Talk:Bhagwant Das

Moved from article
(His name was Bhagawant Das and not Bhagawan Das. Please view "Akbarnama" by Abul Fazal for confirmation.) --Joopercoopers 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Life
"(January 27, 1574 – December 10, 1589)" — the life or rule??? --Роман Курносенко (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry section
The short length of an article is not a reason to include an ancestry section, nor is the fact that other articles may do so. The template that has been used is obscure, rather useless in collapsed form and, I suspect, inaccessible to mobile readers. It also included synthesis, poor links and people who seem not to be notable. We can usually say what matters far better in prose format. And we are not a genealogy website. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The above refers to this reinstatement. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have asked about the accessibility issue because that is something with which they have considerable experience and knowledge. Certainly, way more than me. I'm not anticipating them holding a view regarding the other issues I mention above. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On mobile view using Chrome, the template renders okay, but has to be scrolled horizontally on my phone.
 * On the Wikipedia app it renders okay, but has to be scrolled horizontally on my phone.
 * Unfortunately, using a screen reader, the template is read as a rather complicated table with lots of empty cells. The actual text will be read in the order:
 * 8. Chandrasen, Raja of Amber
 * 4. Prithviraj Singh I, Raja of Amber
 * 2. Bihari Mal, Raja of Amber
 * 10. Lunkaran, Rao of Bikaner
 * 5. Apurva Devi (Bala Bai)
 * 1. Bhagwant Das
 * 12. Rid Mal, Rao of Mandore
 * 6. Akhairaj, Rao of Bagri
 * 3. Phulvati Bai
 * I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone using assistive technology will be able to sort out Das' ancestry from that. I'd recommend converting to prose if it is deemed WP:DUE to actually include this level of detail. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone using assistive technology will be able to sort out Das' ancestry from that. I'd recommend converting to prose if it is deemed WP:DUE to actually include this level of detail. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for looking into it, . Pinging, who inserted it here and at other India-related articles. It may need further discussion at a more central venue, probably WT:INB, but let's see what Alivardi thinks now. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with calling the ahnentafel template obscure: it's really widely used in relevent articles, which aren't insubstantial.


 * Most of your other points really only applies for the article in question. I realise that this isn't the place to be discussing this, but the other article we have an issue with, Sulaiman Shikoh, has none of these problems. I am worried that explaining his ancestry in prose, even only the parts which are, in an orthodox view, immediately relevant to his life would cumbersome and difficult to follow in comparison. Alivardi (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just saw the post the screen readers...I don't know. The format is used, in the very least on hundreds of articles and isn't restricted to India-related articles. Accommodating for people using this tech would is a pretty big undertaking. Alivardi (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, Alivardi. Please give me a few hours as I am not in a good mindset at the moment for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia. I will get back to you asap. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's cool, take your time. Alivardi (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, our encyclopedia has developed with little understanding of the problems facing the visually impaired. That means that improving accessibility has become a big undertaking, although the 9,053 articles using this template is a lot less than the number needing alt text for their images. However, the size of the problem is no excuse for not starting to fix it. As Lao Tzu observed, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
 * In the long term, it might be possible to improve the accessibility of ahnentafel, most probably by expanding its documentation to include steps editors can take to help the visually impaired. Of course, a prose description to accompany the template would be best, but at the very least, it's important not to assume that readers will understand the significance of the ahnentafel number. Without a link to the article Ahnentafel or an explanation of the correspondence between the item's number and the item's relationship to the proband, readers who can't see the layout of the table won't have the information about the relationship. Personally, I'd recommend something like this:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! scope="col" | Ahnentafel number ! scope="col" | Name ! scope="col" | Relationship
 * + Ancestry of Bhagwant Das
 * 2 || Bihari Mal, Raja of Amber || father
 * 3 || Phulvati Bai || mother
 * 4 || Prithviraj Singh I, Raja of Amber || paternal grandfather
 * 5 || Apurva Devi (Bala Bai) || paternal grandmother
 * 6 || Akhairaj, Rao of Bagri || maternal grandfather
 * 8 || Chandrasen, Raja of Amber || father's father's father
 * 10 || Lunkaran, Rao of Bikaner || father's mother's father
 * 12 || Rid Mal, Rao of Mandore || mother's father's father
 * }
 * Again, that's assuming that the information is verifiable and WP:DUE. I understand it's not conventional within our current articles, but that's the best I can suggest that would be accessibility-compliant. It is possible to generate the relationship programmatically from the ahnentafel number, so a table like this could be generated from the information in the current template. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your table be displayed alongside ahnentafel? It's an intresting idea, and a great solution until the accessibility of ahnentafel can be improved.
 * 8 || Chandrasen, Raja of Amber || father's father's father
 * 10 || Lunkaran, Rao of Bikaner || father's mother's father
 * 12 || Rid Mal, Rao of Mandore || mother's father's father
 * }
 * Again, that's assuming that the information is verifiable and WP:DUE. I understand it's not conventional within our current articles, but that's the best I can suggest that would be accessibility-compliant. It is possible to generate the relationship programmatically from the ahnentafel number, so a table like this could be generated from the information in the current template. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your table be displayed alongside ahnentafel? It's an intresting idea, and a great solution until the accessibility of ahnentafel can be improved.
 * Again, that's assuming that the information is verifiable and WP:DUE. I understand it's not conventional within our current articles, but that's the best I can suggest that would be accessibility-compliant. It is possible to generate the relationship programmatically from the ahnentafel number, so a table like this could be generated from the information in the current template. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your table be displayed alongside ahnentafel? It's an intresting idea, and a great solution until the accessibility of ahnentafel can be improved.


 * Do you know if improving the template is an ongoing effort? I was just wondering if it may be better to change the design of the template itself. I was thinking possibly rotating the current template 90° clockwise, with the diagram branching downwards from the subject. Perhaps including the relationship to the subject after the ahnentafel number. I think the text of this diagram should, hypothetically be read by a screen reader in the same way as the table you designed. Then again, I might have completely misunderstood how screen readers work. What do you think? Alivardi (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I had never even heard of ahnentafel numbers despite years of tracing my own ancestry back to the 1400s. I'm sorry for the delay in responding properly but I am not editing much at the moment and may not be for a little longer because my head is not in a great place. As a quick note, I don't think changing the orientation of the template is going to resolve my other concerns. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s understandable that you hadn’t heard of ahnentafel numbers. As per it’s page, the numbers are normally used to display genealogy compactly and in plain text. It doesn’t seem like a format that’s used to display someone’s personal family tree.
 * You’ve mentioned a few times that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website and I agree; I’ve never said otherwise. But I do think that genealogical relationships do have an impact on a subject’s life. This is something that's especially true for feudatory rulers. Both Bhagwant Das’ mother and grandmother came from the families of two of his most powerful neighbours. I can't say for certain that his life and rule were influenced by this fact; historical records don’t seem to mention that. But I think it's notable that in my research, there doesn’t seem to be any record of him maintaining anything less than good diplomatic relations with both kingdoms throughout his rule.
 * A more extreme example of this would be Husayn Bayqara, an uncle of the Mughal emperor Babur. The Mughals and their predecessors, the Timurids held matrilineal lineage in high regard. Bayqara was descended from several important families up to and beyond the fifth generation, and his descent was described and praised by Babur. Describing his extensive genealogy in prose won't do much more than confuse the average reader.
 * Regarding your other concerns:
 * Synthesis: I’m not sure where I had done this in my references. Could you clarify which part/s you were referring to?
 * Poor links: I’m assuming you’re referring to the Mandore link. In hindsight, I should’ve made the link to the Jodhpur State article. If we end up agreeing to restore my edits, I’ll try and rectify it, and any others you had in mind.
 * Notability: Not having a Wikipedia article isn’t the same as not being notable. A cursory search of most of the individuals would show that.
 * You don't need to apologise. This isn't exactly a time sensitive subject anyway. But could you do me a favour and ping me when you reply? For some reasons I'm not getting notifications from this page. Anyways, I hope whatever you're going through works out. Alivardi (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)