Talk:Tegin Shah

Infobox and move

Hello User:पाटलिपुत्र once again your effort is really appreciated! Don’t you think it’s time to add an Infobox for all the Kabul Shahi (the Turk Shahi era) Kings ? Also about the move from Tegin Shah to Shahi Tegin: I am personally rather used to Tegin Shah since that’s the version I’ve mostly read when reading about the era and dynasty, but perhaps you have a source calling him exactly that way (not doubting your edit, just want it for myself) Best regards Xerxes931 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Xerxes931:. I checked again, and yes, you're probably right about Tegin Shah being more current. I moved it back. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Tegin Shah into Turk Shahis

Should Tegin Shah be merged into Turk Shahis? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Every bit of information (except this paragraph) is already covered at the target in a far better context. WP:DUP#2 applies, even if the most conservative reading is applied. We know nothing significant about these rulers apart from two or three factoids (at best or nil, at worst) to flesh out standalone articles.
  Fwiw, the last two/three paragraphs of the rule section are rather irrelevant and can be condensed to a single line on succession. From such a pov, the article exceeds a stub barely. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC) TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Friendly Oppose Starting to look like trolling or dispruption with so many Merge requests in the same day by the same user :) .... It is a normal process on Wikipedia to create pages on significant rulers. Often they will be expanded and become quite interesting over time. If not, they at least respond to the curiosity of the Wikipedia reader who wants information about this specific ruler. The information is also much easier to find when linking from another page (your xxxxxxx#yyyyyyyyyy types of links get broken over time with the slightest editorial change, they just don't work in the long run, and if you link to the whole master page it's a pain to find the relevant information). The main criteria for existence of a page is Wikipedia:Notability, not the fact that information is limited or could be found or inserted somewhere else. The master page usually is better off summarizing content, while the sub-page can have all the details. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  My reply remains same: onlookers can consult this thread :)

  Since you have added the line about my "trolling", do not worry. One RfC is going nicely (currently 4:1 against you) and we will open more soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not interested in your little games. Have all the fun you want, but please follow the procedures and avoid being disruptive to the Community. I'll came back to help when you start creating content again. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating content is as much valuable as fixing incorrect or poor content. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Fully agree with पाटलिपुत्र. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)