Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

I have added an image which shows the evolution of Kannada script. It is taken from an old book and it is already torn. Hope it may be helpful to everyone who is interested in the language. Also I created an article called "Karnataka history timeline". Check it out if possible.

Kannada script evolution

Karnataka History Timeline

Thanks.Jrsanthosh (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed from about 1600 CE, the date of the earliest known work" is a contardiction to the section "Literature prior to 16th century". I am not sure how a kingdom can have no literature in 2 centuries (1399 CE foundation to 1600). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Dinesh, I have posted the draft article on the above subject in my sandbox - User:Nvvchar/sandbox. Please have a look at it.--Nvvchar (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if there are substantial differences between the 2001 edition (the one used in the Kingdom of Mysore article) and the original 1980 version of the Kamat book? The 1980 version has a mere 11 pages on Mysore between 1399 and 1799 and I'm having a hard time reconciling the text of the article with the material in the book (I don't have access to the 2001 version). Thanks! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much difference there could be. I can check later on when I get home. Also, if you can tell me which part of the article and which sentences you are having trouble reconciling, we can get together and resolve it. There has been lots of paraphrasing and copy editing done, in addition to usage of other books (Subrahmanyam and Chopra etc). We can however go over this one at a time and see what has changed or how to re-phrase it.Regards, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. But, since the page numbers are totally different, it's hard. Let me know the length of the section on Wodeyars before 1799 in the 2001 edition. If that is very different, then I'll know we're working with completely different texts. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The pages completely about Wodeyars up to 1799 AD is also 11 pages but the page numbers may not be the same. But he also discusses Mysore relations with regards to Chitradurga Nayakas, Yelahanka Nadaprabhus and the Marathas in about 10 other pages. In addition, information about sources of Mysore history are discussed in 2 pages early on in the book too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply

OK. It's probably more or less the same, except for the page numbers. I'll do a cross check tomorrow. Thanks! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)reply

As I noted in my recent comment at Talk:Kingdom_of_Mysore, I have changed my mind about helping you copyedit the article Kingdom_of_Mysore. I still do not know if you or Fowler&fowler et al are more correct in basic content issues, but the addition of four tags to the article immediately after the FARC indicates there should be a productive response. At a minimum, we should be able to improve the article's wording for current readers while content changes are being discussed. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply

I dont see any content changes happening unless the taggers realise that the only path is the path of discussion. Adding tags and stuff dont work and if anything, weakens their arguement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply

As you wish, but I will likely continue posting on sections which are not being actively edited. You or others may, in a small way, find the comments helpful when edits commence. I don't think the comments could be used against either your article content or its FA status. The list should be a net positive if copyedits can reduce areas of contention and help damp the fires over there.

Although multiple tagging after the FARC must be frustrating, you may have an uphill battle getting all of the current tags removed (though, even assuming I agreed with the opposition, one tag with a talk page pointer ought to be enough). POV tagging disputes can be difficult to resolve because they are not entirely factual in nature, worse when they involve the glacially slow processes of dispute resolution. I did remove the cleanup tag based on commonly judged quality thresholds for clearing articles from the cleanup list given its 2-year backlog and in comparison to most articles already tagged for cleanup. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply

I'm not trying to sabotage the article. I think that the history section is pretty accurate and conforms with what diverse sources say and I'm ok with the title. I do feel that you and F&f need to figure out a way to make the article better, particularly by increasing the diversity of sources, but that's up to you guys. Now that I've read a bit and have access to the references, I'll tweak, add, and change a bit, but in the spirit of improvement - not destruction! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)reply

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User_talk:Dineshkannambadi
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---