Jump to content

Talk:Rana Punja

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of IIO's proposed title, Rana Punja. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Rao PoonjaPunja – spelling as per source -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB This article might be better at Rana Punja:

Rana Punja was a successful ruler, establishing several claims over the neighbouring lands. He left three sons, Mansing who succeeded him, Amarsing who received the village of Sudasna, and Dhengoji who was given Gancheru.

That's what most sources call him In ictu oculi (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intention to revive this article

[edit]

I have reviewed prior discussions related to the deletion/redirection of this article and have taken into account the concerns of those advocating deletion/redirection as well as those editors who thought this article could properly be sourced. In the totality of prior reasoning, I feel it is worth a shot to revive the article and source it properly, and will be attempting to do so over the summer of 2019. Comments welcome.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]