Talk:Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal

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 not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), travelled (B) (American: traveled), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery).
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Joopercoopers 10:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

We have here a well sourced, well written page, 99.9% or more produced by one author. The author has apparently grown frustrated with the project, and wants this removed. I think it technically qualifies for G7 speedy, but... It's such a good work that I find myself hard pressed to hit the delete key. I guess I'm passing the descision off on the next admin to look at this, but I wanted to express my concerns. Sorry to be unable to come to a judgement on it myself. - TexasAndroid 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the sole author of this article and request its deletion. I wrote it on the understanding that such policies as G7 would be upheld should I request it - please delete. --Joopercoopers 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For now, I've declined as non criteria. Navou ^banter 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Criteria 7 here seems quite explicit. The article is overlong, violates WP:SIZE is too verbose, needs several diagrams drawing, and simply isn't the quality I'd like to leave lying around wikipedia - I'm happy to userfy if you want to do it that way. --Joopercoopers 08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure this should be deleted. Navou ^banter 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. There's only one edit, and a very trivial one at that, so I'd say the {{db-author}} should be respected. That said, WP:SIZE is a guideline not a rule, and can be bent without major issues at this point. Scissors and WP:SPLIT seem more appropriate than deletion, although, again, the author's wishes should be respected barring another editor taking up the torch before this comes to a close. MrZaius^talk 11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it per G7, author request. The speedy criteria are official policy. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC).

But there's more than one person that has edited the page, so it can't be author request. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use some common sense Ryan - I can't see the history any more, but one guy got reverted and the other made a word change in an image caption - I can't imagine they'd be too gutted. --Joopercoopers 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but that is the criteria, you can only request deletion if you are the sole author. I understand your concern, but that's the way the speedy criteria works I'm affraid. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy says 'substantial content', please reread --Joopercoopers 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

G7 specifically states "page's only substantial content was added by its author." That's absolutely the case here. CSD is official policy. We must respect the author's wish here. I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Bishonen was correct in deleting this. --Aude (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

G7 does not say "sole author", it says "substantial content". --Aude (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The author agreed to leave the page visible, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 18. Kusma (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] split article

Origins and architecture are not at all connected in this article. Splitting article into two separate articles would be wise. Total of 3 articles on Taj mahal is what wikipedia can afford. Lara_bran 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)