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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)