Talk:Kural

message: @User:Sarah. Should we necessarily list the languages the Kural had been translated by the 1970s (under the "Translations" section)? As the respective articles have already been linked in the section, am wondering whether we can do away with the bullet list. Am not removing it as of now. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us keep it. While some of the translations are linked elsewhere in this article, others are not. The list of languages is notable for its diversity and shows the text's significance. The list cites a scholarly source. The ideal format would be a table, where we have a link or cite to the translation in each language. We are not there yet. A shortlist suffices for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed the fact that the Tamil Nadu government officially declared 31 BCE as the year of Valluvar has been removed. Although the date of Valluvar is still debatable, the fact that the government has officially adopted a date is still a fact of encyclopedic merit and can be included in the "Date" section of the article. What do you think? Rasnaboy (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of translated languages 

message: why edit war with such edits? Zvelebil does state Uttaravedam. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive removal of content 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to Kural per the discussion below.   —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Tirukkuṟaḷ →  – The more common name, and the right way to pronounce it. Renders 8,74,000 G-Hits, whereas the current title renders 80,500 hits. Kailash29792 (talk)  05:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 October 2021 

message: Seems like this article has too much of calling it a "masterpiece", just search for that word and see how many times it's used. That doesn't feel like something typical on Wikipedia. Like saying it's considered a masterpiece once is fine, but it continuously being referred to that randomly, like "despite being a masterpiece" makes the article feel too subjective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.143.251 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this. I've failed to notice this before. The word appears thrice in the article, one in the lead (which is acceptable), another within quotation (which again is acceptable), and yet another in the main text (which may sound like POV). I'm changing the latter as "Despite being a classic..." to avoid this unwanted repetition. Thanks again. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very balanced approach to the raised concern, all context considered, and agree that it was a good catch by the IP. SnowRise let's rap 06:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masterpiece? 

message: As a whole, the article doesn't quite read like it has an encyclopedic tone/POV. There's no single problem spot; it's just an overall impression. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try to give a full read over the weekend and fix this issue. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave a full read. Fixed most of the pov instances and tags removed. Please review. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild tone/POV issues