Talk:Vijayanagara Empire

Flag of Vijaynagar Empire

Flag

Emblem

Pinging @Joshua Jonathan Hi!, I want to ask you about the flag of Vijaynagar Empire which is on right. The author of the image has itself stated in the description of the image that

"Unreferenced. This is not the official Vijayanagara flag, but a modern imagination of what the flag used by Vijayanagara would look like. It has no historical background (no historical information on the shade or hue of the color, the angle of lines, the curvature or straightness of lines, etc). No flag artifact or any archaeological proof of a flag used by Vijayanagara survived"

Also he had taken the source as the emblem of Vijaynagar Empire(on left) which is WP:OR as there are high chances that the design used in emblem can be different from the design used in Vijaynagar's flag. Hence, I think it should be removed.

Regards

Rawn3012 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agreed, and Pat already did, a week ago diff. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing from Empire to Kingdom

In its Historical sources it has been always reffered to as an Kingdom, it was not ruled by an Emperor but rather an king.

We should replace the Tittle of the Page to Vijayanagara Kingdom or Karnata Kingdom. WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

also called should be in first paragraph

like persian empire it should show its second most common name in fist paragraph stop reverting these edits WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

emblem and flag source

Vijayanagara emblem

Catalan Atlas Flag

source for the emblem : https://hampi.in/vijayanagara-emblem official website of the city of hampi , where vijaynagra city existed.

source for the other flag in catalan atlas : Catalan Atlas https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41309380 WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would we use an emblem, described by a non-WP:RS, as a flag?

Regarding the Catalan Atlas#India, it says:

In the center of India appears the traditional Yadava capital of Diogil ("Deogiri", or Devagiri ). On top of the city of Diogil floats a peculiar flag ()

Obviously, the Catalan Atlas does not use this peculiar flag for the Vijayanagara Empire, and even if it did, it would not be considered WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

the emblem is present in modern-day hampi and is confirmed to the emblem of the king/kingdom . WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Present-day Hampi: so, what's the relevance for the Vijaynagar Empire? And confirmed by whom? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

harvnb

@Flemmish Nietzsche: what's on your mind to replace diff all harv and sfn templates with harvnb within <ref>-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 <ref></ref> 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 {{harvnb}} Template harvnb is placed inside <ref>...</ref> tags to create shortened footnotes. (Using harvnb outside of <ref>...</ref> 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 <ref>. 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:

Template {{harvnb}} inside a <ref> 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 <ref>) 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 {{harvnb}} because you don't like it; both {{sfn}} and {{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 comment in the Featured Article Review noted the inconsistency in this page between use of {{harvnb}}, {{sfn}}, and {{harv}}, and that one uniform method should be chosen; you may think {{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 {{harvnb}} template rather than an {{{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 {{sfn}} is easier to use than {{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)