Talk:List of princely states of British India (by region)

message: The section on Punjab includes Kalabagh, which was a feudatory Jagir in the Mianwali District of Punjab. Kalabagh was never a Princely State, although the Nawab's family continue to be politically influential to this day. Thus I am deleting Kalabagh from the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.186.61 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kalabagh

message: *Delhi sultanate, became the Padshah i-Hind known as Grand Mughal, ultimately Political Pensioner
This was factually wrong. The Delhi sultanate was extinguished by the Mughals before the British ever arrived. What I've replaced it with - Delhi (Mughal empire) is probably not ideal either . Imc 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed this entry

message: I added a table to Baluchistan Agency, and plan to do this to all the Princely States. That will make it up to scratch with our lists of Royal states or houses (see Abolished monarchy for an example). It'll be a work in progress. Feedback welcome though.--RobNS 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: These two countries were never Indian Princely States, as they have always been independent countries also there is error in map about nepal. - (Numismaticman 07:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were certainly considered princely states at the time, although Nepal, at least, always had more internal independence than the princely states that eventually became incorporated into India. john k (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Nepal was never listed  as princely state as the king of Nepal was adressed as "His Majesty " and rana prime minister as "his excellency " where as in the princely states the king were called "Excellency" and after anglo nepal war only a residency as an embassy was allowed to be made as  Sugauli treaty stated that   Britain would be responsible for all the foreign relations . --Ashim nep (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bhutan]] and [[Nepal]]

message: In Rajputana list, Bharatpur state is missing--83.56.237.128 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bharatpur on Rajputana 

message: I think Umri was a small state in Rajputana to the north of Lunavada. --Großwesir (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umri 

message: This page would benefit from a table of contents, though there is no easy way to achieve that.
The problem, it would seem, is the arrangement of the alphabetical list at the lower half of the page.
On the other hand, there is no particular reason why the alphabetical list shouldn't be moved to a separate page; the article is currently big enough to consider a split, and, as one would be arranged by region  and the other alphabetically, they are both useful for cross-referencing.
So, I would suggest we do that, move the alphabetical list section to its own page. Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in the absence of any furious complaints, I've been bold and moved it. The material is now at List of Indian princely states (alphabetical). Moonraker12 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: PS The TOC has appeared here, now, so that's an improvement already...Moonraker12 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split/Table of Contents 

message: I'm thinking the outline could do with being re-written. The information there at present is already at Princely state, and it isn't that relevant to a list. It would be better if we had a digest of the various arrangements (Pensioners of the BEIC prior to 1858, maybe; the various reorganizatiions of the various agencies) prior to 1947. And they aren't all here, by any means; are these just the Salute states? Should we limit this page to them only? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We should endeavor to make this page as complete as possible, I think, while also having a useful organization.  It would be nice to note the area and population of each state in 1947, if that's possible.  Also, shouldn't Mysore be in the individual residency section, and Travancore with Madras?  The current set-up seems backwards.  john k (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re right about Mysore and Travancore; there are the wrong way round. I’ve taken the liberty of fixing it...Moonraker12 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: The "States of the Punjab" lists Mandi twice, with the same information.  I assume this is an error, but since this isn't a topic I know anything about, I'm not feeling especially bold and thought I would point it out to editors who are monitoring this article.  --- OtherDave (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandi, Mandi? 

message: Were not the presidencies under direct colonial rule, and therefore not princely states?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.138.221 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The presidencies themselves were.  The list here is listing princely states which were under the (indirect) authority of a particular governor.  Thus, the states of Madras Presidency reported to the Governor of Madras, rather than to the Viceroy or to an agency. john k (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidencies 

message: The article used to list Mysore as having its own residency, and Travancore under Madras.  Now it does the reverse, even though, to my knowledge, the first version was correct.  Why? john k (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we fix this already? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysore and Travancore

message: I notice a number of the various agency tables had been dissolved into a sortable list, called (imaginatively) "Sortable List". This was done without any explanation, or discussion here, by an editor who is no longer with us.  
The change took no account of the list already being sorted by Agency, and in alphabetical order, nor did it include all the tables, so it ended up a bit of a mess.
I've put it back, pending a decision here. Is a sortable list of these states desirable? Is it even practicable? (there were over 500 states in all; having them in a single table could be massively complicated) Any comments? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables, again 

message: Almost Mirza & Baig(Beg), British Royal Surname. BeyPeople (talk) 11:29, 04 Aug 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: also notable title

message: Should Chamba State be added to this list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:4400:EDAD:DA75:DF8C:6A9D:CE2 (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamba State 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of princely states of British India (by region). 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/20150404115634/http://internationalnobilityregister.page.tl/Princely-states-of-India.htm to http://internationalnobilityregister.page.tl/Princely-states-of-India.htm
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) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The column Last or present ruler in all the tables in this section should only contain the name of the last or present ruler of the state. 
Therefore the column should only have one name per row. 
I have added a  tag to the article section to indicate the same. 
Thanks,
Kvwiki1234 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princely States at the time of independence on 14 August 1947 - tables