Talk:Architecture of India

Issue of UNDUE and OR
I'm sorry to have reduced the article, but clearly the version that existed before my recent edits had issues of UNDUE (there was disproportionate coverage of pre-Islamic architecture, details were introduced that are not appropriate for a high-level article such as this) and OR (dubious topics were introduced). There was also what can only be described as outsize-image spamming. I have reduced drastically and reintroduced the periodization that existed at the time of Johnbod's edits of December 2017. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good move, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you need to discuss before making such drastic revisions. There is nothing wrong with disproportionate coverage of pre-islamic architecture, if you want to cut down substantial amount of material, i think you need to make new article of pre-islamic indian architecture to transfer all the subtracted material. Zombie gunner (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid what requires discussion is the introduction of OR and UNDUE, not its removal.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * stop vandalising this article and make consensus before making such drastic changes, you seem to specifically target pre islamic indian architecture in favour of post islamic ones, you seem to have grudge against rajput architecture as well which is a post islamic architecture, so it seems you seem to have grudge against any non islamic architecture in general rather then the tagline pre Islamic. Zombie gunner (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not vandalism. You are correct about consensus, but a lot of the contentious content was added in end of June/early July without consensus it seems. What we actually need to discuss is whether we should add all that information. Please also assume good faith and read WP:AGF. Nobody here has any grudge against any particular architecture style.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This user Fowler has been responsible for vandalizing many indian articles based on the users agenda, i dont know why wikipedia editors turn a blind eye to the guy's comments, read his edit comments in the history where the user is targeting pre islamic and even post islamic architecture which is not islamic, the user implements his agenda every where with impunity and here an example of turning edits of two years in his favour without any accountability. Im not sure why are you advocating cutting down a big chunk of this article which has been present for two years, im the IP who made contributions to this page, and if you had any issues, why didn't you address that at the time when the additions were made and what contentions additions are you talking about, was it even discussed in the first place, or just jumping the bandwagon with this new vandalism? Zombie gunner (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything being targeted. In this entire article, Indo-Islamic architecure is a very small part already, so I don't see where is the bias. The problem with your edits is that you are adding too much information and images which is not required. It is making the page hard to load. Some of your images are also copyrighted. The "big chunk" of information added by the IP was added very recently (like in a month or two). It was then removed. If you want to add it back, please gain consensus for it and ideally discuss in small chunks.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with cutting down the size of the article. The page is barely navigable and a lot of the information was added in July by IPs. This article is more of a summary and shouldn't have so many details.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means its articles should faithfully render in accessible summary style a vast topic, which is filled with primary and secondary sources. As editors, we cannot make the decision about which aspect to highlight, which to explore in fine detail. It has to come from other tertiary sources: other encyclopedias, well worn internationally used textbooks, and reviews of the topic in the literature. Please read WP:TERTIARY. It says: Consider a tertiary source, Britannica, for example. Its India page has this short paragraph on architecture:"Architecture is perhaps India’s greatest glory. Among the most-renowned monuments are many cave temples hewn from rock (of which those at Ajanta and Ellora are most noteworthy); the Sun Temple at Konarak (Konarka); the vast temple complexes at Bhubaneshwar, Khajuraho, and Kanchipuram (Conjeeveram); such Mughal masterpieces as Humayun’s tomb and the Taj Mahal; and, from the 20th century, buildings such as the High Court in the planned city of Chandigarh, designed by the Swiss-born architect Le Corbusier, and the Bhopal State Assembly building in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, designed by the Indian architect and urban planner Charles Correa. Also notable are stepwells, such as the Rani ki Vav (“Queen’s Stepwell”) in Patan (northern Gujarat), now a UNESCO World Heritage site." An "Architecture of India" page on Wikipedia should broadly have an organization that seems familiar to someone who has just read the above paragraph, or some other short summary. It can't have WP:UNDUE discussion about whether ancient India had the arch. Obviously, India did not have the masonry arch in the way it had any of the topics in the short paragraphs above. If it had indeed, you would have seen Indian equivalents of doorways, bridges, colosseums, aqueducts scattered around Varanasi or Madurai in the same way you do in Rome, dating to the ancient period. An arch is a very stable structure. If there are a few controversial examples, they don't belong to this page, and no purpose is served by spamming this page with unfocused, distant, pictures of such "arches." A large part of the page was in such state before I reduced it.
 * Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. ... Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
 * Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

For another example consider the textbook:. This is a widely used textbook. A reader of the Wikipedia article should see in the article the same broad organization as there is in the book (the architecture part, that is). They shouldn't have to be waylaid with Mauryan polish and Kausambi palace. They shouldn't be waylaid with OR sourced to dubious sources, such as added in this remarkable edit by पाटलिपुत्र involving copying from the Stupa article and adding to the 37 citations in the article to the source: Buddhist architecture by Le Huu Phuoc, published by Grafikol, a personal website of Le Huu Phuoc. And who is Le Huu Phuoc? According to his Amazon website, "Le Huu Phuoc had an extensive education and practice in architecture as an architectural CAD draftsman and architect of his own house. Over the years he has been immersing himself in photography and writing with three published books" Again, he had 37 citations; in contrast, James Harle, Keeper of Eastern Art at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and author of The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, Yale University Press, has 2 citations. Now you know why I reduced the article. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the timeline and history moved to history of pre islamic indian architecture, this article is ot about history since major portion of article was cut, incorporated into indian architecture history article separately. Now the two articles are independent of each other. Zombie gunner (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Change in timelime classification
Let's discuss the change in timeline here. Currently the article is categorised by time. However has a different opinion. Let's discuss and get consensus here.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * in order to differentiate between the two articles history of pre islamic architecture of indian sub continent and architecture of india, since a major history chunk was removed which was incorporated into history article with the timeline and images, the timeline suits the history article while this article can list all the different architecture styles of India since the major history part was cut down. This addresses the reservation of fork article of the user DreamLinker Zombie gunner (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly this article about the entire architecture. Secondly, it doesn't distinguish by "pre-Islamic" or "post-Islamic", but rather time periods - Harappan, Middle ages, Modern etc. This is a systematic classification which I think is more useful. If you want to change it, please obtain consensus for your changes. I also strongly recommend you to self revert to the status quo (since it is a violation of WP:3RR and will get you blocked).--DreamLinker (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * timelines are only suited for history articles, if you are clamping down a major portion of indian architecture history, then it doesnt deserve the timeline, nor history is mentioned in the title, and can very well do with the present classification, if you want status quo, we can go back to pre Fowler's version status quo until the matter is resolved. Zombie gunner (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Stongly Oppose reduction of the article. This is encyclopedia, where we have to give equal weight to every time period in such an article. Indian architecture has more 2500+ years of rich history so are we to cram everything into small short page. And this page is NOT big only 100KB, most of the featured articles these days are more than that or near that size. Tell me one thing why do we thing that Mughal Architecture (about 300 years) deserve their own section whereas Mahajanapadas architecture, Sikh architecture and such with similar time period do not deserve their own section? From what I see every time period has been given equal weightage with equal size may it be Dravidian or Mughal, so why the controversy? I repeat Indian architecture has longer history than most European and Middle eastern countries due to longer civilization pattern. A few images removed here and there will be fine, but removing half the well written content with more than 100+ references is plain barbarism. JayB91 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fork created, I have temporarily moved to draft
I noticed that this article was forked. I have moved it to Draft:Ancient architecture of Indian Subcontinent. This essentially copies all the information of this article, without attribution I might add. I don't think this is ready to be published as an article. I am not against creating more detailed articles about Indian architecture. However there needs to be some consensus. Weasel words such as "Ancient Indian architecture" are not useful. There are also existing articles about various periods and cultures of India. These can be improved instead.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is not a fork, i'm trying to remove duplicate information which will take sometime and the article uses material subtracted from this article. Zombie gunner (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "i'm trying to remove duplicate information which will take sometime" that is exactly why it should be moved to the draft. We publish it once it is ready. More importantly you are also copying stuff without attribution which should not be done. Some of your images are also copyrighted such as this one .--DreamLinker (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyright has already been expired given publication date. Zombie gunner (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you please explain? Like when is the publication and when does it expire? Could you point me to the rules you are referring to? Additionally, please also read the other content I wrote about attribution and draft.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * info is already listed, try to click the blue button under the image called more details. Zombie gunner (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Checked that and it is copyrighted. Tagged for deletion.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content
This page has been butchered into banal format with referenced details butchered for no particular reason except POV edits. Some reasons given "removing outsize image spamming ; looking at the original version of this article you wouldn't know that Islam ever came to India"; "Removing vernacular Ladakh architecture masquerading as "Buddhist"";"really? Mughal is a subsection of Buddhist; God forbid we mention "Sutlanate," "Mughal" or "Islamic" anywhere";" reducing disproportionate promotion of Pre-Islamic architecture added by editors";"removing image spamming; The mughals have 8 UNESCO world heritage sites; the Rajputs have one; keep the coverage proportional" Such non neutral POV edits clearly shows personal opinion. Removing Hindu, Buddhist and other pre Islamic and Colonial and Post Colonial content while giving undue weightage to Mughal era is clearly a POV edit. Removing 100+ citations is no where constructive. May I remind India architectural history spans millenniums with oldest attested architectural record from 300-400 BC as described an cited in article. So we have to give equal weightage to every period architecture in the article not just one particular period. And claiming one period has 8 UNESCO and another period 1 UNESCO site is absurd. This page is not List of UNESCO architectures in India; It is about comprehensive details of architecture in India of all periods. JayB91 (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sums up wikipedia isn't it. Not any more interested in editing after this episode. 168.211.86.237 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the company team play seeking consensus to maintain its vandalism is amusing, what sort of consensus was obtained before removing loads of data which was here for two years already, absolutely zero consensus was sought and the agenda is clearly visible in the short notes made in the history comments tab as highlighted by the above user, the team play by fowler and company in order to vandalize each and every south asian article for its own agenda and then asserting seeking consensus before making any amendments is quite amusing. The user gets protected by the admins, hence such display of bravery in imposing one's agenda. 168.211.98.231 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yada, yada! Actually, the version 2 years ago was a good deal shorter even than the current "short" version. Afaik, there has never been a very adequate version of this article. It would take a good deal of work to produce one, and it is not a very enticing prospect, given the probability that some pov editor will come along and undo it all. But if people work constructively together it might be possible. The "long" version is too full of silly stuff (putting a very poor account of "Buddhist architecture" in the Early Modern period for example), has too much stuff that is not about architecture at all, tends to miss the key architectural points, and is often poorly-written.  The short version is certainly too short. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Could we please redirect/delete the forks?
The article Ancient Indian architecture was forked from Architecture of India by a suspected sock puppet with the intention to focus on "non Islamic architecture of India". I understand that User:Johnbod is working on it right now. However, it is hard to define a timeline of "ancient" in the case of India. A better solution is to keep Architecture of India as a summary article and improve the individual articles such as Harappan architecture and the rest.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. After some thought, I've come down thinking this is best kept as its own article. We have no "individual articles" (except for individual sites) for, actually, most of this period (almost all of it between IVC and say the 7th century CE), which is part of the reason I think it's worth keeping, though it certainly needs improving. There may be no standard definition of "ancient" in the case of India, but I have put the one I'm provisionally using at the start of the article, chosen on purely architectural grounds. Similar definitions of "ancient India" can be found, as for a variety of end-dates. The removal/readding of this material is most of the difference between the "long" and "short" versions argued about above.  I agree with others that a proper treatment of the period would be much too long for this main article, though more needs adding here - I have done a little of this already.  As you say, this should be kept as a summary article.  Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Architecture in India is mostly localised, so the articles about sites are valid. Architecture can also be classified by the dynasties since they were the major patrons of a particular style of architecture. My main objection to having an "architecture of Ancient India" is precisely because the definition of such a term is really vague and there is no justification as to why we select one period over the other. In my opinion, a summary article such as this one which covers the entire timeline is more suitable and should be improved.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Architecture can also be classified by the dynasties since they were the major patrons of a particular style of architecture" isn't really true for the early period (nor more recent ones). I'm not sure you realize how little coverage there is in the present "short" version of earlier periods - there's also a lot missing in Ancient Indian architecture. Of course sites should be covered with their own articles, but there should be good general coverage as well. Art and architecture articles on all parts of the world have similar issues, as periods are rarely strictly and neatly defined - try "medieval" and "Renaissance" in Europe. The key is to say clearly at the start which period is being covered. There's nothing "really vague" about "from the Indian Bronze Age to around 800 CE."  This article should indeed cover "the entire timeline", but at a more summarized level; that's the problem - the early periods (mostly) have no more detailed period articles, apart from Indian rock-cut architecture.  The usual (but not invariable by any means) cut-off between "classical" and Medieval India, at the end of the Guptas, doesn't work very well for architecture imo, though one could break it there, and spin off "early medieval" to another article. I'm thinking it might be best to spin off the arch stuff to its own article, but we'll see. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Johnbod. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'm sorry to have to revert a series of recent edits, with various problems. In particular there has been an illegal, because undiscussed, introduction of the loathsome sfn style, converting existing references, the removal of high-quality, recent, sources like Banglapedia (and the addition of ones over a century old), an undiscussed rearrangement of sections, the introduction of various factual mistakes, and so on. It was too complicated to sort out the good from the bad, though if there were particular additions worth keeping, please point them out. The small net increase in bytes seems to be mostly pictures, so perhaps not. In particular I'd say "Removed mention of Mohenjo Daro which is in Pakistan. Removed mention of art, as it is an article about architecture" (per edit summary) is not a wise move - it is foolish to insist modern political borders applied in the Bronze Age, and all books on "Indian" history are more than happy to take credit for the IVC. One doesn't need to give "CE" dates for British rule or the 20th century, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Need of completing Post-Independence Indian architecture, also adding details of South Indian architecture specially Kerala.
South India has prominent architecture, which has remained stable more than a millennia, thanks to protection against Islamic invaders. I will include few images, but a lot of work must be done. Sagnique (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bihar's Monuments.
Add some great architectural monuments of Bihar. Like Ancient Nalanda University, Darbhanga Fort, Anandbagh Palace, Ruins of Vaishali, etc. RedSaurb (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverts to my edits: Next actions
Dear all,

A. Revert without justification or notifying me: I spent whole day making edits, hours of work undone when those were reverted with a click which took a microsceond. Reverted edits here cover the influence of Indian architecture on other nations' architecture. Revert was done without providing justification as to why it does not add value, without providing specific objections or constructive feedback, not even a message on my talkpage. Please do not sneak in reverts like this. In the precious discussions above I saw editors having a go at each others. I do not want the stress of those kind of arguments and edit wars :) Blame game is also useless, hence I am not mentioning names. For revert to my edit, whats done is done. Lets move on with a clean state in happy mode. However, please apply the following lessons learnt - for large efforts always provide detailed point by point justiciation/objection proportional to the effort put in by the editor (show DUE RESPECT to the co-editor effort and show own DUE WEIGHT of effort in providing your detailed justification for the revert/objection e.g. point-by-point cite the specific actionable policy violation and propose the remedial action to demonstrate the intention to collaborate and not stonewall). Thanks.

B. I propose the following options:


 * Option1 - restore the edits here: Please feel free to rephrase, improve, etc and reinstate.


 * Option2 - create a new article "Global influence of Indian Architcture": This will allow the future growth with richer/longer content rather than having it in this article. Not just pre-Islamic, the article could be further expaned to include all types of hubride Indian architectures influence on others e.g. Indo-Islamic, Rajput-Jat architecture and Indo-Colonial archtecture travelling to other places.
 * Option3 (preferred) - Combo option: This options provides the benefits of all the options above, while mitigating the potential concerns. I see this option as the "path of least resisstence" from other editors.
 * (4a) Create a separate new article "Global influence of Indian Architcture" (or some such heading, feel free to chose a heading of your own liking). Since I am IP, an it takes months to create, submit and get approved a new article. Can any of the registered editor please just copy paste my edit and create a new article, then refine/edit as you wish. I chose to remain IP by choice to avoid addiciton to wiki, thanks for understanding.
 * (4b) Insert a summarised section at the bottom of Ancient Indian Architecture and Architecture of India, both could have deifferent phrasing depending on the context of hose articles. Pipe to the new "to be created" article "Global influence of Indian Architcture".

C. Next steps - your action needed: I spent long time creating these edits. I do not care where do you put these edits, as long as you put it somewhere in some article. I am also not fussed if you significantly rephrase or rearrange my edits. I accept all that. Readers should be able to find the "influence of Indian architecture on others nations" consolidated in one place. So disheartening if these are eliminated. I reaquest you all to please have a go at implementingmy proposals to give the readers a place somwhere to find this info. I request the first editor to read this to create a sparate article by copy pasting my edits there. I request other editors to not argue with each other here, just go ahead and implement.

Please help:, , , , , , and. I have always been an IP for a long time. I have never been involved with any discussion on architecture before. This is my first ever comment on architcture related topics. I have not come across any of you before. Since you have discussed this article earlier, I am tagging you all. Please help with implementing the suggestions, contribute with your refinements, don't fight each other. Thanks all. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by my edit summary when reverting "Sorry - not an improvement - raise at talk if you like". Most of it was adding chunks on South-East Asian Buddhist (and mainly) Hindu architecture from other articles.  There is a lot of that in Hindu temple architecture, but not much here.  I'm not sure there should be. Does anyone think anything can be salvaged? Very little was on Buddhist influences to Central Asia & China. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Seprate section on Gavaksha.
Should we include a seprate section on Gavaksha under 600 BCE—250 CE part? Gavaksha is an important face of any Rock cut temple or Mauryan architecture during that time. There is a page dedicated to it. Discussion would be helpful. PS- Also would like inclusion of subject regarding architectural styles like above rather than monuments only. Inclusion of Pietra Dura, Jali work and Vernacular architecture in India. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)asmitghosh3
 * Vernacular and residential architecture is certainly a big gap. I'd favour a section covering Gavaksha (rather later than you suggest), Pietra Dura, Jali work, and other elements and motifs running through various periods. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We seems to be missing the main point- Planning and commoners way of living (village and tribal). The page look more like a monument guidebook than architecture related page. I will support a complete new section on motiffs, pillar, pietra dura, jaali and other 'elements of Indian Architecture'. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Asmitghosh3

I would encourage more talks on the matter of addition of fundamental and micro styles like Gavaksha, Pietra Dura and prominently common housing and influence of Vaastu in the architectural style. The page gives a good detail on how elites and royals shaped the style but we are missing the way common society existed or lived. Being such a diverse nation, we may tend to omit certain styles like that in Kerala and Northeastern regions. Instead of focusing on details of already detailed study of the existing styles on page, we need to explore the unexplored ones. Styles like Gardens and Dzongs have been added recently.Asmitghosh3 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Influence on Indian architecture.
Should we include topics about how Geo-political (Indo-greeks, Persian, Chinese) and global trade (maritime empires and silk route) brought in influences from different part of the known world and thus end up influencing the architectural styles and giving it distinctive taste? It can be created in contrast to Indian influences on other nation's architectural style.Asmitghosh3 (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Asmitghosh3
 * Foreign Influence at the key points is mentioned - this is the sort of stuff that tends to get removed in pov edits though. Are you suggesting it gets its own section? Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I want architectural elements like beams, pillar, influence of Greek, Persian, European styles in basic structures. Modern day buildings follow International, Art deco and many other styles which are foreign influenced, have been almost omitted in this page in lieu of historical buildings. The architecture of high rises in Mumbai, Lotus temple or suburban area in Kolkata and Chennai should have a highlight at least.Asmitghosh3 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Images
Can we avoid mixing multiple images with mini-galleries? The article was using mini-galleries, which I think are much better, and we should stick with this style, which is easier for most users, & imo, better visually. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Question on addition of section on City building (Planned cities) and campuses like Santiniketan
Can places like planning of new, modern cities like Chandigarh, New Town(Kolkata) or Navi Mumbai have a seprate section under Post Independence architecture? Campuses like Gardens of Bangalore, artificial lake systems or Shantiniketan should also be consider.Asmitghosh3 (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Asmitghosh3

problem
stone architecture wasnt borught by the greeks it already existed in indian architecture