This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Why shouldn't there be a separate article when sources cover it. Definitely not OR if there are numerous sources that cover it. Magadha was a Mahajanapada and a region, while the Magadhan Empire was an empire based in the region, but included vast territories outside of the Magadha region. They are not the same. PadFoot (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 This article is simply unnecessary since whether Magadhan Empire or Magadha they are completely same entity.Your comparison is completely flawed since by this interpretation we should also have a separate article for Satvahnas since they were earlierly vassals of Mauryas but later became vast empire and so. Edasf (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Mahajanapada and an empire are different polities. A single article would be conflating too many topics together unnecessarily, and causing unnecessary complications. The Magadha article is now much less complicated or cluttered. PadFoot (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What your saying about region , I agree upon. But the seperation you have done is not based on region and political entity but rather on two political entities.
@PadFoot2008 What?? Give a source.Mahajanpadas were kingdoms your comparison is baseless those were Medieval kingdoms you can't compare them.Yes it may not completely equivalent.I am still opposed to this separation. Edasf (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mahajanapada means great kingdom.
If you want a seperation , you could do one on basis of Region and Kingdom/Empire
The Mahājanapadas were sixteen kingdoms and aristocratic republics that existed in ancient India from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, during the second urbanisation period.
Quoted directly from the main article, this is the exact meaning. I meant to say that they were not simply equal to kingdoms in general, I meant to say that they refer to a specific period of history as clearly indicated in the quote above. And please stop pinging me. I am aware that a discussion is happening here. PadFoot (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your separation gives message both were different entities which they weren't.Magadha Empire is a name used by modern scholars to refer the expanded Magadha Kingdom.Yes, Mahajanpadas were to a specific period but this doesnt proves Magadha and Magadha Empire as different.In short, your separation has grown confusion rather than ending it. Edasf (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided no reasoning for not having seperate articles for the two phases. I don't see why there can't be separate articles for the Mahajanapada phase and the Empire phase. See Kingdom of France, First French Republic and First French Empire which were the same polity and were continuous but only had a change in leadership. See Dominion of India and India which too are the same thing, and only a change in status and constitution happened. See Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire. We usually have different articles for kingdom and empire phases of the same entity. As for the Gupta era, I would be happy to create a separate article, not by the name 'Restored Magadha' as that is not what scholars use, but by the name 'Second Magadhan Empire'. PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf, Perhaps then maybe it would be best that we compile sources explicitly mentioning "Magadhan Empire" and its foundation, and see the common scholarly view. I will say that I too am a bit confused as to what its start date actually is, and it would be best that we both discuss this. PadFoot (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First is the name of this entity, Shouldnt it be just "Magadha Empire" or "Empire of Magadha" ?
Second is the 'Restored Magadha Empire" article i was talking about
which shall focus more on Imperial Guptas and Later Guptas, it will also help to fix successors and also that the timeline of the empire is seperated by 350 years. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the first, Magadhan Empire and Magadha Empire both are common names, but it appears that that the former has historically dominated, and the former is more prevalent among historians. Regarding your second point, I'd be happy to create an article about the "Second Magadhan Empire" as the Imperial Gupta era Magadha is usually referred to as by scholars and "Kingdom of Magadha (medieval)" about post-Imperial medieval Magadha. PadFoot (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine so I think we have reached a WP:Consensus here to have separate page for Gupta era Magadha and others.I think there shiuld be separate discussion for its start date with a more broader Consensus. Edasf (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its start date will be of Gupta dynasty start date. (240 CE)
Second Magadhan Empire would be confusing, i will retrain from using Numbers here as it is already confusing between Magadha Mahajanapada & Magadha Empire
Guys…if you really want to add new maps, then you need consensus first. We’ve discussed this many times on the mauryan empire talk page. Consensus doesn’t just change so easily in these instances where it’s been discussed to death. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got accepted by who? The users here who were opposed on the mauryan empire talk page for similar reasons?
Consensus in controversial topics like this doesn’t just get changed overnight. Your changes were disputed so ONUS is on you to achieve consensus.
for now you shouldnt be reverting anything until consensus is established first. If you gain consensus than at that point your free to add this gif. But until then, wait until discussions on this matter end.
“no one is adding new map, I am reverting to its stable form. Also my gif was already got accepted.” I don’t think consensus was ever reached there either. It’s relatively new content so if a user disputes this, then usually the content gets removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS. If you want to add it back, first gain consensus, that’s what the talk page is for.
“ Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”.
so for now the content should be removed until discussions on this matter end. If the discussion concludes in your favor when it’s done, then feel free to add it back. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other users to who have participated in similar discussions
There are two separate issues here. The GIF and the map with holes. Firstly, the map with holes already had many discussions in the past which favored it in the past. And new discussions are ongoing but that consensus has never changed. I’m not saying it can’t change, however unlikely. But it simply hasn’t yet. Discussions on the mauryan empire page are ongoing. Only the people who have agreed with its removal have even commented on this page. Wait until they get here.
Which leads me to my next point. The mauryan empire talk page had many discussions about this in the past which favored the holes map. So it doesn’t suddenly change to “No consensus” because you guys wanted to remove it. That just means discussions are ongoing.
The gif matter is just ridiculous because your claiming consensus on a discussion which began yesterday. The other editors who disagreed with you in the past haven’t even commented on here yet. Consensus takes more than one day to change and I think you know that so obviously, ONUS is not on me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed in the talk page to add the gif and no user disputed (even padfoot who was contesting it accepted it later) it except for you, so you have to seek consensus first before outrightly changing it, regardless of it being a new content, Padfoot's map similarly is a newly added map too which has absolutely 0 consensus either. No one strongly disagreed or agreed with it and the discussion is still going on. Numerous editors like Patliputra, Edasf, Jingjong (If that is his name?), crypto disagreed with the said map. There was no RFC either. So what padfoot was adding is genuinely a new content with no consensus, in such circumstances it is way better to add a more long standing stable version of the map which was in the article since a long time. Which crypto did.
"Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored much of what was written.
Firstly the “map with holes” discussion was something that was carried over from the mauryan empire talk page. It didn’t just start here. Numerous discussions in the past have already addressed this and each time, the map with holes was favored. So regardless of your issue with the gif, you should have never removed the map with holes per wiki policies such as WP:ONUS and consensus. You’re supposed to wait until discussions end and only add it if you gain consensus. And consensus doesn’t just change overnight. You guys are rushing to gain consensus before anybody has a time to respond. Nobody who took issue with the removal of the holes map has even addressed their concerns here on the talk page yet, because the topic was brought up YESTERDAY! Which brings me to my next point. How can you seriously say that consensus on the gif matter is closed when the discussion just began?! Again, consensus takes time to change.
But back onto the matter on the map holes. @Joshua Jonathan revealed several links of discussions which ended in favor for the map with holes. So consensus was reached on that. But let’s say for the sake of argument, that consensus on that matter wasn’t set in stone, as you believe. You do realize that it still was the previous content? And previous content shouldn’t be changed without consensus which you wrote word for word was the case? So why did you remove the map with holes?
As for the gif matter, as I’ve mentioned previously, the discussion began yesterday. The fact that you tried claiming that consensus was reached immediately is just out of this world to me. You should wait until other editors who have clearly voiced their opinions in favor of the map with holes to express their viewpoint here on the talk page. So far only people that have agreed with each other on the previous discussion have even commented on here except me. So again, wait more than one day for this matter to be settled.
I'd like to see sources that actually mention or treat a polity as the second Magadhan Empire, I also think creating a separate article would be pointless, if sources do not treat it as such. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the discussion has been going on since the mauryan Empire's talk page, but there was absolutely no clear consensus or agreement over any sort of map. The holed version faced numerous disputes and is still being disputed. There is no consensus yet established. So there is no question of publishing it again. The one without holes was a long standing version which prevailed in this page [2] until padfoot added it few days ago here [3] (which hasn't met a consensus yet). And eversince then it is still being disputed.
As for the gif's discussion begining yesterday, it was still quickly agreed by many users..even those who initially disputed it, thus since there is no one disputing it, we can clearly publish the map. Yes surely we will remove it if someone disputes it and the consensus changes, but let that happen first before outrightly removing it.
Regarding the holed map, I would say it again, there is no consensus for the said map. It is still being disputed and the discussion is still clearly going on, the fact that it is still being disputed by more than 4 users is more than enough to not publish it until a consensus is reached. And no, it was NOT a previous content, this was the long standing version [4]
And again for the gif, there are no disputes yet, those who disputed it earlier (like padfoot) accepted it and a consensus is reached, unless there are disputes we will begin a discussion for a new change. And I am extremely glad that you didn't prefer to edit war and choose to discuss in the talk page instead. Thank you.
Status quo was retained on the main article. Thus, the more accurate hole map is being used instead of the completely incorrect vast space map. The 'hole map' has been used since 8 years on the main article, per multiple previous discussions. PadFoot (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 no need, since you bifurcated this article from main article Magadha, the Mauryan Empire was used there was this[5] for a long time. Also, this is irrelevant to brought any other article discussion over this page. Your bifurcation of the Magadha article is also not well-discussed. NxcryptoMessage09:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Magadha article only included the Mahajanapada map at first. I, PadFoot, added the maps of the various dynasties that followed the Mahajanapada era to the infobox, and now removed it. I have created a seperate article instead now with its own information as well as some content from Magadha. See this article as a creation of a seperate article and addition of some information from Magadha to this article, it is not a fork per se. The discussion at the Mauryan Empire certainly concerns this article's portrayal of the said empire as well as other portrayals of the same anywhere else on the (English) Wiki. The discussion on the main article concerns the map of the Mauryan Empire, not just that article; the discussion is taking place on that article simply because it is the main article. PadFoot (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reply to this. I think you misunderstood, a consensus on one page of Wikipedia does not apply to other pages unless the consensus is agreed upon by the entire community. Also currently on mauryan Empire page there is no clear consensus. Its already disputed. The holed one hasn't been discussed yet.. There is no solid conclusion on that.. and the non holed version map started getting discussed already. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Apparently the discussion is still going on in the main article, but even if we agree that it has been calmed down, You can't just outrightly post that map without consensus. Since the previous map was a long standing version until 15 November when you added this, and eversince then your edit is being continuously contested by various editors till today. Just like the holed version is being used since 8+ years, So is the Non-holed version.
I don't think you understand what a long standing version would mean a stable version for at least a year or so. The article was only created less than two weeks ago. A stable version doesn't exist. The hole map is the primary map on the main article since the past few years. PadFoot (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Exactly, the map had been here eversince this article was created until on November 15 when you added a map..a map which is being continuously disputed and contested by various other editors in this article with no consensus whatsoever. The hole map being primary in the main article doesn't affect this article as I have already made this clear (until it is accepted by the entire community) , Going by the same logic, The map without holes was being used since years too and is still being used. So it should be applied here too. This article content has been forked from the Magadha article, where the Mauryan map was presented in a standard form, so it should remain the same here as well. As for your claim that the hole map should be primary, that seems like POV pushing, because both the standard map and the other map are present in the main article. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read my previous comment. Local consensus(which hadn’t even been achieved because it takes more than one day to gain consensus) does not override wider consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no wider consensus to use holed map alone, this is why both maps are being used primarily even in the official mauryan page after countless discussions. You can't use the consensus of one article on some other article until it is accepted by the entire community. There is no consensus here and you can see constant disputes regarding the map here. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t believe I have I have to rewrite this(accidentally deleted everything), but what do you guys not understand about consensus?
“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale”
You can’t just change consensus here acting like it’s not directly linked to the discussion at mauryan empire. And yes we have reached consensus on that matter in the past many times. You can’t just say it’a “no consensus” because you guys raised concerns with the map, it doesn’t just change once someone has a problem with something. There already were past discussions cementing the favor of the holes map, which Joshua Jonathan had sent prior, and I will send again for your viewing sake.
So again, it’s not a no consensus on that matter. And more importantly it takes more than one day for consensus to form. The only people commenting here are the people who agree with you from the previous conversation. Per the quote I shared, you can’t just make a new consensus just because you guys gathered up in another place when there is already a consensus in place from another discussion. So stop removing the map with holes.
“ Don't use local consensus to ignore wider consensus”
to further cement the point that consensus can’t be reached in one day
“Consensus is reached”
A proposed resolution in which all the responses are at least "neutral" is deemed to have achieved consensus. Everyone has in effect said they can at least live with it. The definition of "all" is responses after 72 hours or by all the editors who have posted or responded to positions in the discussion.”
the reason I made this topic box was to discuss about the pop-up image or the article's "thumbnail" and not the map itself, but seems like people kept discussing about it instead. JingJongPascal (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Just a reply to this. I think you misunderstood, a consensus on one page of Wikipedia does not apply to other pages unless the consensus is agreed upon by the entire community. Also currently on mauryan Empire page there is no clear consensus. Its already disputed. The holed one hasn't been discussed yet.. There is no solid conclusion on that.. and the non holed version map started getting discussed already.”
Yeah my previous comment addressed this but that’s evidently very wrong.(replying to Malik)
“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale”. And as I’ve proven, there already was a consensus and you guys discussing your disagreements with it, wont just consensus unless the discussion on a wider scale ends in your favor. And presently it hasn’t.
Those consensus which you posted/published were the consensus of the mauryan Empire's article which obviously wouldn't affect this article at all unless it is accepted by the entire community.
“Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"
Exactly, you can't use consensus of one place/article and use it on the other articles until it is accepted by the entire community on the wider scale. Which you are doing here, imposing the discussions of mauryan empire on this one, This is why you will still see the holed map and the normal map both in the Mauryan empire page being used primarily. Thus , there is no consensus to use just a holed map alone, there was never one. If you are posting the map, either you post both i.e the holed version and the without holed version, or you dont. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the discussions which you have posted, there was a common consensus among all of them that both the maps, with hole and without hole will be used in the Mauryan Empire's page as primary maps. Not specifically one map alone. Thus it would be evidently wrong to just use a holed map here when there is no clear consensus on using that map alone. Which padfoot had been doing. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One, I already agree with padfoot, he’s the one who revered you. Two your moving the goal post now. You manually reverted my edit which included the holes map. Now all the sudden you’re okay with the holes map being there. So your argument has changed completely. Which means a lot of what we previously discussed applies differently.
“”Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"
Exactly, you can't use consensus of one place/article and use it on the other articles until it is accepted by the entire community on the wider scale. Which you are doing here, imposing the discussions of mauryan empire on this one, This is why you will still see the holed map and the normal map both in the Mauryan empire page being used primarily”
Are you serious? This is a brand new article. The mauryan empire page has been there for years and thus discussion was largely centralized there. Consensus was formed there as well. If consensus wasn’t achieved there, then why do you think we’ve had the holes map for years? Obviously that discussion applies here and you’re acting like it somehow doesn’t.
if you really want the map without holes from the other article to be on here, than remove the gif which doesn’t even share the same borders as the one from the mauryan empire page, and add that one instead. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
