Talk:Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah

Clarification on All religion
provide clarification on all religion! please it for the most part is some pantheistic hindu and shia muslims. sunnis dont visit it christians dont, buddhist dont jain dont, parsi dont. 72.93.107.15 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag   TALK2ME  04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Chistia reference
I just undid a reference to the Ajmer Sharif website - it's not really on topic, and it was put in incorrectly, so the choices were fix or delete, I chose just to delete it. Anniepoo (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Archealogical category
There is no separate category for archealogical sites/monuments - both are the same as of now. I am revamping the list of archealogical sites/monuments and subsequently a sub category can be created. In the Indian ASI context, sites/monuments are not treated separately - sites are classified as group monuments. I am using an existing category like in other states so that there is uniformity in the listing. This categorization shouldn't impact any of the other listing as this is exclusive. S Sriram 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt


 * I really don't understand. According to the ASI itself, the list is a list of monuments, not a list of archaeological sites or a list of monuments and sites.  So the category should be called monuments, not archaeological sites.


 * I don't see why it makes sense for the category to have a misleading name. You seem to be saying it's wrong for other states, so to be consistent I'm keeping it wrong for Delhi too. What should be done, of course, is that they should all be corrected.--Sarabseth (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not as such misleading - if you look at the UNESCO world heritage sites, the group monuments or the place is treated archeological. But in ASI context, more than one place(pillar, wall, entrance etc) within the same site can be monuments.  I think 'site' classification would still hold good given that we have limited coverage for India related monuments.  If you refer the publication by ASI itself, it is quoted as 'site' for most structurals.  I had a rough count of monuments as per ASI - it is more than 6000!!  Considering the universal use of the term 'site', i followed as such - it can be discussed. S Sriram 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt


 * The issue is not "site" versus "monument"; the issue is "archeological site" versus "monument". The fact of the matter is that these are not archeological sites.  That is to say, ASI itself calls them monuments, not archeological sites.  You seemed to be saying above, yes, I know, but let's use the term anyway.--Sarabseth (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)