Talk:Gavaksha

Reference error

The good news is I made some improvements using WP:SFN. However, I inadvertently introduced an error for a "listed reference" which I am unable to locate and correct. I apologize, as I would prefer to clean up my own mess.
"Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEHarle199449.2C_166.2C_276" is not used in the content (see the help page)."
Would appreciate some Help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed Phew! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The bad news is I reverted the lot as undiscussed cite-banditry - see WP:CITEVAR. I might add you left a chunk of what you made into Note A stranded in the text, but it doesn't matter now. Unfortunately I missed the first batch or I might have saved you some trouble. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod: Paying heed to CITEVAR and keeping old cite style is a good idea unless the style does not aid verifiability checks. My concern with barebones cites such as "Harle, 48" (or similar) is that it makes it slow and difficult to check new content for OR or vandalism as innocent newbies/ socks/ internet warriors add new content or change the old one. We then need to search which Harle book is being referred to and does Harle (or whoever) really state what the newly updated summary states. To identify the source, we must in AGF hunt through the listed references, which significantly slows our productive and helpful co-editors. Either sfn or harvnb or equivalent formats are far better, as it eases locating the claimed source in one click, from there to the source, which speeds up verifiability checks. FWIW, I am not concerned with your edits and contributions. But, given the vandalism and OR I have seen over time, I urge you to reconsider the cite style and welcome contributors who migrate "barebone etc, difficult to WP:V" cite formats, or recommend the use of harv etc style. I find such contributions and suggestions helpful because they aid verifiability and thereby the long-term quality of the article, something WP:CITEVAR guidelines do recommend. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gavaksha citation format

User: Johnbod, You are right. I was wrong. I should have posted a notice under WP:CITEVAR. I thought that it did not change the substance, and presented everything you had, albeit in a better more functional way. I apologize.
See WP:Own.
"Cite banditry" indeed.
Apparently the interest of the readers is secondary for you. You wanted to make a point. Touché. That being said, the article was better and more useful before your revert. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First stage

@Johnbod: The first sentence of the main article and First stage section needs some clarification/rewrite: "The arched gable-end form seen at the Lomas Rishi Cave and other sites appears as a feature of both sacred and secular buildings represented in reliefs from early Buddhist sites in India, and was evidently widely used for roofs made from plant materials in ancient Indian architecture" is long, dense and confusing sentence. Is that section trying to explain the history of "gavaksha"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems much clearer to than the alternative you added below, which I removed: ""The Lomas Rishi gavaska was evidently widely used for roofs made from wood and plant materials in ancient Indian architecture." Many or most readers are likely to take this to mean that the particular arch at Lomas Rishi was the model for wood & thatch buildings elsewhere, which is the reverse of the case. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the wording I added was confusing. I am not asking that we add that back. I am asking that we clarify the para you added. Is that section trying to explain the history of "gavaksha"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it is. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Toda Hut

Johnbod: you left the link Toda+hut+chaitya for me to review. We have two separate articles on Gavaksha and Chaitya, thanks to your effort. The Toda hut-related literature better fits the Chaitya article, doesn't it? Even there, one needs to better explain Zimmer's / etc proposal and the scholarly disagreements that followed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - it should be at at both. The Gavaksha/Chaitya arch motif began life as part of a complete building, and that context needs mentioning and illustrating. See the other talk page for my comments on the alleged 'Zimmer proposal'. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is OR. The source does not use the word gavaksha or comment about it. Please do not do OR:Synthesis. If you find as RS that directly links gavaksha to toda hut, I would welcome it. If you are right, you should have no problem in finding one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As the article explains (and references), "gavaksha" is a term used for later elaborations of what is called the "chaitya arch" in its earlier manifestations. You will be aware of the references used linking those two. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It comes across your personal "wisdom, prejudices, opinions", more blogging by you. No, the article does not include any references or explain "Toda Hut" to gavaksha. What you are doing is WP:Synthesis style OR, which asks, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So far you have argued your opinions on the talk page, rather do the simple thing: find an RS. Once again if I must repeat, "If you find an RS that directly links gavaksha to toda hut, I would welcome it. If you are right, you should have no problem in finding one." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)