Talk:First Battle of Panipat

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Made A Small Change

I have made a small change in the article to bring Table of Content at the top of the page. It was at the bottom of the page! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of reference to Battle of Chaldiran and Battle of Ghagra in "See Also" section

I have added reference to the Battle of Chaldiran in the "See Also" section. The Battle of Chaldiran was fought a decade before the First Battle of Panipat. The Ottomans made extensive use of cannons and firearms protected by a barricade of carts to win the battle. Babur procured his cannons and firearms from the Ottomans and used the similar tactics to win the battle.

I have added reference to the Battle of Ghaghra since this was the last major battle fought by Babur in India. This battle consolidated his empire.

Please review these changes.

Source for the political map of the aftermath

The uploaded image seems to be without any justification. There is also some reason to think that it might be based off a certain video game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taninamdar (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Asking Him to Get Punished by Him

I was confused by this section in Background

″He sent an ambassador to Ibrahim, asking him to get punished by him and he is rightful to the throne of the country, however, the ambassador was detained ...″

47.156.163.253 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an editor had made some language errors when adjusting the wording of that paragraph a couple years ago. I've now restored the original wording. Thanks for the heads up.
Alivardi (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2024

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: no consensus. The consistency argument isn't so weak that I as a closer can disregard it, and there's also disagreement about whether the MOS:CAPS threshold is in fact met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• First Battle of Panipat → First battle of Panipat
• Second Battle of Panipat → Second battle of Panipat
• Third Battle of Panipat → Third battle of Panipat

– These are mostly lowercase in sources, until a recent uptick in caps likely influenced by Wikipedia, and still not close to the MOS:CAPS threshold of "consistently capitalized" in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose For the Battles of Panipat, I see much more WP:RS sources showcasing with capitalization; [1] [2] [3] [4]

  The second: [5]

  The first: [6] [7] [8] - British gazetter (8th source) Noorullah (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, source n-gram stats show the lowercase "third battle" was quite dominant, into the early 21st century. Sadly, more recent stats show the unreasonable effectiveness of Wikipedia, as so many more low-effort books have been published, and so many books are influenced by Wikipedia's over-capitalization that has been there since 2002, as seen here. But it's not too late to fix, since it's still not close to our guideline threshold of "consistently capitalized" in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: per @Noorullah21, and per WP:CONSISTENCY. @Dicklyon, it currently appears to be the convention on Wikipedia to use "First Battle of ..." (with 'B' capitalised). If you want to change that then you should do a project-wide discussion instead of individual articles. PadFoot (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's not true at all. No such alleged "convention" is codified anywhere, and it's against all the applicable guidelines. You clearly mean WP:CONSISTENT (WP:CONSISTENCY is an internal disambiguation page). But you are mis-citing it, since your desire to capitalize in this case, against the source evidence of usage and the applicable guidelines, would be inconsistent with our routine RM treatment of other battle and armed-conflict articles (and all other subjects), which do not go lower-case unless the term has demonstrably become accepted as a proper name capitalized by virtually all sources. In short, you do no understand what WP:CONSISTENT policy means and how it operates. It absolutely is not a system-gaming "capital letters preservation" tool for thwarting site-wide consistent consensus against over-capitalization; certainly not on the basis of being able to find some other article titles that need the same cleanup this one does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I never said a 'guideline' or a 'policy'. I meant an informal convention. These scattered RMs can be thought of as basically targeting individual articles, and a project-wide discussion should be conducted. Consistency is one of the five most important criteria defined in WP:Article titles. PadFoot (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS, MOS:MILCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS. Not consistently capitalized in sources. The recent upswing in capitalization for one of them, in ngrams only, is obviously WP's own influence. Since the ngrams hide from us what the sources are and what they are doing, turn instead to Google Scholar, which allows us to see the actual sources being used and their in-context usage: [9][10][11]. For all three cases, the usage (in mostly high-quality sources, not SPS junk copy-pasting from Wikipedia) is wildly mixed, and around or below 50% in favor of capitalization (outside of title-case titles and headings). It would be against WP:CONSISTENT policy to keep one of them capitalized, as Noorullah21 seemed to be suggesting we do (but we must not robotically apply the letter of a guideline against both its intent and an overriding policy). No appellations of armed conflicts (or anything else) take capitalization on Wikipedia unless consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources (emphasis in original). Even this does not require only permit the capitalization, even if the the aggregate usage data can be trusted (here, the ngram for "3rd" cannot, since it is contradicted by better aggregate evidence from GScholar). CONSISTENT policy overrides a false "consistency" of trying to make these articles agree with other mis-capitalized articles that have not been subject to RM consensus review, when the RMs we have had on this kind of matter consistently go lower-case. CONSISTENT means be consistent with the results of consensus, not be inconsistent with the results of consensus just to be "consistent" with random chance (or non-random WP:FAITACCOMPLI by over-capitalizers whose contra-consensus excesses have not yet been reverted).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC); revised 22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish ...Where did I suggest using WP:CONSISTENT? Noorullah (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not what I said; rather, that you suggested keeping one upper-cased ("Oppose For the Third Battle of Panipat"), and I'm observing that this would be against CONSISTENT policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish Not what I meant, I meant that from WP:RS sources, the first results that came up had it capitalized which I highlighted for the Third, Second, and First battles, corrected that. Noorullah (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Revised above. However, the fact that you can find some capitalization and link to some sources that capitalize is immaterial; it's not indicative of anything statiscal about the capitalization rate. Our standard is to use lower case unless almost all the sources capitalize consistently. E.g., no one writes "world war II".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per @PadFoot, changing 'Battle' to lowercase would be opposite to the common naming convention on Wikipedia Prakashs27 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Standard naming convention for battles on and off Wikipedia is to capitalise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAPS and SMcCandlish. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Soft oppose per Noorullah21 and PadFoot. Standard namimg convention of course. --Imperial^[AFCND] 14:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support MOS:CAPS, MOS:MILCAPS, WP:LOWERCASE, WP:NCCAPS. Not consistently capitalized in sources. See ngram evidence provided by DL and review of Google books for context by SMcC. The construction battle of X is descriptive of a battle that occurred in, at or near a particular place. It is not intrinsically a proper noun phrase and the application of capitalisation is for emphasis, significance or importance, which is another use for capitalisation (but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). However, we will capitalise the term if it is consistently capitalised in sources. There is a misperception that the construction battle of X is consistently capitalised both on and off WP but the ngram evidence provided by the Nom inherently refutes the validity of the assertion off WP. If we look at some famous battles, we also see mixed usage in sources to various degrees (Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of Waterloo and Battle of Hastings). We certainly can't say that these battles are capitalised with the same degree of consistency as say Mississippi River or Arthur Wellesley. As an interesting aside, we might consider capitalisation in say, French, which is much more rigorous in only capitalising proper nouns|names (rather than other uses such as for emphasis and significance - see Bataille de Trafalgar Bataille de Waterloo indicating these are certainly not proper names). Those arguing consistency here have specifically stated this is not an argument of WP:CONSISTENT. It is to effect, an argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Such arguments on their own lack strength unless they also show that the precedent elsewhere is directly comparable and reflects best practice. In turn, best practice is the appropriate application of prevailing P&G. In this case though, the precedent they would wish to apply directly contravenes the prevailing P&G. The argument is ipso facto self-defeating. We should note that WP:TITLEFORMAT applies to any potential title selected by application of WP:CRITERIA - ie the potential title must also satisfy WP:TITLEFORMAT; thereby giving the latter precedence. Consequently, there is no contradiction or inconsistency between WP:CONSISTENT and WP:LOWERCASE when it come to using sentence case for article titles. If we look at other battles on WP using the format battle of X (see search), we will see that Battle of X does predominate but not to the point of absolute consistency and the exceptions reflect the prevailing P&G - as should the articles in this RM. There is also reason to review other battle articles to confirm consistency of capitalisation in titles with the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Common name and standard naming can be considered as the entire title being a full proper noun. "Battle of Panipat" is correct grammar, Third can be added on without being grammatically invalid.

RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose: Such type of requests are doing nothig than wasting time of Wikipedians.The capitalisaion is because title is a proper noun we are refering to name of a specific battle not a battle in Panipat.

Edasf (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

especially considering how these Panipat I II III are extremely notable in Asian history they are appropriately kept as full proper nouns RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per ngram check on the first request, this battle meets the threshold of "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources".[12] We should be firm in lower-casing where sources don't routinely capitalise, but equally we shouldn't go around moving to sentence-case titles where the sourcing doesn't support it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

As you are aware, ngrams do not differentiate prose uses from non-prose uses where titlecase would be expected (eg citations and headings) but can be contexturalised such as here, where the proportion capped is 59%, 56% and 66% for the three battles respectively- perhaps approaching but not yet at the threshold of consistent capitalisation. This ngram without smoothing indicates the proportions are even lower for the most recent data. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor?

I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. Arminden (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)