Template talk:Karnataka topics

message: I have made further modifications to the template to incorporate some of the comments mentioned above. I did not want to replace the original template without a review and hence I have created it temporarily here. Kindly comment on whether it is proper, in which case we can move it as the actual template. By the way I am not able to create more than seven rows in the template. Any row starting with the caption 'title8' and beyond is ignored. Is that a limitation? -- Amarrg 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and make the changes.  I feel it looks better than what we have now.  Just add Western Chalukyas to it in line with Dinesh's suggestion above.  As for the 8th row, I dont know.  Maybe it is.  We may have to check with the guys who created the .  Sarvagnya
Category Waterfalls seems appropriate under Tourism section rather than Geography section. What do you people think? Also can we add Literature section? I believe we have handful of articles for that section. Gnanapiti 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further modifications

message: I have made following changes-
* Created a new section for literature and used some articles in that section.
* Moved Kannada sahitya sammelana and Kannada sahitya Parishat to Literature section from Culture section.
* Moved Waterfalls to Tourism section from Geography section.
Please feel free to make any appropriate changes. Gnanapiti 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some modifications

message: This template is being used in many pages and hence it is important that some amount of consensus is evolved before modifying or adding to it. 
===Shivalli Brahmin===
This is a sub caste among Brahmins and a non-registered user had added this to the template. Please add below whether you want to support or oppose this addition -- Amarrg 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little tricky.  There are other Brahmin subcastes there like Hebbar Iyengar, Hoysala Karnataka etc., so somebody may argue that Shivalli brahmins also ought to be given space.  But otoh, we also cant keep on adding every caste and subcaste.  Maybe what we can do is, lets put Kannada brahmins or Karnataka brahmins or something like that.  For now though, I guess adding Shivalli brahmins wont do much harm.  Thats just my opinion, though. Sarvagnya 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please discuss all new additions/modifications here

message: This is a sub caste among Brahmins and a non-registered user had added this to the template. Please add below whether you want to support or oppose this addition -- Amarrg 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little tricky.  There are other Brahmin subcastes there like Hebbar Iyengar, Hoysala Karnataka etc., so somebody may argue that Shivalli brahmins also ought to be given space.  But otoh, we also cant keep on adding every caste and subcaste.  Maybe what we can do is, lets put Kannada brahmins or Karnataka brahmins or something like that.  For now though, I guess adding Shivalli brahmins wont do much harm.  Thats just my opinion, though. Sarvagnya 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shivalli Brahmin

message: We need to review some of the entries in the template to decide if it should be or not be there.  I suggest that only those issues/topics that bring out Karnataka culture, history, literature, etc etc on a significant scale be added. Entries like Beary, Mogaveera are not heard anywhere outside Dakshin Kannada district. We need to be selective.  Entries like these are better of in local district templates.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- Amarrg 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current (28th Jun '07) looks like 
 Society  Beary · Bunt · Havyaka · Hebbar Iyengar · Hoysala Karnataka · Kannadiga · Kodava · Konkani · Kota · Lingayat · Mogaveera · Sankethi · Tuluva · Vokkaliga
You see names of ethnicities, castes?
I suggest we follow the example of Template:Andhra_Pradesh or Template:Tamil_Nadu
Nareshov 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, fine. But, _please_ do something about that casteist "Society" section. Nareshov 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The format and topics used in this template are discussed and consented by number of editors. Please see the top of this talk page to know how template looked like earlier and how/why it was modified. This template is an extended version of AP and TN templates and I don't think we need to go back again. If you have any concerns over topics used in this template, please be explicit in expressing rather than beating around the bush. If you think you have anything to contribute, visit Karnataka which is under peer review now. Gnanapiti 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Society" section is just a list of castes and ethnicities. First, why is there a need to display the caste/ethinicities articles in a template? Second, why are only some castes/ethnicities featuring there? (you haven't even used criteria such as "Major/Minor Castes/Ethnicities"). Not to mention the redundancy (notice "Kannadiga" and say "Lingayat", does that mean Lingayat people aren't Kannadigas or what?). Hope that wasn't beating around the bush. Nareshov 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beating around the bush was for your first post which apparently was a little late reply. Anyways, I don't see any problems in displaying ethnicity topics in the template. By displaying articles in the template, we are just giving a high level view of society in Karnataka and nothing else. Nothing like we are supporting caste system or any ethnicity in particular. Religion is an important topic to be ignored in an encyclopedia. Adding both Lingayat and Kannadigas in the template doesn't necessarily mean what you indicate. It's just that they are all the different topics under Society in Karnataka. However, criteria for adding topics to that section, I'm not sure. We need to come to a consent on what to add and what to leave out. Also, we can change the section name to Society and Religion or something like that.  Gnanapiti 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss 

message: * Create a seperate field for "minorities" into which Beary, Mogaveera, etc can be fitted
* There is no "Hoysalas" in history!! Replace Belur/Halebidu with Hoysalas.
* Banavasi and Manyakheta are not so important historically mostly because they dont have the architecture of Belur, Halebidu, Patadakal etc. we dont need to include them unless someone can write detailed article on them with existing architecture, monuments etc. (I hope to some day)
*In culture, include only those topics that are really popular and unique.
ThanksDineshkannambadi 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoysala Empire is present under history. I have removed Belur and Halebidu. - KNM  Talk 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Perhaps we need to include "Mayurasharma", "Vishnuvardhana", "Vikramaditya VI" in this list, or better yet create a separate section for Kings and one for the greatest poets.  How does that sound.Dineshkannambadi 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Please include Geology under tourism since Geological Survey of India has named four sites in Karantaka as National Geological Monuments to encourage Geotourism. The four sites are:
St. Mary's Islands, Karnataka for Columnar Basalts near Malpe, Udupi, Peninsular Gneiss, a Monument in Lalbagh, Bangalore, Pillow Lava, Maradihalli in Chitradurga District and Pyroclastic rocks in Peddapalli in Kolar District. --Nvvchar (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: pl. move Architecture group up somewhere near to Culture or History. Now it is added at the very bottom as group 10.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.121.131 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture