Talk:Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Untitled
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Joopercoopers (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 40 meters, use 40 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 40&amp;nbsp;meters.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery).
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Speedy deletion
We have here a well sourced, well written page, 99.9% or more produced by one author. The author has apparently grown frustrated with the project, and wants this removed. I think it technically qualifies for G7 speedy, but... It's such a good work that I find myself hard pressed to hit the delete key. I guess I'm passing the descision off on the next admin to look at this, but I wanted to express my concerns. Sorry to be unable to come to a judgement on it myself. - TexasAndroid 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the sole author of this article and request its deletion. I wrote it on the understanding that such policies as G7 would be upheld should I request it - please delete. --Joopercoopers 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For now, I've declined as non criteria. Navou banter 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Criteria 7 here seems quite explicit. The article is overlong, violates WP:SIZE is too verbose, needs several diagrams drawing, and simply isn't the quality I'd like to leave lying around wikipedia - I'm happy to userfy if you want to do it that way. --Joopercoopers 08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not so sure this should be deleted. Navou banter 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. There's only one edit, and a very trivial one at that, so I'd say the db-author should be respected. That said, WP:SIZE is a guideline not a rule, and can be bent without major issues at this point. Scissors and WP:SPLIT seem more appropriate than deletion, although, again, the author's wishes should be respected barring another editor taking up the torch before this comes to a close. MrZaius talk  11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it per G7, author request. The speedy criteria are official policy. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC).
 * But there's more than one person that has edited the page, so it can't be author request.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please use some common sense Ryan - I can't see the history any more, but one guy got reverted and the other made a word change in an image caption - I can't imagine they'd be too gutted. --Joopercoopers 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but that is the criteria, you can only request deletion if you are the sole author. I understand your concern, but that's the way the speedy criteria works I'm affraid.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy says 'substantial content', please reread --Joopercoopers 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy.  We must respect the author's wish here.  I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * G7 does not say "sole author", it says "substantial content". --Aude (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The author agreed to leave the page visible, see Deletion review/Log/2007 September 18. Kusma (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

split article
Origins and architecture are not at all connected in this article. Splitting article into two separate articles would be wise. Total of 3 articles on Taj mahal is what wikipedia can afford. Lara_bran 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dimensional organisation
An anon ip just posted this, prose needs some work as it's too close to a copyvio at present.

Balasubramaniam (Current Science, Vol. 97 (2009) 42-49; http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul102009/42.pdf) presents new insights on the modular planning of the Taj Mahal complex, one of the most visited and well-known archaeological structures of India. This is also one of the wonders of the modern world. The Taj Mahal complex is planned based on ordering of grids, with the main architectures features of the complex placed on bilaterally mirror symmetry along the north-south axis. The dimensions of the various sections (the riverfront terrace, the gardens, the forecourt and the caravanserai) of the complex have been analyzed using new knowledge on the traditional unit of length measure (the angulam) of the subcontinent. Dimensional analysis has revealed that the modular planning of the Taj Mahal complex was executed using the traditional measurement units mentioned in Arthasastra, in particular the vitasti measuring 12 angulams of 1.763 cm. The riverfront terrace and garden sections of the complex were planned using a grid of 90 vitasti while the forecourt and caravanserai sections, using a grid of 60 vistasti. The logical numbers that result for the dimensions has been analyzed to reveal the ease of division of these numbers into symmetric elements to understand quadratic division of space of the garden area and the triadic division of space of the mausoleum, including decimal divisions. A novel approach to understand the metrology of historical architectural structures of the Indian subcontinent is revealed. More importantly, this study has confirmed that traditional design principles and civil engineering skills of the Indian subcontinent were utilized in the construction of Taj Mahal.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

rewrite
A 2009 paper by Prof R. Balasubramaniam of Indian Institute of Technology, found Barraud's explanation of the errors unconvincing as well as the transition between the 23 and 17 gaz grid at the great gate. Balasubramaniam conducted further dimensional analysis of the complex based on Barraud's surveys. He concluded that Taj was constructed using the ancient Aṅgula as the basic unit rather than the Mughal 'gaz', noted in the contemporary accounts. The Aṅgula, which equates to 1.763cm, is first mentioned in the Arthasastra in 300BC and may have been derived from the earlier Indus Valley Civilization. In this analysis the forecourt and caravanserai areas were set out with a 60 Vistasti grid, and the riverfront and garden sections with a 90 vistari grid. The transition between the grids is more easily accommodated, 90 being easily divisible by 60. The research suggests that older, pre-Mughal methods of proportion were employed as ordering principles in the Taj.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * 
 * 
 * great gate calligraphy
 * mausoleum calligraphy
 * subsid tomb mosque
 * corner tower
 * minaret
 * minaret
 * good floral decoration
 * jilhaukhana
 * jilhaukhana
 * southern gallery?
 * taj mosque interior

Tasklist

 * 1) Finish the bloody prose......
 * 2) replace notes with this jasper -

"Contemporary painting of Mumtaz Mahal"
Is it? It is certainly not in contemporary Mughal style, & I have an academic sourcce that says there are no portraits of her, nor of any high-status Mughal women until much later. Does anyone know? Johnbod (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased
Am I the only one in thinking that the article isn't presented in a neutral fashion, describing it as the " finest and most sophisticated example of Mughal architecture"; according to whom? "one of the most famous and recognisable buildings in the world"; again, according to whom? "We do not know precisely who designed the Taj Mahal today"; shouldn't this be presented as "It is unknown..." rather than "We"?

Maybe I'm being fussy, but the way it's all phrased seems like it's written by an admirer rather than an observer.

Would this work be counted as the unmarked comment "Finish the bloody prose....."?

Yanxa (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a wiki - be my guest! --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Taj Mahal (Edited).jpeg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Taj Mahal (Edited).jpeg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 15, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)