Talk:Indo-Scythians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

More information about this article...

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. See comments

Additional information
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Comments edit

B: As it misses out on life, economy, people etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes

Now that copyediting has made it clearer what the content of this article is, I suggest that that it be deleted and relevant sections be moved to Indo-scythians, Scythians, Sakas, Scythia, etc.

The content of Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes itself substantially duplicates these articles and I can't see any reason for keeping it as a standalone wikipedia entry.--Saganaki- 11:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree on the merge, but it is kind of hard to digest at this point. Let's dry to clean the article in the coming days. PHG 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A considerable time after the above merger, Satbir Singh recreated the Invasion of India by Scythian Tribes article on 11 January 2008. In looking at the content, I think that all of the original reasons still apply for merging the content. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)