Template talk:Middle Kingdoms of India

This is clearly not a duplicate as it presents information in a different way from Template:Middle kingdoms of India.

The personal attack is from a sockpuppet account - a user unfortunately unwilling to identify himself, jguk 19:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The only difference between this and Template:Middle kingdoms of India was in the date styles and the capitalization in the title. I can't see why this tiny difference in presentation merits a separate template. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is noticeable on the articles it is transcluded to - some adopt one date style, others another - it makes sense to have two templates for each style for presentational purposes. However, as all these are Indian articles and should use Indian English per the MoS, the original template could be directed to the new one, which, unlike the original, is consistent with Indian English, jguk 20:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? Let's see what links to this template (as of 20:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)):


 * 1) Gupta Empire &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 2) Cholas &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 3) Nanda dynasty &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 4) Pratihara &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 5) Chalukya &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 6) Pala Empire &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 7) Solanki &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 8) Shahi &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 9) Western Kshatrapas &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 10) Rashtrakuta &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 11) Hunas &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 12) Indo-Sassanian &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed
 * 13) Kidarite Kingdom &middot; state before the template change &middot; edit in which the template is changed


 * There's a pattern here. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, there's a pattern. Either the articles otherwise used standard notation, or otherwise relate wholly to events occurring within the last 2,000 years, when no notation is necessary. Mind you, very few of them could be said to be in Indian English, which is what the MoS requires - this should, in all fairness, change, jguk 21:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)