Wow, your talk page is totally blank...except the archive links. Very rare scene. :)
I was looking into Kannada literature and do we need to mention © symbol for all the images? I remember Blnguyen had commented about it during our FAC on Karnataka. The copyright info will anyway be present in the image page, we dont need to mention it in the page where the images are used, correct? - KNM Talk 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be "Seal Casket". - KNM Talk 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left an in-article comment in my edits last night asking about the sentence with Elliot and Auden. Not sure how to resolve that. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Kadamba Infobox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on the timelines of the Medieval Era and Late medieval era sections. Medieval Era starts out with the sentence "The medieval period covering the periods between 9th and 13th centuries produced, broadly speaking, writers mostly of the Jain, Virashaiva and secular traditions."
Does that mean that the Medieval Era runs only from the between 9th and 13th centuries, or that the time period was part of the Medieval Era and during that particular part of the era, mostly writers of the Jain, et. al traditions were produced?
The Late medieval era section does begin with a mention of the 14th century, but the Medieval Era section also references "the 13th century to 15th century" in the second sentence. Is there a timeline I've missed to delineate which period begins and ends? -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- let me take a look. Every author I read differs in opinion as to when medieval begins and ends and when late medieval begins. There is even confusion whan modern begins because some old Kannada literatures were written in the late 19th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence at the end of the Navodaya sub-section goes "Influence of the west inspired a new genre in writing, the Essay." Aside from the easily corrected grammar, the sentence is out of place. The sub-section mentions essays and essayists multiple times before the end, starting with M.V. Seetharamiah. Consider moving or working it into the section earlier on. I see the following sentence on Hagaluganasugalu is tied to the essay, so that content should go along with it -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to stop working on Kannada literature for while until it further stabilizes? It does still need quite a bit of cleanup, but there's not much sense in spending time working on content that may be removed or heavily modified. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence about Santipurana, "The poet however, despite claiming superiority over Kalidasa by a "hundred fold", borrowed significantly from the earlier work", which work is borrowed from in the sentence? Kalidasa is a person, not a work. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having problems interpreting the sentence "Unlike Pampa who glorified Arjuna and Karna in his writing, Ranna eulogises his patron King Satyasraya and favourably compares him to Bhima, whom he coronates in at the end of the Mahabharata war." I assume you mean coronates as crowns. Is Ranna writing that Bhima is crowned in the poem Sahasa Bhima Vijaya? Of what is he crowned king?
- Also, should we be discussing all these article matters on the article's talk page or does it matter? I don't care much either way, whatever you want. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "a novel that remained obsurse for some time." Is obsurse meant to be obscure or another word? I can't tell from the context. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In "Anantha Murthy's Prasne (1963) contains his best collection of short stories including Ghatashraddha, which describes from a boy's point of view the tragedy that befalls a young pregnant widow, and Mouni (1973), which includes stories such as Navilugulu ("Peacocks") and Clip Joint.", are Prasne and Mouni separately published story collections? They each have dates in following parens, but the descriptions are stuck together in the sentence as if Mouni is a second example of a story in Prasne after Ghatashraddha. Michael Devore (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. Carnatica.net, despite being a website, is a source that does not have a poor reputation for fact-checking so there is no validity in removing this information. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carnatic music. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am not mistaken, it applies to you too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Template:Karnataka topics ? In this, literature section is already present. Right? - KNM Talk 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, this template: Template:History of Karnataka ? In the lines of Societies, Economies, Architecture and Forts?
- If we are coming up with something like History of Literature in Karnataka (covering Kannada as well as other languages that were developed/used/evolved in Karnataka) or History of Kannada literature then we could possibly consider adding it in {{History of Karnataka}} template. What do you think? Kannada literature itself may not suit perfectly into this template, IMO. - KNM Talk 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Come to think of it, the article you mentioned, History of Literature in Karnataka would be an awesome but monumental task involving Kannada/Sanskrit/Prakrit (pre 900 CE0 and Telugu literatures (Vijayanagara), though I am not sure how "History of Kannada literature" is different from Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm winding down on the purely technical grammar and spelling errors, but there remains quite a bit of awkward phrasing and some unsupported remarks in the article. I've often left those sort of things alone because I don't have the full reference access, plus I don't know exactly what you want to say.
Either I can continue editing over the next few days and more aggressively fix areas on my own (likely making a few more mistakes that you'll need to correct, or stylistic changes you might dislike), or I can make a list of what I see as problematic for you to go over. However, if I do make a list, the chances are it would be long and you might think some of it fairly nit-picky and include matters of style (obviously you could ignore what you think is not an issue). Perhaps, too, I can do a mix of both more aggressive edits and a create a list of problem items. What would you prefer to do?
Following that and whatever additional changes you have planned, the article might be ready to go to Peer Review. I do think that additional input from one or more new editors would be a great idea to smooth out the remaining rough patches and possibly stir things up for another round of edits by everyone involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Devore (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going over the Hoysala period, here are a few questions or comments:
- Re: "and praising Virupaksha (a form of Hindu god Shiva) with an ability to express emotions as few poets could." I don't see this content in the listed reference (from Google books), also, it seems a bit POV unless its a direct quote.
- You may have to check all three volumes for this. It is there. Or perhaps I got that from a different book. I will check up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "Raghavanka brings out in an awe-inspiring manner the clash of personalities". This is quite POV phrasing because it tells the reader how to feel, i.e. "inspired by awe".
- Lets change it to "Raghavanka brings out the clash of personalities in a dramatic way or something. Just play it down.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:"It is believed that in no other language has the story of King Harishchandra been dealt with this interpretation." I can't quite make out what you're trying to say here. Do you mean something like "It is believed that in no other language has the story of King Harishchandra been interpreted in this fashion." or did I not read it correct? Also, who believes it, here it sounds like a weasel phrase?
- yes, It is believed that in no other language has the story of King Harishchandra story been interpreted in this fashion. There may be other versions of the story of King Harishcandra, but this one is said to have a stamp of originality on it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:"and was one of the earliest Virashaiva writers who was not part of the Vachana literary tradition and the patron of King Narasimha I". Does this mean he was a patron of Narasimha, or that being part of the Vachana literary tradition (which he wasn't) would normally have made him a patron of the king? -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He was a court poet of King Narasimha. He was not a Vachana poet, though he was a Virashaiva by faith. So All Virashaiva's are not Vachana writers. But all Vachana writers are/became Virashaivas (Lingayats) by faith.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever has happened in the past day is all to the good. I just came back into the article, picked another section, and didn't see anything I thought needed serious modification. The article content is moving in the right direction. Soon, I may not have any more changes to make or suggest, should these level of changes continue. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the use of King in articles is that if it is used as part of the person's designation/name, for example "King Durvinita", King should be capitalized and part of any wikilink. If it is only a descriptive phrase, e.g. "the Eastern Chalukya king Vijayaditya III", then it is neither capitalized nor part of any wikilink. I believe this is the correct treatment unless you know of a source or more informed editor that knows differently. Kannada literature is inconsistent in its treatment of how King is treated in content. I'll let you decide how or if to make any changes. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the lead paragraphs, I'm thinking the third paragraph which begins "Medieval Jain writers wrote about" can be heavily trimmed and merged to the second. It seems to go beyond a minimal summary for a lead. I'm not sure whether the fourth paragraph is much help, since it's basically a laundry list of what you would expect in literature anyway. The fifth paragraph isn't really a summary, either, since it mentions awards that aren't discussed elsewhere, maybe it could be merged or cut. This is all strictly my opinion, however, and I would expect other opinions to differ in part or whole. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want consistent British or American spelling? It's your choice as primary. I think all your previous articles were British, but I'm not 100% sure about that. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The honorifics are mixed as to whether they list the English translation followed by the native, for example, "Emperor among poets" (Kavi Chakravathi) or the reverse, as with Ubhaya Kavichakravathi ("supreme poet in two languages"). I do not know if there is a literary or Wikipedia standard for that. If I were to vote, I'd choose the native first, although either way wouldn't bother me as long as the style was consistent.
Will take care of it now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the native language version of phrases are sometimes quoted rather than in italics, as with "Anubhava Mantapa" and "thread ceremony". Is this deliberately done?
NODineshkannambadi (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the honorific Sahitya Vidyanikasha Prastharam is not translated as the others are. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abhinava Bhoja is another untranslated. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea what it means (Its in Sanskrit), but I will try to get the exact meaning.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. Found the translations in my sources.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, with these last set of changes, I am done editing Kannada literature in its current form, although I may not resist making a few minor tweaks. The article is definitely cleaner, but there remain sentences that may need polishing or rework. However, I have gone over the same content enough times that I've lost the necessary perspective to continue with useful changes, for now. I do think the article as written has a good chance to pass GA, possibly after a hold with feedback. (Several articles recently promoted to GA were more problematic than this one, in my opinion).
When you go to FAC, the wording and structure will almost certainly will require some rework to pass, but obviously you're already familiar with how that goes as a successful FA author, particularly after the Western Chalukya architecture treatment. I did recently run across a page of editors you might want to check out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team. They are all experienced FA volunteers willing to help with copyediting and references on potential FAs, and they could be valuable to streamline the FAC process. I don't know if any would have the time or interest, but it couldn't hurt to ask when you get close to FAC. Good luck with the article, I'll still be around. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! BencherliteTalk 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Vijayanagara musicological nonet, you will be blocked from editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. The templates are valid, and you are welcome to ask an administrator if you feel otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been contacted by the editor above, who expressed concerns over your recent conduct. The tags on the Vijayanagara musicological nonet page can reasonably be seen as being appropriate, as neither of the online sources provided is necessarily demonstrably a reliable source as per WP:RS. I personally am not sure exactly what the Sangeet Natak Journal is, which is the place of publication of the first source. It may or may not qualify as a reliable source. The second source demonstrates absolutely no credability whatsoever, as it was never seemingly published anywhere except online. Sources which have never been published within a peer-reviewed journal are currently very dubious sources.
- Also, unfortunately, your placement of banners on User:Ncmvocalist's talk page in retaliation for his valid complaints to you about removing the templates without prior discussion to establish that they were not appropriate could reasonably be seen as being potentially a violation of WP:HARASS. Violation of that behavioral guideline, as per that page, can be seen as being just cause for blocking in and of itself. If you honestly believe that the templates are not appropriate, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the sources are sufficient as per WP:RS, preferably on the talk page.
- As per that editor's request, I have examined the cause of this current situation and find that your warnings to him are, basically, completely unjustified. As per that editor's request, I am removing them from his talk page. This is not necessarily an endorsement of his behavior in general, simply an indication that he has done nothing in this matter which even remotely indicates that he should be issued any sort of warning whatsoever. If you honestly believe that this behavior is somehow related to some earlier or other misconduct of the editor in question, then I very sincerely urge you to report that misconduct in the appropriate place. However, based on the actions of the both of you as I have reviewed them, that editor has done nothing whatsoever which would indicate that he requires any warning for misconduct. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your concerns regarding the earlier dispute may be justified. For what it is worth, simply saying that a website does not have a bad reputation is not sufficient cause for saying that it is a reliable source, as he seems to have done in that discussion. However, that does not necessarily justify your own more recent actions, although it may well cast them in a more sympathetic light.
- Unfortunately, we really can't use "he started it" as an excuse around here, although, as someone who has been in more than a few fights himself, I wish we could. ;) Probably the best way to resolve this situation, should you find it to be persistent, would be for either one of you to formally seek some sort of outside mediation. And, certainly, formally requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion might be a reasonable move. However, possibly the best solution now would be to try to discuss on the talk page the issue of whether or not the sources meet reliable sources standards in as calm a way as possible. I will watch that page myself so that I can see if there is any sort of unfortunate conduct there from any party in the future. I also can and will tell the other party that perhaps misusing templates themselves, as could arguably be said he had done earlier, is not necessarily the best way to keep conversation civil. And, should either of you find that the other party is regularly acting improperly, there are certainly formal means to resolve the dispute should they be necessary.
- And, for what it's worth, I have real trouble seeing myself as a "sir". John is more than sufficient. John Carter (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
