Talk:Malaudh

March 2008
I came across this page on new page patrol. It had an image problem that I corrected, although the current image will be deleted unless the poster adds the GNU license. Anyway, I had difficulty understanding the subject matter, and I'm not sure if the information at the end of the article is intended to be a reference, or if this is some sort of copyviolation. Since it appears to fall with the scope of WP India, I've so tagged it, and will leave it to the experts. Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the article details the great sikh misl phoolkian (or phulkian) which occupied centre stage after the Gurus created sikhs and held sway over all of punjab this side of Satluj. The eldest of this family was the great Patiala maharaja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.136.203 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a real insight into Sikh history and the Phulkian dynasty in Punjab over the generations makes interesting reading. My grandparents living in Ludhiana often talk about the great chiefs of Malaudh and Ramgarh and their lavish lifestyles. I didn't know that Patiala and Malaudh sardars are one family. Great article.
 * 117.96.136.203 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Sikhism
I have changed the class of this article to start. While it is very informative and well refrenced it is too focused on the history and background of the topic. Therfore it is "quite incomplete" and limited to Start status. To increase there will have to be inclusion of much more information regarding the area today. Examples may include current economy, wildlife, governance etc. also it requires a clean up, paragraphes etc. I have rated importance as low as the link to Sikhism is strong but it is not required for "broad" understanding only detailed understanding. I have removed the duplicate second project box. Please explain reasoning behind changes to these ratings Tindy1986 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
I have noticed that the merger tags have been in place for a long time and no discussion has taken place. I believe for this reason (silence) the merger should take place now. In addition it appears the topic of both articles is the same.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)