chola and Chera. Unless you can provide sources, I will be tagging the article. Sarvagnya 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Southern Kingdoms

This section is a little confusing. Many dynasties and kingdoms existed at the same time as others, during different points in history, controlling different parts of the southern peninsula etc. It might need a review. Wubbabubba 10:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Gandhara

Gandhara needs to be added under foreign kingdoms--D-Boy 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I know, Gandhara is only a geographical location, not a kingdom. Regards. PHG 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, read the article. it exsisted around 6th cnetury BCE.--D-Boy 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates and structure

User:Srkris moved the Chola, Chera and Pandyan kingdoms to the 4th century C.E. They're generally taken to have been attested in the inscriptions of Asoka, so I've moved them back to the 3rd century BC. I've put them below the Satavahanas for convenience - whether they're above or below isn't really a major issue.

The more general issue is that this template is badly broken. Most of the southern empires lasted centuries, and trying to pigeonhole the Chalukyas or Rashtrakutas or Cholas into one single century simply doesn't work. We need to seriously rethink how the template is structured and how it represents dates. One option I can think of is a timeline with coloured bars, but those with more experience in creating templates can probably come up with something better. -- Arvind (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the move Taprobanus (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this look ? User:Vinay84/Template:Middle kingdoms of India I have used the duration as I found in the pages(some of them have horrible formatting where even start and end dates are not clear). If finally implemented, users can change the order, dates and add any new kingdoms archaeologists discover in the future

--Vinay84 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Replacing the template

As discussed earlier, I have created a new template User:Vinay84/Template:Middle kingdoms of India for the page which is better formatted and reduces some of the problems people had with the current one.I intend to replace the current template with the new one after a discussion.Suggestions and comments invited. --Vinay84 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Straight lines always have some issues, for example there is a gap between so called early cholas and later cholas. It si not clear that gap is visible in your timelines. Taprobanus (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, I used to think that Cholas were continuous.Any future edition can be done because the code for years is very simple and clear.Anything else?--Vinay84 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has any further Issues, I am going ahead and changing the template

--Vinay84 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New template version

The new template version is impossible to read in a normal screen resolution, and I'm sure it must be worse in smaller size screens. If there's no compelling reason to keep this, I'm going to revert back to the original version. -SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the fact that there's no opposition to this, I'm reverting to the old version.-SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Change into proper table?

Cool template! Really nice. I only wondered: wouldn't it be better to turn it into a proper table, with a row for every century/period, instead of two rows and very long columns? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Now it appears too large and disorganized. (gnanvit (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC))

reflist breaks pages

The reference list breaks on the page Gandhara - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean that the references don't appear in the reflists of the pages where the template is used? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved (unless there is a page which uses the {{efn}} template...). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Grotesque

This template is trying to do too much and is far too big as a consequence. The need for it to be placed above the Refs section defies the usual convention that such navboxes appear at the end of articles and the sheer size of it adds a bunch of irrelevance before the final article-related matter, ie: the Refs and Ext Links.

I realise that it may not be possible to remove the refs but can we at least have a collapsible version, and have this default to that state? - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Indian History}}

Done. See also the other template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yippee. Thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Western India

Hello.. Sitush, User:Joshua Jonathan. The information regarding western India should have its own column. They are wrongly placed in gangetic plains. Please correct it as I am not comfortable in editing this complex template. See Template:History of Gujarat for example of kingdoms.--Nizil (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: I think you're right; I'll modify it later, when I've got more time. It's complex indeed... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Late Vedic = Brahmanic, Shramanic = Kshatriya?

Can you provide some references for this part of the template? Johannes Bronkhorst in his Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India does make the distinction between a Greater Magadhan culture centered in the eastern Gangetic plain vs the orthodox srauta Vedic culture of the west. But I have found no author making the connection between Shramana as a movement and the Kshatriya class. That the Buddha was born into a kshatriya lineage seems to be more coincidence than the outcome of any kshatriya social process. (gnanvit (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC))

After a second search through the sources, it seems there is a connection made between the kshatriya social class and the sramana movement. But still I have rephrased the names in the template with just "orthodox Srauta culture" and "Shramanic culture". (gnanvit (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

This template should be renamed

For reasons obvious. It covers history well before the so-called Middle Kingdoms of India. (gnanvit (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC))