Talk:Indian rock-cut architecture

message: This looks like original research based on web-only sources. Aren't there any books or academic journals on the subject? If not, how is this important? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above user.  The authors of the article first need to show that the term, "Rock cut architecture" is used widely.  It seems most of their sources are web sites that themselves are dubious.  Wikipedia needs citations from academic journals, text-books, research monographs, or other reliable tertiary sources like Encylopaedia Britannica or Encarta.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: I was going to ask about "chandrashala facades", which is now changed and makes more sense - though it is possible to have a vault appended to a facade it just seemed unlikely.  dvdrw 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing. That phrase was used in one of my sources but then I started thinking about it and , like you says, it seemed unlikely. Thanks! --Mattisse 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you are writing this article Mattisse because I really like this page. Chandrashala may not simply mean vault as I was thinking though, I only know that word from the article, so I don't really know right now. A vaulted opening may be part of the facade though in that case it is usually considered a door or window and not a vault because of issues of scale and enclosure. In terms of solid and void, a facade is a solid with some openings whereas a vault is a void formed by an arched structure however the vault may be considered the structure or the space  - I recall hearing the word used either way.  dvdrw 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My own writing just now was confusing for me so sorry to you, also I found this article Kanheri Caves the other day with more pictures on flickr that are licensed in a way that can be brought to Wikipedia  so maybe it can be in this page. I know I'll upload at least one, the one with the steps, but maybe just that one since the article already has pictures. Regards,  dvdrw 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing also, because various authorities spell and use these terms in different ways depending on factors like area of India, type of structure, historical period involved etc. I've tried to think of some way to resolve this and I have failed. --Mattisse 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chandrashala facades 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian rock-cut architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061120002223/http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/travel/05caves.html to http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/travel/05caves.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *  - «yes, they do» 
*  - «Hope nobody minds if I remove this.» 
:  Well don't get me wrong, but this looks like inappropriate advertisement. I propose either to neutralize it or remove it.
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose that. "Inappropriate advertisement" for what?  To say "often astonishes" is of course an understatement for places like Ellora - this is the cliched reaction of visitors, a plain statement of fact, and should be left. Why inappropriate?  It has been on WP for nearly 2 years (rather longer than you I see).  I must indeed be getting you wrong, as I don't understand your objection.   Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see MOS:PUFFERY. In my opinion it's excessively WP:PROMOtional. No need for sensationalism. (Sorry for confusing you.) AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astonishes visitors