Talk:Parakramabahu I

message: While helping you to check on the reference formatting, I had a chance to read the article. I found it very well written, comprehensive and impressively referenced; hence the B rating. Why don't you polish it a bit and submit it as a Good Article? Jeffpw 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: I don't find the nomination or listing at WP:GA or WP:GAC; can someone please clarify which section it is in?  Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article?

message: This article depends too much on primary source such as Culavamsa to make claims against Indian and Burmese rulers. Please read WP:RS and the section on primary sources. Depending on Culavamasa to make a fact that he invaded Burma without corroborating evidence from the Burmese side (primary or otherwise) is like writing an article on Troy based on Iliad and OdysseyTaprobanus 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Taprobanus and would like to add that as a consequence it cannot be claimed that the war against Bagan was the cause of Narutha's death or that Bagan was actually conquered completely by the Sinhalese. It can however be claimed that King Narathu was killed by assassins of the Sinhalese King Parâkramabâhu based on the cited website. Regardless, further citation from Burmese sources is most certainly needed. For instance, in Arthur Phayre's "History of Burma" the author writes that Parâkramabâhu's envoys were actually dispatched to punish the King of Begu who had committed the acts referred to by this page as having been committed by Bagan's King Narutha. Saffron.unity (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
On hold--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected some problems, but there was no response from the nominator, though a note was left on his talk. No improvements in Article since review. I would have loved to promote this only if these problems were resolved. This article is very very close to GA. I request the editors to make the minor above, renominate and leave a note on my talk so i can promote the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Naming_and_transliteration 
would recommend IAST unless primary sources use sth else. IAST uses ā for long /a:/ and not â Jasy jatere (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some reason to use â instead of ā? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Srilanka-banknotes 0001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The reasons I removed that information was: WP:INDICSCRIPTS; then we are left with his name three times in a row. (Also, his name is not correct in Sinhalese, as Sinhalese has no long vowels: Mahā Parākaramabāhu is not Sinhalese, it's either Pali or a Prakrit.) Do we really need all that cruft at the beginning of the article? I'm removing the Indic scripts again (and only those right now) because that policy is crystal clear. Ogress smash! 03:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait also I removed "Paranavitana, History of Ceylon, p. 199Encyclopædia Britannica, Parakramabahu I" because we seriously need to cite his name in the lede? That's super overkill. Ogress smash! 03:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This article is infact impressively done but largely contains original research. I put up some new sources for previous content. Maybe remove the Culawamsa sources because its an primary source: Bibliography of Sri Lanka. Hopefully there are secondary sources that can be better. Kommune12 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing