Talk:Ay dynasty

Request all the available details regarding the Pandiyan Kingdom of the Southern Kerala. You may enter the details in the talk page. So far the Pandiyan Heritage of southern Kerala which losted for many millenia has been safely ignored while promoting dubious literatures written in the 16th century like Keralolpathy for explaining the foundation of Keralas Origins. Keralas Pandiyan descendents, the Nadars still survive in the southern parts of Travancore. Venadinte Saritham by Mr.Sivasankaran Nair does give importance to the ancient Pandiyans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.20.188 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ay origin from Ayar

http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=PA7&dq=temples+of+sri+krishna+t+padmaja&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kpDvTunaEcatiAK99szsAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ayar&f=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.232.9 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.ch/books?id=e8o5HyC0-FUC&printsec=copyright&hl=de#v=onepage&q=ay%20kingdom&f=false Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern By Raj Kumar

Ay Kingdom traces it origins to Yadavas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.19.47 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travancore rulers claim the legacy from Lunar race. And one more query, are they not cheras ??

Which Calendar

This page had been on the Common Era standard for a while (barring one or two missed references) until User:Tahc reverted. After fixing the missed references to Christian calendars, User:Tahc reverted again. Please state a good reason for your revert or I will change it back to the Common Era standard. ldvhl (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB-- your "incomplete" change to CE made one (1) use of CE, and still left three (3) uses of AD. tahc ^chat 08:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And then I corrected that. And then you reverted. ldvhl (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you have that backwards again. I corrected the era style, and you began the changing against policy, without discussion or WP:CON. tahc ^chat 16:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style says:

“

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

”

The page was created on December 31, 2006‎ with the AD era style. At some unknown point text with CE era style was added without changing the AD era style text. Obviously there was never a new WP:CON for CE style.

In accordance with the policy, I converted the remaining CE style text to match the pre-existent and still-existent AD style. There is no reason to change this page to CE style. tahc ^chat 01:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. This isn't a Christian topic, so it shouldn't be shoehorned into a Christian calendar. I changed it a while ago (admittedly incompletely, but still) and nobody noticed or complained until you jumped on here and reverted it. After I fixed the missed BC/AD references, you again reverted back. ldvhl (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have this idea that only Christians should or do use an AD style era system, or that only Christian-related topics should use AD style era system. If that were part of Wikipedia policy, it would be part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Indeed many non-Christians use the AD era style for non-Christian topics and are not very familiar with what "CE" means. tahc ^chat 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have this idea that the Christian calendar is appropriate when the manual of style says the BCE/CE convention can be just as appropriate. You haven't really presented a case why the article should stay on the Christian calendar. ldvhl (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a Christian calendar; it is a Western calendar, and a calendar of mixed origin. The AD era style is of Christian origin.

I have presented a case why the article should stay on the AD era style. As I said, many people-- including many non-Christians-- and are not very familiar with what "CE" means, and so AD is much more clear overall.

If you still want to continue this disscussion, I will not object to changing the subhead so the that it uses the uses the word "era". The policy recommends you 'Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era".' for this sort of thing. tahc ^chat 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Semi-Protection

This page should be temporarily protected to prevent unregistered users and new accounts from making edits. This is due to a history of vandalism and disruptive editing that has compromised the article's quality. The protection is in place to maintain the integrity of the content and ensure a positive editing experience for all contributors. Tamil Selvan34 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]