Talk:Vijayanagara Empire

{{yo|Flemmish Nietzsche}} what's on your mind to replace [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1241480687&oldid=1241472435 diff] all harv and sfn templates with harvnb within -tags?!? Please restore all, and discuss first the next time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:Well we should not be using half sfns and half harv or harvnb; this is an issue that was brought up at the FAR that needed to be addressed but I don't think ever was. I did not expect the change to be controversial; can you explain what you think is incorrect about it or needing discussing?

:This was not done just because I "prefer" one way over the other, and prior to the change there were a relatively equal amount of harvnb and sfn, and I thought about both, but the former made more sense to comply with existing quote styling and cite formatting in the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:And removing harvnbs, which you did with your edit, which have been here for 15 or so years equally is not constructive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

::The point is, you put the harvnb-tags within tags. That's totally unnecessary; {{sfn (or harvnb)|Name|year}} works on it own. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::The text on {{tl|harvnb}} {{tq|Template harvnb is placed inside ... tags to create shortened footnotes. (Using harvnb outside of ... tags was deprecated in September 2020).}} would say otherwise. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Well, then we should use sfn, shouldn't we? That works without . I see no point whatsoever in using shortened footnotes with double tags; it's a totally unnecessary extra amount of work, taking 10 extra keystrokes per reference. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

::::PS: what's FAR? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I had to follow a couple of links, but harvnb was depracated because the use of parentheses for inline citations depracated; that is, for example "England is a monarchy (Smith 2001, p.1)." So, indeed, no use to put harvnb within ref-tags; we better replace them with sfn. Harv, harvnb, and harvtxt are usefull in explanatory notes, to avoid cite-errors. See also Template:Harvard citation no brackets#Applications of these templates:

::::{{talkquote|Template {{harvnb}} inside a span can be used to create a shortened footnote that is linked to the full citation at the bottom of the article. Template {{sfn}} (without the use of ) has the same effect, automatically adds a period (full stop) after the page number, and combines identical footnotes automatically.}}

::::Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::What you're essentially saying is that we shouldn't use {{tl|harvnb}} because you don't like it; both {{tl|sfn}} and {{tl|harvnb}} are perfectly acceptable ways of formatting shortened footnotes, (see H:SFN) and the deprecation RfC in no way suggested that using harvnb within ref tags is henceforth less preferable, only that inline uses of the template are no longer allowed. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Vijayanagara_Empire/archive1#c-SandyGeorgia-2021-11-15T21:00:00.000Z-FARC_section comment] in the Featured Article Review noted the inconsistency in this page between use of {{tl|harvnb}}, {{tl|sfn}}, and {{tl|harv}}, and that one uniform method should be chosen; you may think {{tl|sfn}} should be used, and it certainly is (marginally) faster to type, but as you said replacing harvnbs used in explanatory footnotes (many of which in this article are placed in simple ref tags with a {{tl|harvnb}} template rather than an {{{tl|efn}}) with sfns will create bountiful cite issues, so when choosing which style should be uniformly used, I decided upon harvnb. If you adamantly want to use only sfn, fine, just reformat all uses of harvnb correctly such that it will create no visual difference for the reader. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::What I'm saying is that {{tl|sfn}} is easier to use than {{tl|harvnb}}. Harvnb in explanatory footnotes shouldn't be replaced, of course; they're fine there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Right, so then the onus is on you to convert all of the 100+ harvnbs outside of explanatory footnotes to sfns if you don't like harvnbs; otherwise the revision from before your cite style change should be restored. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I have put a new map in place of older one, the new one also shows its influence (Tributaries in Burma pegu)

By source

Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1955) [reissued 2002]. A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar. New Delhi: Indian Branch, Oxford University SharmaPutra (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Rawn3012 SharmaPutra (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, I appreciate your efforts to improve the map of Vijayanagara and to provide viewers with the nearest greatest extent of the polity. However, I believe it may not be the best representation. Here are several issues with your map:

::1. The inclusion of coastal areas is disputed, as the rival Bahmani Sultanate frequently attempted to control the region, leading to changes in sovereignty over a short period. Hence, It would not be a good idea to include it.

::2. The inclusion of Sri Lanka has also been contested by some editors in the past, and the consensus was to remove it from the map. See the talk page archive

::3. Graphically, the map is not as appealing as the current version. Aside from Vijayanagara, many areas appear blank.

: Also, you need WP:CONSENSUS for adding your map to the article as this is a disputed subject and the current version has only been obtained through consensus.

::Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rawn3012

:::Okay! But

:::This below map is same as the current one, but in better graphics. SharmaPutra (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: SharmaPutra (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Indian empire of Vijaynagar map.svg SharmaPutra (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:SharmaPutra is another sock, move along. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Okay Rawn3012 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There are five instances where Bahmani Sultanate is misspelled as "Bahamani" Sultanate. I would fix it, but it's currently semi-protected so I can't TheNamesJonas (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Could you tell us where each typo is so we can correct it? AlvaKedak (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} AlvaKedak (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, in introduction Yadava is linked to wrong page - It should be linked to (Yadu_(legendary_king)) of Chandravamsha lineage. 117.215.175.184 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} request is unclear. In the introduction paragraph, Yadava refers to the Yadava clan, who were an ancient Indian people who believed to have descended from Yadu. AlvaKedak (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In the Architecture section's 3rd paragraph, it says "The Vijayanagara temples of Kolar, Kanakagiri, Sringeri and other towns of Karnataka; the temples of Tadpatri, Lepakshi, Ahobilam, Tirumala Venkateswara Temple and Srikalahasti in Andhra Pradesh; and the temples of Vellore, Kumbakonam, Kanchi and Srirangam in Tamil Nadu are examples of this style." Here, the style being talked about is monoliths, implying the temples to be monolithic. However, that is not true, For example, the Kolar temple has monolithic features but in itself is not a monolith. Therefore, there should be an edit made to remove this misunderstanding. Mjg.is.da.best (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)