Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Capitals00 (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 23 September 2017 (→Re-written template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mehrgarh period dating is off. Articles and citations referencing the Mehrgarh place is much earlier than the template, in the 9000-7000BCE era to begin. Mathlaura (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

See . I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent expansion

@Joshua Jonathan and LouisAragon: can we discuss this please? What are the issues with the IPs' version of the template? Off-hand, it seems to me that it lists the topics covered in the History of Pakistan article. I agree that it is a bit too long, but that can be solved by using collapsed subsections. Where is the disruption? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the IP on thier reply "If you don't know the history of Pakistan, don't vandalize our templates. Thanks." to LouisAragan's previous edit-summary: "They're relevant because you think they're relevant. You just scouted every other article that had 1 inch of soil in what is present day Pakistan and added it to the list. None of these had any significant impact on the area, or are already covered." Not the way to discuss changes. For the links themselves: my knowledge of Pakistan history is too limited to judge on this, though Parthian Empire may be too much here. By the way, the template would be better off with collapsed lists. See Template:History of Iran, which also uses aligned tables with links on the left, and dates on the right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The disruption is there in the usage of 1) numerous IP socks 2) using personal attacks throughout the IP hopping/warring spree(s) 3) as well as clear WP:SPA edit warring, just to name a few. The last time the user was active on his account, he created numerous bogus articles as well (e.g. "Macedonian Pakistan"), that had to be speedy'd. All in all, he clearly isn't here to edit constructively, based on these points. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Having said that, the entities that had a noted impact on the area that constitutes the area know as Pakistan, are already listed. The user who initially added all those links literally scouted every single article that had "Pakistan" listed in the "today part of it" parameter, and just added it to it. Regardless of the entity in question having had literally 0.0% impact on the area, or simply no representation amongst mainstream scholarship. It's like adding the Roman Empire to the "History of Russia" template or the Ottoman Empire to the "History of Eritrea" template, hence, in my opinion, pure WP:UNDUE weight pushing. That minor information that could possibly be lacking about the "impact" they had on the area, should be added to the article of the entity in question, and on the "History of Pakistan" article. They don't separately belong on such templates. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-written template

I took around 2.5 hours to completely re-write the template. The old template was simply to vague and a mess. Many of the years were wrong and some of the Kingdoms were actually sub-kingdoms of a larger group. For example Gandhara/Swat Culture was separate in the first template, but in the revised template I wrote, it's under Vedic Civilization. Also the old template was very Mughul/Punjab centric, with zero emphasis being made on other empires and dynasties (from Sindh and Gilgit-Baltistan) in particular. I also revised the years, which were for the most part wrong. Please don't simply revert it back to the old template, if possible, I'll be happy to edit the template if there is a dispute and we can come to a consensus. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:, looks really good actually. Well done! - LouisAragon (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the template now was that it unnecessarily provided eras on every single sentence and cherry picks few territories and dynasties under the listed entity. It is just a template and should not be treated as an article. And many important names like Pala Empire, Maratha Empire, State of Bahawalpur, Bombay Presidency, etc. had been removed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that @Mar4d: has restored the POV version of the user who has been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE, which itself shows seriousness regarding the problematic edits that he has made. Can you show consensus against the long standing version? "template was very Mughul/Punjab centric" is not a valid reason. I would rather prefer restoration of the removed entities / entries, no WP:ERA spam, and no sub entities. After that it will look like Template:History of Iran. Capitals00 (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see this diff. Your edit unilaterally removed a large chunk of links without an explanation, in addition to mass reverting all formatting and other changes. If you believe there are missing articles, please propose them here rather than removing other content from the template. Mar4d (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: don't throw the word "unilateral" like a garbage. I had provided the explanation, on both talk and edit summary, its a pity that you can't read or recognize it. Don't expect me to propose the names here when the original WP:NOTHERE editor did nothing like that. Removing "other content" is also required because this is a template, not an article. Capitals00 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now reverted you, since you have failed to describe how his version was superior than the long standing one that we already had, especially when you can't even argue how his POV version was any justified at all. Since he got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE, we can't just treat his version as orthodox that is full of POV pushing and lacking standards. Capitals00 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)