Talk:Shunga Empire

Untitled

Three sources are already cited in the text, and more are readily available on Internet. User:PHG

This entire article is written from a Greco-philic perspective. I'm sure there was more to the Sunga empire than mere persecution of Buddhism for the fun of it, just as I'm sure there was more to the Bactrian attacks on the Sungas than naive altruistic intentions. I am highly suspicious of any article that seems to draw the bulk of its narrative from W.W. Tarn simply because that man was shameless in the unjustified praise he lavished on Alexander. I am doubly suspicious of accounts of history that construct their entire narrative in relation to the Greeks. After all, this is supposed to be an entry on the Sungas, not on the valour of Indo-Greek white knights. User: Pavs

Rename/ Merge

I am not an expert so this is both a request for information and a way to streamline things that has me a little confused.

If you go to Magaadha, or the History of South Asia it lists the Sunga as merely a dynasty of Maghada among 4 other dynasties if that is the case then I think the Sunga Empire should be a redirect to Sunga Dynasty and the both the articles merged into Sunga Dynasty. Sunga dynasty anyway looks like a cut and paste section of this page. Also a a little table at the bottom showing both the preceding and antecedent dynasties should be included and placed under Maghada. The same holds true for the Mauryans I suppose. I will raise the issue on the Mauryan pages as well so that wikipedia articles are a little more clear.--Tigeroo 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitude towards Buddhism

My rationale for making the sectin succint. The article is about the entire Sunga dynasty. The debate is about just one singular member of that dynasty. It seems to be overdoing the emphasis in the article by focusing too much of the article on one who seems like an odd man out, in an article about the many.

I beleive it is enough to mention him, mention the debate around him, and mention how this contrasted with or reflected the general attitude of the dynasty as a whole. There are links to two other articles, Decline of Buddhism in India, and Pushyamitras own page, where the information is more specifically and fully explored. Feel free to come and help in the editing the details on those page.

I am being bold here and saying we need to condens and not overdo the exposure to the debate in this particular page.--Tigeroo 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to check the reference "Sarvastivada p 38-39" but that reference seems to be ambiguous or incomplete. The Sarvastivada is a Buddhist philosophical tradition, not a book. Could you please supply a complete citation so that people who want to read the source material can? Charles haynes (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Indragnimitra not a king

Not keen on changing text before discussion. Reference Shailendra Bhandare, ‘Numismatics and History: The Maurya-Gupta Interlude in the Gangetic Plain’. In: Patrick Olivelle, Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford 2006, 67-112.

Bandhare explains that "when the [Bodhgaya] inscription itself is consulted afresh from its estampages, it becomes clear that the very indication that Indrāgnimitra was a king, or Kurangī a queen, is doubtful." Reason: - no title appended to Indrāgnimitra - epithet of Kurangī "prajāvatī" meaning 'queen' is an assumption - therefore Indrāgnimitra assumed to be king.

Bandhare continues: Nevertheless "a general consensus prevails on identifying this Indrāgnimitra as a ruler who struck coins in the 'Pāñcāla' series. But no coins bearing the name Indrāgnimitra are known in the series." Reason: - there are coins with name Agnimitra - there are coins with name Indramitra - both type struck by separate issuer

Question: Should Wikipedia mention Indrāgnimitra as Śunga king when referring to the Bodhgaya inscription? Suggestion: No, or assumptions should be presented as assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijamin (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mathura not part of Sunga empire

Mathura was well outside the Sunga Empire. The Map shows it almost on the border or inside it. The Maturas and Panchalas(between yamuna and ganges) along with the Indo-greeks(in punjab/haryana/himachal and northern pakistan) were allied against the Sungas as they all were related by marital alliances with the Mauryas whom the Sungas had overthrown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.2.23 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2015

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: Moved per reasons given below. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Śuṅga Empire → Shunga Empire – The primary and consistent name for this article is now Shunga Empire (which is currently a redirect to this page). The use of IAST in the title, while accurate, is unnecessary and inconsistent with the naming conventions employed for articles on other Indian empires. The IAST spelling is, in any case, prominently displayed in the article's lead. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: For reasons stated above. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Diacritics aside, it appears that "Sunga Empire" much more common in the sources than "Shunga Empire". "Sunga Empire" returns 924 hits on Google Books, while "Shunga Empire" returns 97.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Unfortunately, Google fails to differentiate between Śuṅga and Sunga and lumps all results together. Sunga is definitely prevalent but is, IMO, essentially an unintended by-product of the use of IAST as the diacritics have been casually dropped. Instead, please consult reliable sources such as those by historians Romila Thapar (here), Burjor Avari (here), Hermann Kulke (here), Wendy Doniger (here), et al which all prefer Shunga. The linked books are all written for the general populace and avoid the use of the IAST diacritics. Scholarly work does largely prefer IAST and uses Śuṅga as the spelling variant of choice. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but someone with far more expertise than I should decide between "Shunga" and "Sunga" Red Slash 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Red Slash: Comment As a person with far more expertise, if you prefer the choice without diacriticals (not the Śuṅga version), it would be Shunga. It's even in the style guide for romanising that ś > sh. Ogress _smash! 22:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! Support Shunga per WP:TRANSLITERATE Red Slash 20:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given, and because it is in accordance with our policy at WP:NCIN. Imc (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Mitra dynasty (moved from Cpt.a.haddock's talk page)

Look at the references provided on the Mitra dynasty article. All the references are provided. (2600:1001:B012:95BC:C11F:F9C9:72F8:2BEB (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Hi. You're modifying a statement that lacks an inline citation. Please fix that first. And no, we cannot assume that any mention of Mathuras automagically implies that it's the Mitras being spoken of as they ruled Mathura. You'll have to establish that in this article. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of category

@Kintetsubuffalo: if you were actually familiar with the topic (which you are quite clearly not) and not being motivated by some weird agenda against me, you would quite clearly understand that the category entitled "History of Bihar" is more appropriate than History of Bengal. Instead of randomly reverting my edits, maybe read up on the topic? There are these marvellous inventions called "books" which contain a plethora of information. Many of them can be accessed online. Thanks in advance.MADHEPURA2018 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

What you do there, then, is add Category:History of Bihar, without removing Category:History of Bengal. Which you would know if you were an editor without an obvious, glaring bias.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

This article should either start with "The Shunga Empire is ..." or be renamed to "Shunga dynasty". The article's beginning should tell you what the titular subject is. Kornatice (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

All right. I'm moving it then. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Also I'd need to restore the previous revision in order to move it. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: Don't do cut-paste moves like you did here. I'd suggest you revert it and request WP:RM here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The editing history gets lost in a cut paste move. I've reverted it. See WP:CUTPASTE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't aware of that. I've put up a technical move request now.PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

An uncontested one, only suitable when "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" - this is absolutely NOT the case here. The current name was confirmed in a proper RM in 2015. Do another one (which I predict you will lose) or just change the first sentence. This is a bad abuse of process; I know you are new or I would take you to ANI. I suggest you dial back on stuff like this. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for the cut paste moves. I am new here, as you said, and wasn't aware of the correct procedure. It was in false belief that this page was probably a low traffic one that I moved the page, without appropriate discussions, but I now do understand. Also could you please explain to me which moves are considered technical uncontested moves and which aren't? I'm a bit confused about that right now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Give Wikipedia:Requested_moves a read, it explains quite well the different sorts of move. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The key point is is that the policy says only moves where "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" should be nominated as "uncontested". As you gain more experience, you will come to appreciate that almost nothing to do with India will meet this condition. Low traffic isn't really a factor, & in fact this page gets avge 570 views per day, which can't possibly be called low. If you are not sure you should do a normal WP:RM proposal (as below). Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023

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: Not Moved as participants argued that the word Empire is crucial for the scope of this article (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Shunga Empire → Shunga dynasty – Per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Google ngram data, Shunga dynasty has much more usages than Shunga Empire [1]. (In fact, Shunga empire has too low usages to be even measured by Google ngrams.)

Edit – The reason is not just WP:COMMONNAME, the Shunga dynasty or Sunga dynasty, is merely seen as one of the successive ruling dynasties of Magadha, not as a seperate entity like Mughal or Timurid Empires. This is similar to the articles on the Delhi Sultanate at its five ruling dynasties. An article called "Tughaq Empire" or "Lodi Empire" doesn't exist.PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now Hmm - the picture is very different with "Sunga Empire" - then there are the versions with diacritic, different capitalizations and so on. "Shunga dynasty", plus variants, of course exists, but with a different meaning to the empire/kingdom - just like Mughal Empire and Mughal dynasty, two different articles. If you are going to use ngrams, you need to do so more fully and fairly. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod and @पाटलिपुत्र, the reason why I suggest this page be renamed as "Shunga dynasty", is because, similar to its successor Kanva dynasty, and predecessors, Shaishunaga dynasty and Haryanka dynasty, the Shunga dynasty too is seen as a dynasty of Magadha, not as an entity on its own. The same reason can be put forward for the Nandas. This structure is similar to the articles on Delhi Sultanate and it's five dynasties. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You have to look at the nature of the page in question. All the articles you mention are indeed rather narrow "dynastic" articles. But this article about the Shungas is much broader and goes much beyond dynastic matters to describe the Shunga polity, hence the "Shunga Empire" naming. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for example the Kanva dynasty ruled a much smaller territory, and only for 50 years or so. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I understand @Johnbod and @पाटलिपुत्र, but take the example of the articles on the five dynasties of Delhi Sultanate too, like Mamluk dynasty and Tughlaq dynasty. Similar to those articles, all information about the government and administration could be merged with the Magadha article while information specific history and rulers could remain on this and other pages about the dynasties. The Magadha article requires development and is quite dull and lacking right now. I could add all the relevant information, as suggested above, to the Magadha article, and then if you all agree we could rename this article? PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem a good solution to me frankly, especially as the Shunga polity ruled a larger area. There's no good reason I can see not to leave things as they are. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, anyways, the Magadha article does need these, so I'm adding to it anyways but letting this remain as it is. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: these are two different things: "Shunga dynasty" is mainly about the rulers, "Shunga Empire" is mainly about the polity (dynastic history, realm, culture, warfare etc...), which is clearly more relevant to the article we have here. We even often have two separate articles for these two different types of subjects (for example: Timurid Empire and Timurid dynasty).पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now : Per पाटलिपुत्र's comment above. Also, if it stays as Shunga Empire, I believe this → "The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian dynasty from Magadha that controlled areas of the most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE." is a better lead sentence as in this version before the changes, since the dynasty might be the "seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha", but as an empire, it ruled areas beyond Magadha. Same should be the case with Nanda Empire article. This → "The Nanda dynasty ruled in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE" was the version before the edits that changed the lead sentence's focus to the dynasty instead of the empire. The older version had this as the following sentence → "The Nandas overthrew the Shaishunaga dynasty in the Magadha region of eastern India, and expanded their empire to include a larger part of northern India" — so information about Magadha was not exactly lost and the 'fifth ruling dynasty' part can be added there. Pinging @Johnbod, पाटलिपुत्र, and PadFoot2008:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that stating seventh and fifth ruling dynasty is important that's what they are known for after all. Let things as they are now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The longstanding versions of the above articles didn't have the "seventh and fifth ruling dynasty" part. While important, it would be better if that part is appended as a second sentence or in a compound sentence, with the primary focus being the date and spread of the Empires. For example -

"The Shunga Empire (IAST: Śuṅga) was an ancient Indian empire that controlled most of the northern Indian subcontinent from around 185 to 73 BCE. The Shunga were the seventh ruling dynasty of Magadha...."

"The Nanda Empire covered the northern part of the Indian subcontinent during the fourth century BCE, and possibly during the fifth century BCE, governed by the Nandas, the fifth ruling dynasty of Magadha"

− something along the lines. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2023 (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.

Requested move 5 July 2023

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. Withdrawn by nom. Arguments here indicate that "Sunga Empire" is not a preferred title, but do not seem to strongly indicate that "Shunga Empire" is the absolute best title. With that, and the relatively low participation, a no consensus close seems appropriate. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 14:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Shunga Empire → Sunga Empire – The earlier discussion on 5 June 2023 made me realise that in fact, the name "Sunga Empire" is much more common than the name "Shunga Empire" in published sources according to Google ngrams. In fact, Shunga Empire has such less references that it can't be even cited in Google ngrams. I propose this page be moved to Sunga Empire per WP:COMMONNAME and also because the term "Shunga Empire" has almost no references in published sources. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnbod, @Fylindfotberserk, and @पाटलिपुत्र. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Bangladesh has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Nepal has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment : 'Sunga empire' has noticeably higher number of hits at Google/Books compared to 'Shunga empire', so it seems to favour the move, but haven't checked how many are WP:HISTRS. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The trouble is, most of the best sources use names with diacriticals, and always have done. I think we should try to avoid these, if possible. Keay, John, India, a History, 2000, HarperCollins, ISBN 0002557177, a good popular history, uses "Shunga", though it avoids "empire". Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176 uses "Śuńga period" (or near that - Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the right n character). And so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I see we used to have Śuṅga Empire until an earlier RM in 2015 (above). "Ś" without diacriticals should be "Sh", apparently. I don't think ghits are much use here, and Oppose unless better arguments are produced. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. From what I can gather, "Shunga" is the common English-language term in general sources (e.g. Britannica), whereas "Sunga" seems to rely on diacritics and more limited to scholarly sources. Walrasiad (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose "Sunga" is an inaccurate romanization; Śunga would basically be pronounced "Shunga" in English. If we aren't using diacritics, then "Shunga" is the more accurate spelling.
(I think "Śunga" and "Shunga" are equally good, but "Śunga" might confuse people who aren't familiar with how Sanskrit is romanized, so "Shunga" is probably better for general audiences.) 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All right everyone, since I do not seem to have a consensus, I am withdrawing this move proposal. @Asukite, you can close this discussion now. Thanks everyone for participating. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2023 (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.

• For the record, there is a pretty clear consensus against the proposed move, which no one except the nominator supported! Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 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: not moved. There is rough consensus against the move, with no clear consensus on COMMONNAME with reference to previous RMs, and continued consensus that the proposed move represents an unacceptable change in the article scope. Future nominators are encouraged to clearly explain how the rationale for their proposal differs from previous discussions, if proposing another move to the same title. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Shunga Empire → Shunga dynasty – Pretty self explanatory, if was a dynasty of the Magadhan Empire, not an empire itself. Same way as Qing dynasty. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a dynasty of the Magadhan Empire,

Source - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Oi7lzN6-W5MC&redir_esc=y

Pg-28 JingJongPascal (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, per nom's arguments, the Śungas were a dynasty of the Magadhan Empire, not an empire. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this was already suggested last year, and Fylindfotberserk and पाटलिपुत्र's arguments still stand. The Qing argument: there was the Qing dinasty, the bloodline, and they had their empire, a polity; different things. Coeusin (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  the Shungas rled the Magadhan Empire and were a dynasty. Not a political entity. Shunga was their bloodline and Magadhan Empire their polity. You pretty much provided my points JingJongPascal (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at the article, however, it deals specifically with the Shunga state, not the dynasty. Look at the first few paragraphs of the Name section, for instance. If this was an article about the dynasty it would be much more like this or even this. Not to mention the existence of a continuous empire between all the early Indian dynasties seems to me like a very WP:FRNG thing. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Again I bring Qing dynasty in argument.

  They don't look like "dynasty" you mentioned.

  It's confusing. Shunga Empire is a dynasty of Magadhan Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  and about your fringe idea, I assure you it's not. Magadhan Empire being a continuous empire with different dynasties has been supported by scholars books and materials.

  You can refer to Magadhan Empire and sources are provided there . JingJongPascal (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per my arguments in the older RfCs (WP:COMMONNAME, etc). Also pinging @Johnbod, Sitush, 3 kids in a trenchcoat, Adamantine123, and RegentsPark: for their inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Fylindfotberserk, see Qing dynasty, Ming dynasty and so on. These articles too are primarily about the Qing and Ming empires respectively, not just on the family. Still, they use "dynasty" in their article name as it is the WP:COMMONNAME as is the case here. Your argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy and is basically I think empire would be better... without basing it on any Wikipedia policy. PadFoot (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is based on the policy called WP:COMMONNAME. As, I've said in the last RfC ("second 5 June 2023") "sunga empire" has more hits (23,800) as opposed to "sunga dynasty" (8,820). I don't remember using the phrase I think empire would be better..., but if you are referring to the "first 5 June 2023" RfC, I was agreeing to User:पाटलिपुत्र's suggestions/example (Timurid Empire vs Timurid dynasty). As for the rest of my comment, it was largely regarding your unilateral changes to the lead sentences of this article and a few others, including cut-paste moves. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, the move is neither about "Sunga empire" nor "Sunga dynasty". It is about "Shunga empire" and "Shunga dynasty", and ngrams clearly show that "Shunga dynasty" is the much, much more common name. Even for "Sunga dynasty" and "Sunga empire" ngrams again show that dynasty is the common name by an even larger margin. The Google books results you provide are not accurate. As you'll see that this and this both search "Shunga empire", but give different number of hits as the number of results increase on changing the page. PadFoot (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as per @Fylindfotberserk and @Coeusin. Nxcrypto Message 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Both have not provided any argument that follows any of the Wikipedia policies such as the ones at WP:Article titles, so they do not hold any weight. PadFoot (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, an "Empire"/"Kingdom" article is generally not the same as a "Dynasty" article (which focuses on the individual rulers only): see Seljuk Empire vs Seljuk dynasty for example. The article here is clearly about the empire, not about the dynastic rulers, who are barely known anyway. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then a alot about this article should be changed.

  The Gupta empire was only formed in 319 CE.

  SRI Gupta and Ghotakacha were not imperial kings. @पाटलिपुत्र JingJongPascal (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not per WP:COMMONNAME. What sources do you have to prove that it's the common name? I provided ngrams that clearly showed otherwise. Your argument is simply "I prefer empire...". Also your Seljuk argument doesn't hold any weight per WP:OTHERCONTENT but do have a look at Qing dynasty and Ming dynasty some day. PadFoot (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The very existence of a continuous political entity called "Magadhan Empire" is questionable. There's no modern academic that shares this view, barring a few dated nationalist historians. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadhan Empire. This RM is just an attempt at pushing a pseudo-historical POV.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  sure JingJongPascal (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Still as per WP:COMMONNAME , my argument still stands JingJongPascal (talk) 14:21, 20 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.