Talk:Mughal Empire

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Just like we have for the articles on the Roman Empire or the Hanseatic League, this article would benefit from a map that has markers for the places that are mentioned in this article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Having closely followed the progress of the Roman Empire article, I agree. For that purpose, we would need to have listings with Geo for each city or town with important Mughal buildings, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Empty "Sites" section[edit]

What was the point of this subheading? Should it be deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It was intended to list the places were Mughal history is most "present" just like similar sections in our US and European history series. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we keep it and turn it into anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't own the page. But I would like to see a list of places to go like we have in hanseatic league or the likes... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No-one "owns" the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If we turn it into that kind of list, "Mughal architecture" should be turned into a merely explanatory section, with the lion's share of its content moved to the "Sites" section, with markers added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, Ikan, that was what I was trying to say. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure how the article shold be organised. The sites might be mentioned under Mughal_Empire#The_peak if it gets expanded to cover other emperors in more detail, keeping the story chronological. Or in the Architecture section, aiming at telling a coherent story there. Or under Sites, focusing on where to travel. Some duplication is ok, but we should avoid overdoing it.
Any of those is fine with me, provided we end up with a coherent article. My own style is to just crank out text and leave worrying abour organising it for later, but others may prefer a different approach. Pashley (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the way we should "tell a consistent story" is in where to go. I.e. we should not organize it by different things that happened at the same time in different places but by things that happened in the same place at different times, if you understand what I am saying...? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right, in terms of listings, but it's also fine to give a chronological narrative of them in a different section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)