Talk:Garhwal kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

India: Uttarakhand / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garhwal Kingdom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date founded

@Ekabhishek: you provided the date 823 in an old edit to this page, without adding a citation.[1]

Tarbooj (talk · contribs) later entered 888 in the infobox,[2] but not changing your text that still says 823.

Can you provide a citation to resolve this inconsistency? – Fayenatic London 09:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. [3] – Fayenatic London 23:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2025

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 Garhwal kingdom; no consensus to further move to Kingdom of Garhwal. My practice when doing WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE closes is to choose the change that modifies the title the least, which in this case is simple decapitalization * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garhwal Kingdom → Garhwal kingdom – Sources don't usually cap kingdom here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Garhwal? Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the ancient Indian kingdoms are done that way; most not. More stats. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support The ngrams don't have enough results for a wildcard search eg Garhwal kingdom * but google shcollar (here) is quite convincing that this is not consistently capped per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kingdom of Garhwal per consistency with almost every other kingdom (e.g. Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Italy, etc.) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 22:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the pattern for most of the ancient India kingdoms. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more n-gram stats to include that alternative. Note that it would still be lowercase kingdom when non sentence-initial. And Gahrwal kingdom is historically much more common. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that spike up in usage in 2022 appears to be from this one self-published book. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Arakkal kingdom and Calicut kingdom and some others in Category:Princely states of India for some examples. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: When kingdom is lowercase is it similar to all the sources that use it agreeing to using a disam, Garhwal (kingdom) to distinguish this period from another e.g. Garhwal division could be seen as Garhwal (division)?

No, all it means is that we don't have evidence that it is consistently capped in sources and therefore, we wouldn't cap it either. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no than what is yes? Is it a proper name if not an adjective and noun, or what? If nobody understands the sources then perhaps prod the article?

Whilst I lack knowledge of this topic it's possible both forms make sense, eg. "The Garhwal kingdom is called Garhwal Kingdom". It's great you can link to ngrams and scholar and pull up the numbers for each, but there may be good reason for there being no consistency. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they both make sense, but note that before WP capped it in 2007, almost all uses were "the Garhwal kingdom". And the only other thing I find in books in front of "Garhwal kingdom" is capped "The"; for some of the other lowercase kingdoms, I do find them without "the", treated as names, but not proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's overwhelmingly usually 'the', so "The Garhwal kingdom" could also be proposed, which reads a lot better without people reading it as like the proper name of a country, Garhwal Kingdom. To me it'd always cause confusion. Garhwali kingdom would've been better had it ever been used.

Per WP:NCGN: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. To me the place was simply "Garhwal". Everything in the ngram is refering to a historical place, from which the descriptive phrase 'the Garhwal kingdom' comes. Newspapers.com returns just 2 results from all time for case-insensitive "Garhwal kingdom", they're from 2014 (and capitalised). There are 268 matches for 'Garhwal' from the 19th century, one from the Observer in 1815 detailing goings on in 'Garhwal'. So Garhwal (kingdom) is not such a terrible call.

To prevent confusion; and per Garhwal being the name of the place; and per the short description, wikidata descr and content being about the system of governance and not the place; and per WP:NCCST: In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)".; I would lean towards moving to Kingdom of Garhwal, k only being capitalised for being the first letter. The sources don't have to be verbatim for me, they mean exactly the same thing. Rally Wonk (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is not as natural, it is not so terrible that I couldn't live with it. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't generally want "The" in a title. If the title were Kingdom of Garhwal, the lead would read "The kingdom of Garhwal ...". But we might as well stick with what it's more commonly called. And Garhwal with added parenthetical disambiguator is not as natural as using what it's most often called nowadays. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a name being called else it would be Garhwal Kingdom? Garhwal kingdom = kingdom of Garhwal = the Panwar dynasty realm = the royal period = ...many others. Good as one and the same, it's just different ways to describe the same subject.

Kingdom of Garhwal meets WP:Criteria and other policies better. Garhwal kingdom only seems to be meeting WP:COMMONTERM better based on the ngram high score. I don't see why that's imperative when the article is a topic not a name, like Culture of India or Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, I doubt they have many verbatim strings in their sources. Rally Wonk (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care that much, but whether the name is kingdom of Garhwal or Garhwal kingdom, it's an illustration of the fact that not all names are proper names. If people prefer to move to Kingdom of Garhwal, I have no objection, but I think Garhwal kingdom, matching use in sources, is more in line with the criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.