Talk:Ajanta Caves

Frescoes
The paintings in the Ajanta caves are often mistakenly referred to as frescoes. A fresco refers to the application of colours to moist lime plaster. At Ajanta, the paintings were done on dry wall.

http://www.tourismofindia.com/hiwhh/ajantacaves.htm

- Not according to the article at present, which says they are not frescoes & then describes exactly a fresco technique. Johnbod 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More properly?
Why is Ajanta "more properly" Ajujnthi? Is this a more Sanskritic form? In the modern vernaculars, at least, it is अजंता or ajantā. Quartier Latin  1968  19:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be Ajantha actually as in Marathi it is not त but ठ --Kaveri 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ajințhā is the name of the village nearby that has lent its name to the caves. The British could not pronounce it correctly, and they started calling it Ajanta. From the above discussion, both "Ajantha" (with h) and "Ajujnthi" are incorrect. In some south Indian languages t of Sanskrit or Hindi becomes th. In fact, Ajanta or Ajintha are neither Hindi nor Sanskrit! Ajanta is what the British started writing in literature and reports on the subject, and Ajintha is what the local inhabitants of the region still call the caves in Marathi language!Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates
The page points here: 20°32′01″N, 75°44′59″E The caves are actually here: 20°31'54"N  75°44'21"E

The difference is small, but if you don't know what you are looking for you would never get to the caves from the village indicated.

I am sorry but I disagree with whom ever wrote the comment above. If you use Google map to look for the caves you will see that they are located on a curved mountain ridge about two miles  north-west of those coordinate. --Mirrordor 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

Reference citations - a suggestion of a model to follow
The article Hoysala architecture is an example of a properly sourced article per WP:V and could serve as a good model for this one. Each sentence in Hoysala architecture was written by an editor and all information there is referenced so the reader can see for him/her self the information in the original source and whether the Wikipedia editor has interpreted it correctly or not. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the copy and paste tag that is in the different sections, should the article be reworded and maybe even reduced slightly. Mindys12345 এই সভ্যজন অসমৰجميع أفراد المجتمع ..
 * I've looked into the copy-paste citation. Tested many parts of the article, and found the identical texts are always derived from Wikipedia, not the reverse.  Hence, I have removed the plagiarism tag.  If someone knows better, please restore it.  Also, much of the sloppy text could hardly have been from an academic source; so I've done a cursory rewrite.  This is an important article, which needs to be brought up to a high standard.Fconaway 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, someone keeps inserting this external link *Details of each & every caves over and over again and each time it is a different ip address, but I believe it is the same person. Should this link be blacklisted. When this web address gets inserted into this article, it is also inserted into several others and in some cases the article is not related to the subject matter. Mindys12345 এই সভ্যজন অসমৰجميع أفراد المجتمع ..

Copyright violation
The entire Period of the Caves section of this article was lifted directly from Exotic India Art. Because this represents a copyright violation, I have removed the offending text. Kindest regards, AlphaEta T / C 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The coordinates need the following fixes: remove minus before longitude - location is in Cuba, not india!


 * [TYPE HERE]

--67.164.156.103 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * — The coords of the village have been corrected and the coords for the caves themselves have been improved to point at the caves, not at the village. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
By, do you mean that the stuff removed (most of the article) is a WP:COPYVIO? It is not clear that it is WP:OR, indeed this doesn't look likely. If so, can you add a note at the talk, saying which work etc. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi John. The removed material related to a series of edits in December 2005 which were made by User:Rksingh1970. He is by his own admission an art historian actively documenting the caves. His analysis (while something of worth) was technical, rarely contextualised, and (most importantly) not reflected in any other literature (besides one sentence discussing the opinion of his fellow historian Walter Spink).

As brutal as it maybe doing this kind of "article surgery", I think it was a necessary decision to start building a more generalised article that is better for readers and complies with Wikipedia's policy and style. That said, if you have a reasonable counter-argument, then feel free to revert me! SFB 14:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have reverted - I'll copy this to the talk and explain why.

Copied from User talk:Sillyfolkboy & my talk Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, the stuff seems fairly basic information, which does in fact refer to other sources (eg Dieter Schlingloff, now removed). It's just a pity he didn't reference it with inline cites, but from what I see there is no reason to call it OR. I have reverted to the previous edit, by which time much of his stuff had already been removed - probably too much. I'll look at that some time if I can.  Given the truly appalling state of almost all articles on Indian art, it seems a great shame that when we actually have one that had competently-written expert material, that gets removed. If you want to build a "more generalised article that is better for readers and complies with Wikipedia's policy and style" I suggest you should do that by expanding the lead & adding introductory sections first. I don't agree with your characterization of his additions (or rather what was left by the time you removed them), though there is room in the article for material in simpler terms. If it is a copyvio, that of course is different, but in the absence of evidence we should assume good faith. His various articles etc have the most respectable publishers, & prima facie he is certainly a WP:RS. The whole point of WP:OR is that it does not have an RS.  I might add that another reason not to strip the article down to a very short one is that before long people fill it up again with copyvios.  Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in 2005 I wrote a short intro and some stuff on Caves 1 and 2 leaving the rest for others. But I am surprised that even after 7 years of gap, the page on Ajanta caves has grown only little. Now, when I have some time, I wish to complete the page bit by bit in a month or two. I shall try to write briefly on all the caves. Every day, I shall be adding or deleting things, because I am able to notice many incorrect or outdated information here. As my book on Ajanta (An Introduction the Ajanta Caves http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CxogemPuCgIC&lpg=PR9&dq=ajanta%20caves%20singh&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=ajanta%20caves%20singh&f=false) may show, there is considerable new knowledge on the subject brought forth by noted subject experts, e.g. Dieter Schlingloff, Monika Zin, Hans Bakker, Walter Spink, the present contributor, etc. Scholars collectively agree that a lot of contents in older literature is now invalid. So, please do not mind if I shall be deleting a lot of that stuff placed by some wikipedia users. Editors are free to revert the content back if my deletions/additions are found unreasonable or unwarranted. And, yes, I shall be mindful of adding citations (but in that case, almost every sentence may require one, because the above-named consortium of scholars, including the present contributor, strongly disagree with a lot of published research older than, say, three to four decades!) Wikipedia editors must decide whether they want older ideas or the current ones!Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! But your memory is at fault here! The page is now almost 4 times longer than when you last edited it in 2005, and pretty much entirely Spink-compatible, relying heavily on his works, which are fortunately available online in very large part. Talk of earlier scholars is pretty much a strawman; where their views are given they are described as outdated, though it is noted for example that the ASI website for example still uses a much later terminal date than Spink, which we should report. Your first edits are frankly puzzling - you have removed a fair amount of Spink material for no very obvious reason, & it is not clear to me that they are an improvement (ignoring your grammatical errors). I'm pretty sure Spink is not averse to describing the earlier period as Hinayana; if you feel there is a problem with this more explanation is probably needed. It is quite possible that I and others will indeed "mind if I shall be deleting a lot of that stuff placed by some wikipedia users" so I would go carefully, and perhaps concentrate on adding material on the caves that are not yet covered individually. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Few things I may mention. 1) My English is not good. So, kindly help me there by necessary editing. My grammar is terrible. I hire language editors before my things go to the press. 2) As I said, it is such a topic where, indeed, every subject of ancient India where the writers must be extremely careful while writing. I follow a self-imposed discipline: write what is based on hard evidence, no personal opinions or views; at the same time do NOT let earlier, outdated, incorrect information pollute the current reader's mind. Archaeological Survey of India's account of Ajanta caves are ancient, outdated. None of the Ajanta scholars any more ascribe to the official view. There is a brain drain in ASI. So, I would be wary of citing the ASI. Sadly, even UNESCO has done little about to update their records on Ajanta's history (they depend on the ASI's account, and I don't know if anyone is there reading the current research). I favour Spink's views. But other writers have criticized his views. So, the best things should be to cite Spink where he is indisputably correct, and not to cite him, where his views have been contested. I deleted some sentences attributed to Spink because 1)the portion deleted is now a common knowledge and no individual can be credited for that piece of wisdom. 2) Because, even Spink is wrong many a times, e.g. he still calls the caves by Hinayana and Mahauyana phases---something the circle of Buddhologists working on Ajanta (e.g. Dhavalikar, Schopen, Schlingloff, Zin, etc.) can't stand, including me! Please, hold on until Jan. Let me complete. Then please proceed with any surgery you like. In the end, I shall be placing the citations, as I normally do.:)Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. I read Johnbod's talk again, and on second reading, I feel that I have created an adverse impression in his mind by whatever things I wrote or whatever changes I did. I was only thinking of coming to the service of common good by sharing whatever little that I know about the subject. But, now I would not proceed ahead, unless being invited to do so. Kindly leaf through my book placed first in the external link. If you want any content quality of that kind, kindly write me back, or else I am signing off from wikipedia forever.:)Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no wish to keep you from contributing here (or of course in other articles on sites from the period, which are mostly in much more basic condition than this). You will see above and from the edit history that I restored most of your original stuff, which someone had removed, when I began to work on the article a few months ago. I have looked through your new book which is certainly a WP:RS as far as I am concerned, and a very useful addition to the literature. Under Wikipedia's policies, while the "official" dating remains conservative, we have to mention that position in the article, even if the predominant view given is the "new" one - now not so new, as I found it reflected in tertiary general works like Michell (1989) and Harle (1994). We do not have quite the same freedom here as you do in writing your own book.  The objection to the terms Hinayana and Mahayana is a general issue for Indian Buddhism, which actually has little real impact in discussing Ajanta because construction did not take place in over long period when Buddhism was in transition - whatever one wants to call the earlier and later forms. The terms still have wide currency and are well understood by a general readership - which is not the case with the dynasties involved. Until your changes "Mahāyāna" was only used 3 times in the article, 2 of those in consecutive sentences, and Hinayana just once. Mostly the neutral terms "early" and "late/later" were used to distinguish the phases.  I have no problem with qualifying the terms to reflect fashions in scholarly usage, but as they remain in wide use as a convenient way of distinguishing periods in Indian Buddhism, and should be mentioned, with qualification, for those who are used to them. The more detailed material you have now added is perhaps too much to come this early in the article, and might be better in its own section lower down. but let's leave it for now. It would be useful to have some references to modern scholars who take issue with Spink, so long as the points are not too detailed. And many of the significant caves still have no description at all. The article also has general sections on the architecture and the painting, but not yet on the sculpture, which would be very useful, and perhaps a better place to make some of your points re the content of the images in the later period. In general other articles on early Indian art (eg Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, Indian rock-cut architecture and others are very short and basic, and would greatly benefit from an expert eye. Many of the pictures in the categories on Commons are not assigned to a cave, and adding this information would be very helpful also. Please consider this a general invitation to keep contributing here, which I hope you will do, and I will leave you to get on with doing so, unless asked to comment, until you are finished - apart from some tidying and English points maybe. You removed the paragraph beginning "Like other ancient Buddhist monasteries..." summarizing the use of the site, without adding anything equivalent. Somewhere the way the site was used needs to be covered, with a brief summary early in the article. This also could expanded in a new section.  Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks. NONE of the fifth century caves was ever fully completed (Spink and Singh, chapters on caves 1, 2, 16, and 17). MOST of the fifth century caves were NEVER dedicated or put to worship. In fact, only a couple of shrines were hurriedly dedicated, even before the cave's completion, and worship started. But, even such worship activities were marred by ongoing work on pillars, paintings, sculptures, etc... And, if this chaotic scene inside the caves (the sounds of hammers and chisels) were not enough, the Vakataka empire collapsed after the death of Harisena. The site was abruptly abandoned, and all concerned fled from the region. Thus, to make it brief---the site was never 'used as a college' or something. These are wild assumptions made by many Ajanta writers in the past without the support of any evidence. That is why I earlier deleted the whole of the first paragraph. I can explain every single word that I would be deleting or adding. Kindly feel free to question.:)Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is some evidence from literary sources, some of which your edit removed! We need to say something about how the site was used. There were clearly several caves able to function for both worship and/or living throughout the 2nd period, and ongoing building work is typically a sign of activity rather than inactivity in a location. Cologne Cathedral was unfinished for many centuries while it continued to function perfectly well, likewise Christ Church, Oxford, whose first buildings remain unfinished to this day after being left in the 1520s. Not sure who is speculating wildly here. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the removed portions back again so that I can see that source. Literary source? There is NO piece of ancient literary source referring even remotely to Ajanta (except Xuanzang who never visited the place, and said the roaring of the elephants ((cave 16 elephants)) could be heard far and wide). John, please... I request you with folded hands to research properly before making such a point. May I give you the emails of six noted Ajanta experts (Spink, Schlingloff, Monika Zin, Hans Bakker, Dhavalikar, and Jamkhedkar), and request you put the question to them; if any one can endorse your point, or the point that Ajanta was envisaged or used as a college, I shall accept my ignorance, and ask for forgiveness.)Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Post script: I better leave this article as is. It is not possible to go ahead when you are bringing in the examples of western cathedrals to make a point on ajanta. Kindly revert back the changes I have made so far (as I am not familiar with wikipedia tools that allows an author to reverse the changes.).Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was indeed Xuanzang you removed (not added by me) here. It is fairly easy to use the page history - see the tab at top and Help:Page history. My point was that you have removed all reference in the early part of the article to the function of the site, and in defence put up a load of fanciful speculation about "worship activities were marred by ongoing work on pillars, paintings, sculptures, etc... And, if this chaotic scene inside the caves (the sounds of hammers and chisels) were not enough,", for which there is, as you well know, only very indirect inferencial evidence. College is a broad term, and maybe not the best, but there was certainly some sort of activity, other than construction, going on, and the reader needs some sort of account of what it might have been.  Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the deleted stuff again. Yes, that whole paragraph indeed should be deleted, as the information it provides is outright INCORRECT. If you do not trust me send that paragraph, please, to any one of the above-named living ajanta experts. And--if I may repeat---if any one of them can endorse that paragraph to be factual, I shall ask for your forgiveness. No John. Sorry, I cannot go on. You are making an outlandish point, untenable objections, and asking me to place things to the detail that should not go here in a article of this kind meant for general audience. With best. Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am merely asking for a short statement of some kind as to the function of the site - ie what is the CORRECT information then? You have removed such a statement, and so far replaced it with complicated material on the development of Buddhist iconography (at the start of the history section). I leave it for others to judge who is giving "detail that should not go here in a article of this kind meant for general audience". But do carry on, & we can look at it all afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between inquiry and objection. With utmost reluctance I must say that your approach as an editor is not helpful. Without adequate knowledge on the subject you are making objections to factual information, and supporting in favor of non-factual information to be included and retained here. It would scare away serious contributors. I have no intention to continue any more, and have no patience to fill the pages here rather than in the main article! Rajesh Kumar Singh (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How can it be 'Indian' art?
Quote: The caves include paintings and sculptures described by the government Archaeological Survey of India as "the finest surviving examples of Indian art, particularly painting'

How can it be 'Indian' art? India is a nation that commenced in 1947. To use an allegory, if the site had been situated in current day Pakistan, would it be mentioned as finest example of Pakistani art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.18.22 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Question to think indeed. MediaJet    talk   04:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. "India" predates the present state by acouple of thousand years, and all sources use the term - look at the references. Yes, Indian art also includes stuff from the territory of modern Pakistan. How else would you describe it? Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Spink (2006)?
Many of the citations are to "Spink (2006)". Spink has quite a few publications on Ajanta (see http://www.walterspink.com/history). Which one is it? Malaiya (talk)
 * Er, the one listed at "References", as is normal. I misunderstood your edit before; if you want to expand the title there, once, please do so, but the short form is all that's needed in the many citations of the work. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Paper on the various conservation methods used on the paintings
It is rather extensive:

http://www.ijcs.uaic.ro/public/IJCS-13-17-Singh.pdf

©Geni (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Numerous image galleries
The article has too many images and galleries, making the article difficult to follow and a photo album-like. We need to consider a major roll back per MOS:IMAGES and MOS, though you clearly have put a lot of hard work. FWIW, I like the quality of your images, and perhaps we should make a page on wikimedia and link it here. That would productively reuse the good work you have put in, and make those images available to the interested readers. ,, , others: Thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(ps): Note that too many images make an article difficult to access/read on mobile devices, and for readers with access challenges (braille readers etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I discovered reading the article that it was nearly impossible to have a precise understanding of the caves at Ajanta through mainly text-based explanations. I guess very visual subjects, such as those pertaining to art or architecture, have to rely more heavily on visual elements. I followed my instincts, and tried to document the reality of each of these caves, from the point of view of someone who really wants to understand how they were built and what they are like (unfortunately most of us don't have the time or money to actually visit the caves). Of course I also added a lot of text in order to give a more precise account of the caves (I have a few more to detail further). Opinions welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ps): I just checked the article on a smartphone, and it actually seems to display quite well. But again, opinions welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that there are too many images, but I don't like the newly-introduced block gallery format. The old simple one was preferable. Some more images should be in galleries. The suggested gallery page on Commons is an entirely different question, and not an alternative to what is done here. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnbod: Thanks for watching this. If I counted right, we are past 115 images already, including those in and out of the numerous galleries. Would you have an example article that does what you suggest and has numerous images? पाटलिपुत्र: Smartphones are a fraction of the phone / mobile device market. Should an encyclopedic article attempt to be a virtual visit, a tour guide that is a substitute for actually visiting? FWIW, I am not suggesting deleting all images you added, but a reconsideration plus possibly ideas to better organize whatever images we keep. I will go with the consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Ms Sarah Welch. To answer your question, you can check History of Painting, or Sculpture, for examples of articles on visual subjects making an intensive use of images (a lot more images than the Ajanta caves article actually, and I think, often in a less structured way).पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The History of Painting article is difficult to read, already tagged by someone few months ago. It took me a lot of time to swipe through on my mobile devices. The sculpture article is a bit better, but some sections have issues. Johnbod has created some nice "list of..." articles related to artworks. Would two articles, this and one in Johnbod's list format be an option? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? I haven't created any "List of ..." articles. Generally I hate those. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A separate page, Ajanta Caves paintings would surely be a good idea. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have much of an opinion on the matter, but it seems to me we should quote policy on this to come to consensus.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: I saw your edits at the List of gold-glass portraits (should have not used the word created, sorry; contributed would be better perhaps). Now back to this one. I tried this article on my mobile devices. Too much swiping, the images go on forever. We need to do something. Either spin off the images into a separate file that includes specific location information / contextual explanation for each image / etc. Or use the proper template that defaults the gallery to hide. Or some combination. I am leaning towards JJ's suggestion above. पाटलिपुत्र: BTW, all captions with any claims / interpretative information must be with a WP:RS. would you have any suggestions on the best template or coding approach to manage the 120+ images recently added into this article, so that it works well with a range of devices and in most of our world with really slow download speeds? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added a better version of a pic, for heaven's sake. JJ's suggestion above (like his suggestion below) goes completely against WP policy. Such a page would not survive, under WP:GALLERY. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there are no easy tech solutions to the issues here. There will always be an inherent tension concerning the use of images in an article that is fundamentally about a visual subject. We do have policy and guidelines to help us, and solving issues will depend on editors reaching an acceptable agreement. These are the relevant policies and guidelines that I'm aware of:
 * Manual of Style/Images - particularly MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE
 * Manual of Style - particularly MOS:TEXTASIMAGES
 * Image use policy - particularly WP:IG
 * Manual of Style/Accessibility - particularly the requirement for alternative text
 * In summary: images
 * should be an essential part of understanding the topic (not just illustrating it);
 * are not meant to be a complete substitute for text;
 * should use galleries to compare and contrast, not as a showcase;
 * can be viewed as a collection on Commons;
 * should have sufficient alternative text to allow a reader using assistive technology to get some idea of what is being shown.
 * These considerations need to be made in the context of an article that is about cave monuments that are richly visual, so it will be necessary not to be too prescriptive about how the images are used here. Personally, I think the article reads rather like an illustrated catalogue, but that's not forbidden; it may well be the best way of organising the subject matter here.
 * I should add that I agree with that a stand-alone article consisting of the images would not survive. The only policy-compliant way to reduce the number of images from this article would be by using links to one or more galleries on Commons, and Template:Commons and category-inline could be used to link those. But before going down that route, I strongly recommend trying to reach some consensus here on how best to proceed. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RexxS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It may not survive if it is merely a gallery of images, a photo album. It may survive if the Ajanta Caves paintings included a discussion of the paintings / mythology behind each. Of course, this discussion would need to be summarized from scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GALLERY, the use of several galleries within an article actually seems to be fully allowed by Wikipedia, provided the galleries have a clear informational value, which I tend to believe is the case in this article (generally a few pictures have been selected from Commons to give a visual description of each cave). Without such visual information, it is clearly impossible to have an accurate understanding of the individual caves. WP:GALLERY also cites as an example to follow this article: 1750–75 in Western fashion, the structure of which does not seem to be too far removed from that of the Ajanta caves article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GALLERY, the use of several galleries within an article actually seems to be fully allowed by Wikipedia, provided the galleries have a clear informational value, which I tend to believe is the case in this article (generally a few pictures have been selected from Commons to give a visual description of each cave). Without such visual information, it is clearly impossible to have an accurate understanding of the individual caves. WP:GALLERY also cites as an example to follow this article: 1750–75 in Western fashion, the structure of which does not seem to be too far removed from that of the Ajanta caves article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How about we use the summarized guideline provided by RexxS above as a screen for what to keep and what to move to another article / trim? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have reached anything like a consensus for deleting what has been done, quite the contrary. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I had removed mostly the repetitive images, and some which were not clear. There is no need to repeat text or images. Technically, the best thing to do here is to BRD and add those images + galleries after consensus. That is what I have just done. Lets not edit war over it, and wait for a consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not have any consensus for deleting these 50k of referenced content . So far nobody has criticized this content besides yourself. Knowing that, the best way to have a discussion is to keep the material on display, so that everybody can give their opinion in a civil manner. Just wait for the discussion you launched to come to a conclusion.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not how BRD works. Anyone interested can still view your version by clicking this. Repeating and showcasing images is problematic, and not consistent with content guidelines. I am fine with proposals above, but no one is saying lets showcase images. The galaxy of images you added generally do not contribute to understanding. We need to identify and include those that do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So far in the discussion, User:Johnbod disagrees with you, saying that "I don't agree that there are too many images", I disagree with you too, User:Farang Rak Tham is neutral, and User:RexxS recommends you to be cautious and to build consensus, so you have absolutely no basis to delete 50k of good quality (as you yourself said initially) referenced content, thereby removing from easy viewing the very content we are supposed to discuss. Furthermore BRD, which you invoke, clearly states that "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.". So please take you time, and try to build consensus before moving into massive and unselective deletions. More comments welcome पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Johnbod isn't stating that repeat images are okay. He and I are agreeing that more images may be okay. Joshua Jonathan supports moving the images out. FRT is neutral indeed. When I said images of good quality, I had not checked the relevance and whether they enhance understanding. After RexxS guidance, I checked. I see problems. RexxS is suggesting we seek consensus, and gave us a guideline which your images do not satisfy. Please gain consensus and do not edit war. This is how BRD works. How about we take one section at a time and understand how this flood of images improve understanding. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We obviously shouldn't have random galleries of images that are loosely related to the subject at hand, but the article did at least attempt to disperse the galleries according to the specific caves in which they were found. The galleries were perhaps a bit too large with 8 or 9 images each; 4 images per gallery would suffice. For instance, the Good article I wrote somewhat recently on the Mosaics of Delos feature small galleries of 4 images each to demonstrate the Ancient Greek/Roman mosaic artworks found in the various houses and quarters of the city. This is just a suggestion, though; obviously articles about art such as History of painting, Hellenistic art and Chinese art have some rather large galleries for each section to illustrate the various sub-topics. This article, Ajanta Caves, is primarily about the caves themselves, though, and not necessarily the individual artworks. A new sub-article such as Ajanta Caves paintings could provide a more in-depth discussion and showcasing of the various paintings found within the caves. This could be a tidy solution and compromise, so that we can still have an article with lots of images without shoving most of them into the neglected realm of Wikimedia Commons. The paintings aren't the only feature of the caves, though, since there are sculptural and architectural themes to consider. I believe these deserve their own sub-sections in this article with an ample amount of images as illustrative evidence. -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ms Sarah Welch, there are too many images in पाटलिपुत्र´s version. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of images. Per WP:IG "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected," similar or repetitive images and WP:SANDWICHING should be removed. Like Pericles of Athens, I also think that "4 images [one line] per gallery would suffice". पाटलिपुत्र, many of the images you added are excellent, I just think we should be more selective. Too many images in an article can be distracting.  JimRenge (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * JimRenge / Pericles of Athens: Thanks. I like both your suggestions... [1] smaller galleries that help improve understanding or demonstrate something that the section is explaining, and [2] a separate Ajanta Caves paintings with a more in-depth discussion of paintings in various caves. That syncs with RexxS and JJ comments above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't like the idea of splitting the paintings away from their context (ie the rest of the cave/s) at all. In addition doing so might well not reduce the number of pictures that much. The most over-repeated images of the biggest version of the article were of the halls and stupa/dagobas in caves 10, 19, and 26, all shown in pretty similar views at least 3 times - the last about 7 I think in various forms. One possibility is to move text and pictures to one or more cave by cave articles, with a concise summary here, but I don't think that is necessary or desirable. One might do it in a couple of cases. I do think the form of gallery पाटलिपुत्र´s version (mostly) used unhelpful, as it takes up lots of space and is too "in your face". Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that splitting content to a different Ajanta Caves paintings sounds like a very bad idea. A cave is a whole, with its own origination, architecture, sculpture and painting styles and evolution. These caves are so rich that it would be a disservice not to account precisely for each of their characteristics. I am seeing a lot of support above for streamlined galleries of about 4 images: that seems like a good compromise since it should still allow for a rather comprehensive description of the caves. We need plans, pictures of the front and the inside, and of course the major works of art decorating each cave. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
Some suggestions, largely guided by comments of RexxS above:
 * A gallery for the subsection titled Monasteries

Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks fairly good to me. The captions should be expanded. The correct term is "plan" rather than "layout". Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Paintings
, others: Should the painting section be separate, or merged into each cave discussion? Each style has its advantages. A separate section allows us to discuss and compare the paintings, their evolution, etc. Merging it has the advantage of clearer and comprehensive discussion of each cave. We should pick one style, and avoid repetition. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the usual way is to have a cave-by-cave approach, since content, styles and epochs can vary quite widely (from 1st century BCE to 5th century BCE, from Hinayana to Mahayana, from narrative (Jatakas) to devotional) according to the context of each cave (purpose, origin). For example, Caves 9 and 10 are well known for some very early paintings, which were superseded by other types of painting several centuries later. I also don't think we should limit ourselves to paintings, as some caves almost don't have any paintings, but almost entirely rely on sculptures. Cave 19 or Cave 26 almost entirely relies on intricate sculptural works and offer some of the most impressive Chaitya decorations. This does not preclude however adding one synthetic general paragraph on the general characteristics of paintings (or sculptures for that matter) at Ajanta.
 * I understand the work to document all these caves one by one on Wikipedia is huge and not very gratifying and may well never be completed the way things are going, but I have already done it, using the Public Domain descriptions of Fergusson (out of convenience and because I don't have access to more recent material). "Old" is not necessarily "bad": I do believe Fergusson can be used on a temporary basis (the same way he is used as a reference in many modern works, or the same way the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is used on Wikipedia for some arcane historical subjects), to be refined progressively by more modern content, as his matter-of-fact architectural and artistic descriptions are still essentially valid after more than a century (I had already corrected or removed obviously dated content or interpretations). I think we should reinstate Fergusson's detailed cave-by-cave descriptions, which I do believe are fairly correct and are a benefit to the Community, until the time Ms Sarah Welch can come up with more recent versions is she has the time and desire to do so. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * पाटलिपुत्र: Fergusson got things wrong, per new sources. He can be and is mentioned already, where appropriate with his theories compared to new findings. Your attempts in this article, and elsewhere, to predominantly rely on old publications - sometimes very old - is problematic given the availability of new sources, as it creates serious NPOV issues and presents misinformation / discredited information, albeit with good intentions. Much recent scholarship is available about Ajanta, cave by cave. See Spink's publications and by others, for example. On paintings.... for many years including the ~5 year old version of this article, in Johnbod's watch and significant contributions, this article has had a separate paintings section approach. Let us give others some time to reflect and comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am surprised to see how little the article has improved since 2013 (your link: Johnbod's watch). I understand your concerns about older sources, but it's surely better to have comprehensive cave-by-cave coverage with a few issues (if Fergusson's work has issues, which I truly believe are few given the essentially descriptive nature of the portions of his work I had selected) than to have no coverage at all. If you keep opposing my selections of Fergusson's work (which I notice nobody else is doing in the above comments), at least please replace it with an in-depth cave-by-cave coverage from the sources you have access to, I have absolutely zero issues with that. Until then though (I can see you are already focusing on other articles), please be open to alternative contributions, even though they have their weaknesses. I believe we should take the opportunity to incorporate the comprehensive content that has already been created, and on which I have spent days of painstaking work, filtering and selecting what can be used from Fergusson, and then improve it as you, me and others find the time and energy. Only one thing counts: let's propel this article forward and give Ajanta the extensive cave-by-cave coverage it deserves! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can you see you are using 1880 books as sources (J Burgess (1880)), so that should clear things up! As your own usage of this material shows, there is no point in rejecting these older but sometimes very thorough and Public Domain sources in their entirety. They can be very interesting: isn't the point to be selective? Descriptive  material  is generally fairly reliable since these ancient caves haven't much changed in a hundred years and these authors were often very meticulous (more than many modern ones), but of course we should be more careful with interpretations and opinions, which can be dated, and should often be left out. It's much better than to have zero coverage of most of the caves year after year (decade after decade?), but of course, anytime we can find better and more modern material, we should give it priority and replace. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Photographs, images and sketches can be okay from older sources, not their theories, speculations, interpretations or commentary. We can't copy-paste / paraphrase huge chunks of non-HISTRS sources, when they have been contested by later findings and scholarship. Since you admit you haven't access to / haven't read recent sources, I request you try a good library. I am glad you agree that "we should be more careful with interpretations and opinions, which can be dated, and should often be left out". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, but my point is that factual descriptions are essentially OK too (they are fundamentally physical structures and designs put into words), and that was the bulk of all the work you deleted. I'm glad to see that you've started to expand the cave-by-cave content though, that's good for the article. I'll try to contribute what I can to reduce your workload. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact this version, in March 2015, at 62kb crude size (after Rajesh Kumar Singh's period editing) is probably my "final version", though I never saw it as completed. The approach I had in 2013 was to have intoductory sections on the paintings (and their copies), sculpture and architecture (in that order), above the cave-by cave sections, of which I had done 4, with a round-up of the rest.  This still seems clearly the best approach. Why पाटलिपुत्र moved the general paintings section almost to the bottom I can't imagine; it is above all the paintings that make Ajanta unique and iconic. I have put it back (perhaps still too low), but for the moment left the copies bit near the bottom. So, no, I don't agree at all that "We should pick one style, and avoid repetition."  The paintings need an overall section, but of course have to be discussed with each of the caves in which they appear. i


 * When I was working on the article I found large amounts of Spink's many volumes available for large stretches on google books, and elsewhere (plus of course other sources), so never felt the need (as far as I remember) to look at Fergusson. The caves vary greatly in interest and importance, and I don't think each needs its own section; many can be covered in a sentence or two, but perhaps 8-10 could do with their own sections.  This is a very popular article, averaging over 2,000 views a day, a high proportion no doubt in India, and very often using mobile, and we should not kid ourselves that many of these are actually going to read most of the article, especially at the maximum size it reached.  On the other hand, if the official guidebook is still as poor as when I went there years ago, many people actually at the caves may welcome details on individual ones, within reason.  The old section "Iconography of the caves" was unreferenced, and I think a compromise text between myself and Rajesh Kumar Singh, who is certainly an expert but had some COI & other editing issues.  It covers important issues that we need in the article and it was unhelpful to just remove it. In general I'm by no means sure the article has improved at all since 2013/15, though of course much remains the same - I haven't done a close analysis of the changes. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod: You touch upon some valid concerns, and may be mixing up edits by पाटलिपुत्र and I (and other editors post-2015). I too am concerned with the article size, the ability to download it by mobile users with limited bandwidth or non-smartphone devices. This will get worse if we summarize each cave then add 4 images per cave because that will make this article balloon. The paintings are important, but by no means do they overwhelm everything else. These were religious structures: worship halls and monasteries. This in itself has significance given their 2nd century BCE to 5th century CE dating and their history. The frieze narratives such as those from the Jataka tales are important for many reasons. There is more. But we can't convert this article into a book! It is supposed to be an encyclopedic summary... a balance between being a comprehensive resource and a good summary. In my review, some sections have improved since "your final 2015 version", others not at all. It has our attention now, along with some other very seasoned editors who have commented above / edited recently. Let us try to nudge this article with improvements. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the paintings may not quite "overwhelm everything else", but they are most certainly what singles Ajanta out - compare the Aurangabad Caves not too far away, which have architecture and sculpture (not quite as good I admit) but no painting. When I went I was literally the only visitor (many years ago admittedly). That's an article that could do with expansion.  I don't know that adding a section and a gallery for each cave has been proposed. But all those "needs expansion" tags should be removed.  I'm sure there has been some improvement, but there has also been some regression on the art history side.... Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Ajanta paintings are significant, particularly those relating to the numerous Jataka tales. I too have visited them, once with a former ASI chief, learnt a lot and I am delighted I did. Agree, we don't need a section for every cave and 25+ galleries, and then more elsewhere in this article. Thats just unnecessary and back to what triggered this discussion. I saw पाटलिपुत्र active and wanted to avoid edit conflict. I will do a bit of quick fix now, return in a few days to add a bit more on various caves from Spink and other sources. The Aurangabad Caves article is weak indeed and needs some serious attention. Our Arts space articles relating to South Asia and Southeast Asia, in general have this issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please use the established citation style for this article
Put the book in "references" and just have a short title and the page number in the individual cite. 02:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Template:Sfn.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at it if you like, but please don't use it here (or anywhere else it isn't already the established style). See WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnbod: right now, we have a mix of styles in this article. JJ's suggestion of "sfn" is used in about a 100 cases already. One consistent style would be best indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And who introduced that, Ms Sarah Welch? About 2015 we had a largely consistent style, given the number of drive-by editors this article attracts. we should stick to that, since there has been no discussion to change it. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fergusson 1880 source
पाटलिपुत्र: Why rely on the 125+ year old Fergusson source (even if its copyright has expired)? Why not more recent publications such as those by Cohen, Spink, etc? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The detailed descriptions of Fergusson remain true to this day, with a few minor exceptions. But this is just a start. Please feel free to update/ correct with other sources you have access to.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble verifying a few things you added. For example, with this edit you added Fergusson|1880|pp=337-338 to the first para. Where is the support for it on pages 337-338. It may be an inadvertent error, because how would Fergusson in 1880 know Spink who was born much later, or what ASI board reads like now? In general, if new RS have been published we should use those. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. These two paragraphs were inadvertently included when I added the refs for each of the other (new) paragraphs. By the way, these two paragraphs were initially lacking any inline reference. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. That too needs a fix. But Fergusson source has issues, if I recall Spink. I will check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source issue

 * पाटलिपुत्र: The Pia Brancaccio source is saying something different (which I have corrected to, but strangely you reverted me). Here is what Brancaccio writes:
 * (...) the depiction of so-called 'Persian embassy' on the cave 1 ceiling (fig 112). Amidst ganas, fantastic animals and flowers is a scene where a man, seemingly dressed in Sasanian garb, drinks wine served by two attendants. Rather than representing the representing the Sasanian embassy received by the Chalukyan king Pulakesin II at the beginning of the seventh century (Spink 2005, Schlinghoff 1987), this painting seems to depict a genre scene lifted perhaps from an imported luxury object, a plate or a textile. (...) two foreigners, possibly from Central Asia. (p. 82)
 * Could you please quote what is it in that source that supports what you summarized here and revised here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ps) This 'foreigners' thing is getting overemphasized in this article. We do need to state it, but don't need to repeat it. There are a zillion paintings/sculptures/artwork in Ajanta Caves, all with meaning, significance and cultural value. Cherrypicking one or two fringe ones and repeating it with pictures and texts is inappropriate because it creates balance/POV issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Brancaccio himself herself acknowledges, there are two modern interpretations regarding the content of this painting: the first one (Spink 2005, Schlinghoff 1987) says that the painting represents the Sasanian embassy received by the Chalukyan king Pulakesin II at the beginning of the seventh century, the second one (Brancaccio's opinion) says that this painting seems to depict a genre scene lifted perhaps from an imported luxury object, a plate or a textile. I believe it is important and interesting to present these two modern scholarly views, just as Brancaccio himself herself does, rather than only select Brancaccio's own personal preference for the second interpretation. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pia Brancaccio is a she. That is not merely Brancaccio view, please see her cites. Or read Spink etc. We can't resuscitate old discredited theories, make them as significant as the mainstream scholarship per POV guidelines. There is a similar problem in using 125+ year old sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

copyright?
would you study the two images from Albert Hall Museum we have on commons, and, please. They are neither originals nor enhanced photos, from what I remember from my visits to Ajanta and the photos I have in my own archive library. Since you too have been there, do these photos look like faithful copy of what you saw? To me, they look like some recent artist's paintings inspired by two paintings in Ajanta. One of them has been added to this article AGF. It would be nice if they indeed clear PD-Art and we could use them, but can we? are we okay on copyright? पाटलिपुत्र: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The just-legible label at the bottom (better on #2, or in the Hindi) says they were done in Jaipur in 1938, not from the original image, I would guess; probably from photos. There are better images to use for copies: [File:2006AY0603 jpg lajanta Gill.jpg This by Robert Gill] for one. I don't know what these are] - copies I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's another similar work from the Albert Hall Museum by the same uploader. It is actually a reproduction of a well-known Ajanta scene (Foreigners among the devotees adoring the Buddha in Cave 17), but the style is a bit pictorial and naive rather than purely reproductive, and the border is an invention based on several Ajanta designs. As User:Johnbod said this is probably late-19th, early 20th work, and the photograph was taken by the uploader in Albert Hall Museum. Copyright seems OK to me. I don't think we should use these paintings for documentary purposes as they are not very faithful to the original style of Ajanta, but possibly only for explanatory purposes (these painting have the benefit of being very clear), or, possibly for a "modern influences" segment if the story behind these paintings was known... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnbod: I read 1938, indeed! That is past the 1923 cut off and we should presume the author lived a long life after 1938. Would not clear PD-Art. Fair use wouldn't apply, not in this article. Let us keep it out. The Robert Gill Ajanta collection is a good idea. I will see what V&A has these days, as they used to keep the Robert Gill collection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The paintings with their museum notice are visible on site here and here पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The painting of the Adoration of the Buddha above was commissioned by Thomas Holbein Hendley (1847-1917) for the decoration of the walls of the hall of the Albert Hall Museum, probably circa 1887, and he had the work painted by a local artist variously named Murli or Murali (in Jaipur Nama: Tales from the Pink City by Giles Henry Rupert Tillotson p.156), so the work is pre-1923. This work is otherwise presented as characteristic of the end of the 19th century ("artist Murali and Kishan are good examples of 19th C. painting" in Wall Paintings of Rajasthan p.23). The two Buddha paintings highlighted by Ms Sarah Welch indeed seem to be posterior (1938), and by a different author, although his name is a bit hard to read with certainty. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Images and sections, too many!!
पाटलिपुत्र: we have too many images and splitting sections is not improving the article! As Johnbod and others noted, we need to keep article size and the reader in mind. We don't need separate section for every cave, nor for 6U, 6L, 9A, 9B etc etc such as one with this edit. The structure and images we choose is not for illustration nor to show off (not that this is your intent, but it is the result). Our choices should be based on what helps understand the subject (see RexxS suggestions). There is little point in another standing or sitting Buddha in every section, nor another image of another cave interior. We should discuss, invite comments and reach a consensus. I suggest we revisit the ideas of other editors, see above, about possibly splitting the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article has become pretty great and informative, and reaches the objective of quite precisely describing what Ajanta is about. It has truly become encyclopedic. I am not trying to over-split things, but I thought the upper and lower levels of cave 6 are so rich and different that they somehow need to be highlighted, the upper level in particular is quite amazing and original. Thanks for all the work with Spink and others! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreigners and NPOV
पाटलिपुत्र: The foreigner scenes as a % of all scenes or murals are very few. We need to summarize this, but overstating the foreigner section creates an NPOV and undue/balance issues. Further: [1] the scholarly dispute about them need to be woven in and explained together to avoid POV pushing or confusing the reader, not listed in separate subsections, per wikipedia content guidelines; [2] we must not use wikipedia voice, but attribute because much of that is WP:Primary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The discussion of Ajanta scenes with foreigners in the literature far exceed the surface % of these paintings, although foreigners are quite ubiquitous, especially in caves 1 and 17. This is not to us to make painting surface calculations and allocate proportions accordingly. Rather, we should give this subject due treatment in coherence with what academics do. For example Spink or Branccacio discuss these in depth. I think the point is the huge cultural and international significance of these "foreigner" paintings, rather than anything about their surface. I think, at this stage, we have a pretty fair and balanced treatment of this subject.
 * 2) I don't quite see what you consider as primary sources here? Are you saying that Spink or Branccacio are WP:Primary sources? I don't think they are at all, but do you mean something else? Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not true! They are not ubiquitous at all. Several =/= ubiquitous. Almost all are South Asian faces / dresses. Yes, scholars state that some murals contain foreign faces and dress, but we can't overstate this. What you have been doing with "foreigners" section is undue, and has created a serious imbalance issue. If we keep bulking that section, we must post 100s of photos of Indian-looking faces into this article to bring some NPOV/balance, since this is an article about Ajanta Caves, not an essay/blog on foreigners in Ajanta! You are misreading Spink. Brancaccio is indeed WP:Primary and careful enough to admit that she is speculating, in her few page discussion on foreigners. South Asians are extremely diverse, in their looks, hair and skin colors. We cannot use old non-HISTRS cites, as it comes across as POV pushing. The image shown above with red squares you add is over-emphasizing based on a 1950s citation. It is also wrong, because Spink and other scholars have shown much of all this to be wrong. It used to be incorrectly called the Chalukyan Persian embassy. Now it is called, "the so-called Persian embassy". There is very little evidence and scholarship from and those based on Africa / Middle East / etc that confirms all the speculations being overloaded into this article (I am referring to the kind we find in China, which does mention Ajanta). Further, the dress and fashion has changed a lot in Central Asia as elsewhere, we need to be careful in projecting current practices/dress/fashion into societies 1,500+ years ago with wikipedia voice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Ms Sarah Welch. You are entitled to your own opinions, and that's fine, and I do appreciate your contributions. But let's keep to reputable sources please. The above image and analysis is from an art encyclopedia (but I can surely remove the red squares if you don't like them). Why don't you create a paragraph from reputable sources about how these interpretations have been challenged: I personally have no knowledge of such views (apart from the Persian Embassy story) and I am quite interested. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is an old, nearly outdated encyclopedia. Please see WP:HISTRS. You are entitled to your curiosity and "quite interested", but unfortunately talk pages are not a forum for you and I (further, I have no interest in educating you on my talk page either). Just read Spink and Schlingloff publications that post-date that 1950s encyclopedia. You have not addressed my NPOV concern. Do we want to add 100s more images of their Indian-looking faces at Ajanta, all in red boxes to bring balance to this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about me, it's about you putting forward your case with reputable sources. If some reputable sources dispute that these Persians are Persians, please go ahead and report them. I personally believe the reporting that has been done so far on foreigners is balanced, occupies a reasonable space in the article, and essentially reflects the literature on the subject. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel you are missing the point. Let me make it again... this is an article on Ajanta Caves. It is not about Speculations and Disagreements about foreigners in Ajanta Caves, nor about Speculations and Disagreements about Natives in Ajanta Caves, nor about Ajanta Caves: did South Asians have a stereotypical look in ancient times, etc. Too much of foreigners / natives is undue content and comes across as POV-pushing, even if it can be supported with eccentric sources, or 100 or 50 years old sources, or even new sources. The article has numerous sections already. Overloading one section, expanding it much, presenting zillion images and making the reader wade through a large essay discussing disputed ethnicity of 1% of 5% of faces in Ajanta artwork is not NPOV. If you sense that Ajanta-related WP:RS does not discuss Jataka tales, or Buddhism, or South Asians, or etc in detail then you are mistaken. If we want to discuss ethnicity, discuss the 95-99% of the faces in the artwork, citing RS. As I wrote above, we should mention the foreign faces/dress in this article, but in a way that respects [1] section NPOV/balance, [2] overall article NPOV/balance. Please look at Ajanta Caves article in the following sources, if you want examples of relative emphasis and balance: Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, Encyclopedia of Ancient Asian Civilizations, and the Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ms Sarah Welch. I am afraid you are very much exaggerating. The article has about 36 pages (in print format), of which the "foreigners" segment covers just a bit more than 1 page, so it's about 3% of the total layout. We are not having "zillions of images", not at all, just the most famous and widely reported ones. The subjects being reported (the so-called Parthian Embassy, the Bacchanalians, and the devotional scenes), are the subjects that most of the main authors deal with. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I am willing to accept the present "a bit more than 1 page" section. Six images is too much for me, but again ok in the spirit of compromise. The article is looking better, overall, than it was a month ago. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK with the present section on the "Foreigners in Ajanta". I am also very glad that the article has gotten so much better. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, Spink, whom you otherwise seem to know so much in the details, writes about Sassanian (or Persian) characters: "Actually, Ajanta’s paintings are filled with such foreign types." (Source: Ajanta History and Development Vol IV p.153 Fig.27). So it would seem that my "ubiquitous" qualifier above is really not too far off the mark, although you responded to it with a "Not true! They are not ubiquitous at all." and accusations of POV pushing. The evaluation that Ajanta is literally "filled with foreign types" is actually the position taken by the most regarded specialist on the question, nothing less.... A word a excuse for unwarranted accusations would be appreciated. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting?
पाटलिपुत्र: On which page does Brancaccio highlight / box those faces? I have the hardcopy of her book on my desk and I see Figures 110-113 etc, but I don't see her boxing a few faces out of many, like the way you are doing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if you don't like the explanatory boxes, I can remove them, I'll be glad to do it. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do remove those boxes. It comes across inadvertently as distracting/overemphasizing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you go (two images). पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Blanket removal of referenced material
I am really reluctant to start a new argument.... but your blanket removal of high quality referenced material by justifying that "this is controversial" doesn't seem to be the way things are normally done on Wikipedia. The short paragraph was about the origins of the vihara-with-shrine design which was adopted in Ajanta from around 470 CE, from renowned scholar Kurt Behrendt, Associate Curator of South Asian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in Handbook of Oriental Studies, BRILL, 2004, p.170 p.171. If you think it is controversial, the responsibility in on you to bring alternative claims from reputable sources. You cannot just delete reputable sources because you do not like what they are saying. In terms of relevance of the information, I believe it is highly relevant (as it is on many article on Wikipedia) to have information about origins and influences. Ajanta was not created in a bubble, it was influenced by centuries of history, and pre-existing architecture and art, so it is totally legitimate and important to provide information about it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it has now been added to vihara, which is certainly the first place it is needed. I tend to agree with MSM it is not so necessary here, given the length of the article already. MSM, if it is controversial, it would be useful to have some note of that at vihara. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Johnbod! The Vihara article is where that Behrendt and rest of NPOV summary belongs. It is in poor shape. I started a bit of cleanup of that article yesterday and will try to help in coming days or weeks. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, but it's still no reason to delete properly referenced content outright from an article. And I am looking forward to the substantiation of your claim that "this is controversial". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Buddhist sculptures and paintings in vogue in the 2nd century BCE???
This sentence in the introduction seems very misleading and gives a strange account of Buddhist art, although multiple references have been attached to it: ''""The caves also present paintings depicting the past lives and rebirths of the Buddha, pictorial tales from Aryasura's Jatakamala, as well as rock-cut sculptures of Buddhist deities in vogue between the 2nd century BCE and 5th century CE.[9][11][12]"" '' 1) The earliest caves (30/12) indeed date from the 2nd century-1st century BCE, but they are Hinayana and don't have pictorial illustrations or "sculptures of Buddhist deities", only some architectural designs (chaitya-type doors, geometric decorative bands). 2) The earliest paintings, those remaining in Cave 10 are possibly from the 1st century BCE and are few and probably Jataka-related. 3) As far as I know, the vast majority of paintings (99%?) and all the "sculptures of Buddhist deities" date to the end of the 5th century CE.

Therefore the above sentence is stretching the facts tremendously.... A more exact phrasing could be: ''""The caves also present Buddhist architectural designs from the 2nd/1st century BCE, some early paintings from the 1st century BCE, and full-blown depictions of the past lives and rebirths of the Buddha, pictorial tales from Aryasura's Jatakamala, as well as rock-cut sculptures of Buddhist deities in vogue in 5th century CE.[9][11][12]"" '' Any comments? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems essentially right, though as regards paintings, that the earlier fragments in 10 and 11 are "few" is probably just a matter of survival. Later on, Harle is quoted saying they "show that by Sātavāhana times, if not earlier, the Indian painter had mastered an easy and fluent naturalistic style, dealing with large groups of people in a manner comparable to the reliefs of the Sāñcī toraņa crossbars".  One of the unfortunate changes since eg this version in 2015 is the cutting in the summary section "Caves of the first (Satavahana) period" of "The first Satavahana period caves lacked figurative sculpture, emphasizing the stupa instead, and in the caves of the second period the overwhelming majority of images represent the Buddha alone, or narrative scenes of his lives."  Now that section just deals with dating, not style or contents. For now, and for the lead, I'd just cut the date bit from "in vogue" (not a good phrase anyway). I'll do that, and restore the first part of the old bit I just quoted. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That makes much more sense. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, btw, that some other caves of equivalent early date do have sculpture, not replacing the stupa, but the Pitalkhora Caves have guardian figures around a doorway and large elephants (photo), and Bhaja Caves a relief of deities, all dated late 2nd/early 1st C BCE by Harle (pp. 48-52). Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work being done on Early Indian monuments
Minor spats apart, I'd just like to say how great it is to see the large amount of improvemments being done to a whole range of articles on ancient Indian monuments over recent months! These have been much too weak for years and years, and get good views. Well done everybody, which essentially means "both"! Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am, too, so glad that the content has improved so much in many of these articles. This is such a beautiful and fascinating period of Indian art and history! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * May be worth requesting our GOCE team to copyedit this article. Then a GA nom to help polish it further through the review process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great fan of either process myself, because the standards seem so variable. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of original by 19th century copy???
User:Ms Sarah Welch is removing the attached photograph (1.) of an original frescoe depicting foreigners in Ajanta Cave 17 on the ground that "we need to stick to what sources state and present, the source is showing the previous image, no OR please". This is completely untrue and very misinformed, as the source in question (Pia Brancaccio) is showing the exact same foreigners (and a few more) in a photographic reproduction of the same portion of the frescoe (Direct link to the image in "The Buddhist Caves",Pia Brancaccio, p.305), and the frescoe itself is described in the body of her book (p.81). "The previous image" User:Ms Sarah Welch reverted to (2.), is not at all the photograph showed by the source: it is a rather poor and unfaithful 19th century painting, which is quite removed from the original frescoe (and honestly rather bad taste, here attached). There is really no reason to stick to that painting, now that we have an exact, sourced, photograph of the original (above 1.). पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the left one (three set) in Pia Brancaccio. Which page is it? The right one in the three set is same as the clearer older one. As RexxS well explained above, images should be selected and added to assist "understanding", not illustration. The clearer older image is therefore better (and NPOV too as it shows many other faces). Yes, the middle image is supported by Brancaccio's Figure 110. But, how many images do we need? As we discussed before, there are zillion faces depicted in Ajanta paintings, some of which are foreign, most are not. We have an images overload as it is, adding more is inappropriate and unnecessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You will find the foreigners of the left image in the top left corner of Fig. 100 110 in Pia Brancaccio (they only lack a part of their hat in Brancaccio's photograph). On the left you see Persian-looking foreigners, in the middle foreigners of seemingly East-African type, and on the right you have the full frescoe. These are complementary. Brancaccio shows even more types of foreigners in her photograph. Of course these images assist the understanding of the article, they are even essential to it. Please stop unilaterally deleting the content of other users of good standing: this is very rude, and you do not own this article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Figure 100 is about Aurangabad Cave 9. This is Ajanta Cave article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (ps) Neither you or I own the article. Please AGF, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I meant Fig.110. Please check. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Brancaccio doesn't isolate it. The clearer older image is better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You prefer a fantasist 19th century reproduction rather than the 5th century original painting? That absolutely does not make sense. Other contributors are welcome to give their opinion. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hun, Persians and the northwest
पाटलिपुत्र: Why is this due? Leave aside the quality of your sources, please note we can add zillion histories, with similar or better sources, about dynasties / people / culture / events nearby from south India, from their west, their east, central or north. We can include Rome history and developments in China too.... but all this is undue. I am concerned that your edits show a pattern of this Persian / Hun / northwest Indian subcontinent / etc POV in this article and others. Please explain how is this due and relevant to this article, and are you suggesting we add 10,000+ words on 1st century BCE through 5th century CE history into this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Still deleting the referenced content of other contributors?? The well-sourced synthetic sentence you reverted is historical background, which is highly legitimate for an "Art History" article. Whether you like it or not, the source clearly explains that the Guptas, the Vakatakas and, yes, the Hunas were the great powers of the day in the period when the paintings of the 2nd phase were made, just before the Hunas invasions of the Alchon Huns devastated northern and central India. It seems you are trying to dismiss all things foreign surrounding Ajanta... Whether you like it or not, the depiction of foreigners is indeed ubiquitous in Ajanta (see Spink: "Actually, Ajanta’s paintings are filled with such foreign types." in Ajanta History and Development Vol IV p.153 Fig.27), and, yes, Ajanta was one of the last testimonies of Gupta culture before the massive destructions of the Alchon Huns and the end of Classical Indian civilization. All that is very important to know, and very relevant to Ajanta... and nobody is talking about "adding 10,000+ words" on Rome or China as you seem to imply.... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We already have the summary about "foreign types" from Spink etc, when and where due. With images. What you added has nothing to do with Ajanta Caves, nor does the page you cite interpret or conclude anything about Hun-Ajanta connection. I don't see the word Ajanta or equivalent on that page, or nearby. You may like "well-sourced synthetic" content, but such WP:Synthesis is a form of original research and POV pushing, it violates core content policies of wikipedia. There is a lot of "well-sourced synthetic" content we can add in this and every wikipedia article, but that would be undue and OR. I would welcome summary from sources that actually discuss and conclude on what and how Hunas / whoever influenced Ajanta Caves, if that content is not in the article already. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that the paintings of Ajanta were some of the main achievements of the Gupta/ Classical Culture of India, which was soon brought to an end with the invasions of the Hunas under Toramana. It is well-known, and it is properly explained here (pp5-7) for example.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र: You are free to believe in whatever wisdom / prejudice / opinion you wish, but allow me ignore you per WP:FORUM. Please do not do OR:Synthesis in this and other wikipedia articles. For example, this edit is again WP:Synthesis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely untrue Ms Sarah Welch. The source cited The Classical Age (pp5-7) does give the full sequence of events, from the flourishing of the Classical Culture of India under the Guptas, citing the creation of the Ajanta paintings as a significant part of it, to the end of this very culture following the invasions of the Hunas from the end of the 5th century CE. This is sourced, and this is perfectly legitimate historical background to the "History" segment of the Ajanta Caves. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You can't combine two different sources for OR, in this case you combined Spink with Pruthi. As an aside, Discovery Publishing House is not a publisher of repute, its peer review process unclear, but that is a minor issue. The major issue is your repeated attempts to link Hunas/etc to Ajanta Caves, by combining sources, which is WP:TE. Spink makes no mention of Hunas, nor do I know of anyone with significant publications on Ajanta. Please feel free to take this through DRN / AN process if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, so we can easily make two distinct sentences: "The second phase of constructions and decorations at Ajanta corresponds to the very apogee of Classical India, or India's golden age.(Spink) The Indian Classical Culture, which produced Ajanta, ended following the invasions of the Hunas from the end of the 5th century CE, and the subsequent fall of the Gupta Empire (Pruthi)." That's good historical background, and directly related to Ajanta. Per your own definition, the sentence sourced in Pruthi is certainly not a case of "combining different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion" since it all belongs to the same portion of text and the same logical continuum. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. If for a moment we set aside the WP:QUESTIONABLE source issue, Pruthi is making generic statements in his historical overview. Included in a later para are a few passing mentions, in which I see Ajanta among other places. But, we can't combine different parts of one source. The Hunas part is irrelevant to Ajanta Caves. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are saying above "Spink makes no mention of Hunas" . Well, your statement is absolutely false : Spink DOES mention the Hunas several times in his monumental work on Ajanta, as one of the main factors in the erosion of the Gupta Empire in the period right after the fall of the Vakatakas, in the few years following the last works at Ajanta (end of 5th century/ early 6th century), in Ajanta: The end of the Golden Age p.139 p.154 for example. There is therefore nothing inappropriate in doing the same in an encyclopedic article, for example through a summary sentence explaining this important historical postscript to the Ajanta Caves. The period immediately following the last known paintings/ sculptures in Ajanta was a period of great turmoil, which saw the end of the Vakatakas, the invasion of nearly half of India by the Hunas, and the fall of the Gupta Empire and Indian Classical Civilization. This deserves a line, to say the least. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र: You quote me out of the context. In the two links you give, Spink is not saying Hunas did something to Ajanta Caves. Read this whole thread again. Then Spink again. Ask yourself, even in the overall history of the era context, does Spink only mention Hunas? Your edit only added Hunas-related stuff, that is not NPOV and implies the opinion you have (but Spink doesn't). In reality, Spinks mentions Konkan, Kalacuri, Bombay region, Magadha, etc. and all these together are mentioned far more than the Hunas. That is what I tried to explain with my opening statement... why 'only Hunas / foreigners"? is it due? should we add all sorts of 1st century BCE through 5th century CE history into this article? The article is already big. Adding an NPOV version of overall history of South Asia and Central Asia will greatly enlarge the article, and create WP:COATRACK issues. I therefore oppose it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * MAINSTREAM HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY:
 * It is customary, in a history/ history of art article, to give some elements about what happened in the same general area immediately before or immediately after the event/events which are the subject of the article. This is "historical context", and it helps deepen the understanding of the subject and gives perspective. It is not necessary that the "Hunas did something to Ajanta Caves" as you claim (although they did in some ways "bring Gandhara closer to the western Deccan region" according to Brancaccio ), it is only necessary that they were a key part of the major events that immediately followed the flourishing of Ajanta, and are therefore part of the historical context. You seem to be afraid of too much emphasis on the Hunas..... so let's look at what reputable chronologies put forward as the most important events of the period in India (Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture, Columbia University Press, 2005, p.626):
 * "457: Skandagupta (reign 454-467) defeats invading Hunas... their repeated invasions from the northwest fatally weaken the Guptas."
 * "Late 5th century: Gupta Buddhist cave paintings flourish in India, with those of Ajanta entering their final phase until the 7th century."
 * "500-550: Hunas from Central India overrun Northern India, ending the Gupta dynasty's Classical age... India in general spends the next 6 centuries torn by internal strife"
 * ... and that's it for this 100 year period.....
 * So these are, according to the Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture, the most important historical and cultural events surrounding and following the second flourishing of art at Ajanta. You can see the Hunas are absolutely central in the events of the period, and therefore there is nothing POV about mentioning them. On the contrary, the Hunas are basically the whole story. Therefore, a short summary sentence similar to: "Soon after the flourishing of Ajanta, the Gupta Empire and the Indian Classical Culture ended, following the invasions of the Hunas from the end of the 5th century CE." seems particularly appropriate and relevant to the history section of this article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * पाटलिपुत्र: You are going in circles. Please see my explanation above on why selective Hunas/Persian/any side POV pushing after cherrypicking of sources is inappropriate and undue in this article. Feel free to take this to DRN and wherever. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ps: You write, "Hunas from Central India..." etc; inadvertent mistake since Hunas were not from Central India region where Ajanta Caves are; Central Asia =/= Central India Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hinayana?
The term "Hinayana" (i.e. Theravada) is inappropriate. I know it has been widely used by many authors specially for some of Ajanta caves. Still. an inappropriate term. The concept of aniconism as a defining attribute of a faith tradition seems to be a western import. Malaiya (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the context of Ajanta it is used for the caves that do not show Buddha as a person. However Theravada never had any objections to Buddha's image. Theravada Buddhism uses the worship of Buddha as much as Mahayanists.
 * Hinayana is a negative term used by followers of Mahayana.
 * I agree we should not use it, other than an explanation of why others do. I don't think I agree with your other remarks. There is some history here - see in particular Talk:Ajanta_Caves above. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the offending passage- it wasn't matching very thoroughly what the source was saying. The source incorrectly uses Theravada as a synonym for all of Hinayana, so I've dropped that particular identification, which was about changes in Buddhism in the Gupta era rather than the specific content of the caves. --Spasemunki (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—49.14.168.100 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't given an explanation of what you think is erroneous. I've tweaked the coordinates to indicate a more central point in the group of caves, but if you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Error in the sentence "Cave 15 door frame has carvings of pigeons eating corn"
That sentence have an error. There was no corn in India before the discovery of America. אביהו (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Corn" doesn't necessarily imply maize. But I've changed it to "grain" to avoid the possibility of confusion. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Preservation section
No connection between the title of the section and it's content. Content should be moved to Paintings section. אביהו (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the first sentence was on topic. But the whole section was referenced only to a WP mirror-site, so I've removed it. If true, some of the stuff on the paintings could be re-added higher up, with a decent reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

30 Ajanta Caves may have been a symbolic reference to the Lunar Cycle of 29.53 days
I added... The number of 30 caves may have been a symbolic reference to the lunar cycle of 29.53 days. 2603:3020:1A16:3E00:5BF:478D:A58E:C4BC (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * & I reverted - no source said this, and the last, unfinished caves are over 600 years later than the earliest ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the IP is Brad Watson Miami evading their block. Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)  Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)