Talk:Ellora Caves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

Was the original name of Ellora village, Elloda ? Because in one of the novels of S. L. Bhairappa it is mentioned as Elloda. Given that British changed the spelling and prononciations of many places such as Dharwad/Dharwar etc. I guess it is Elloda. Ramashray 09:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elloda...Ellora...these are both transliterations of the Marathi. The soft d is not much different from a short-trilled r. English is stuck with the problem of getting close to non-English pronounciations, and no English transliteration will exact. It's Ellora on the Indian Railway; that's good enough for me.--Nemonoman 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In Marathi it is Verul. Ellora is an English name. Also, I dont think there is a village named Ellora. Ellora has always been the archeological site. Also, generally, the monastic caves were away from the residential areas. --Kaveri 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Krisna[edit]

"it was built by krisna" What, who? / Habj 02:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

no it wasn't...--Nemonoman 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

living rock[edit]

What is 'a living rock bridge'? Njál 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's when you create a bridge between two areas by carving the span from the rock as it was naturally placed, as opposed to creating an arch from concrete/wood/steel/imported stone, etc. "Living rock" is a term of art, but very liberally used to describe rock cut architecture, as opposed to the "dead rock" of buildings built of rock that has been quarried.--Nemonoman 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was about to delete all the references as it sounded very weird. I am glad I decided to check the discussion first. --Kaveri 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a common but misleading term a better term might be in situ latin for carved in place. Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A map[edit]

A map would be very illustrative, I'll see if I can find a way to make one. dvdrw 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are articles for each separate cave, we could make a map like this {{Valley of the kings imagemap}}. dvdrw 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery[edit]

Eliminated Gallery as IMO, the photos at Commons can be seen there. A link has been provided. Why should one have a gallery of imgs here in English wiki if it is available in Commons? Again there were n imgs of the Kailash Temple (UNDUE to it). An article is formed about the Kailash Temple. Put the photos there. One or 2 photos of the temple are enough in this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic notes on the geology of Ellora[edit]

I came across this short passage on the page; "One aspect a typical visitor overlooks is the geological background of Ellora. In fact the most defining factor why Ellora was ever made and that too at this location is the geological peculiarity of the place [14]". There are several problems with this section. It takes text directly from the source material without quoting it. The construction of the second sentence is awkward. Perhaps most importantly, it does not actually contain any information about the geology of Ellora -- it simply claims that visitors to Ellora don't understand its geology, which is unnecessarily condescending and unhelpful. Here is my proposed revision;

Ellora occupies a relatively flat region of the Western Ghats. Ancient volcanic activity in this area created many layered basalt formations, known as Deccan Traps. During the Cretaceous, one such volcanic hill formed on the southwest-facing side of Ellora. Its vertical face made access to many layers of rock formations easier, enabling architects to pick basalt with finer grains for more detailed sculpting. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Geology of Ellora". ellora.ind.in.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellora Caves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Artwork" overused[edit]

This article currently uses the word "artwork" 18 times. In each case it would be much better, imo, to replace it, generally with "art" or (here) "sculpture", "image/s", "figure/s" etc., or just omit it - "relief artworks" for example are just "reliefs". The word is very rarely needed in art history, except when dealing with very general areas like copyright, museum regulations and such like. The best art history sources will be found to avoid it. There may be an element of ENGVAR here; the word is sometimes overused in American academic art history, not generally of the best quality (although not on the scale seen here), but not usually in British English ones. As it is rarely actually needed MOS:COMMONALITY applies. Really, it is especially inappropriate here, as to the uncertain reader "artwork" will probably suggest initially and mainly either paintings or the commercial design sense of drawings etc, when actually at Ellora all the "artwork" is either sculpture or sculpted architectural decoration (if one is going to distinguish between the two). Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to change a few. I have come across the term artwork(s), when the author is trying to generically refer to or include a spectrum of things... relief, statues, friezes, painting, etc. For example, see the various instances in Kleiner[1] in Gardner's Art through the Ages, pages xi-xii, 1-7, 31-37, etc. Stokstad[2] is another example. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fred S. Kleiner (2009). Gardner's Art through the Ages: Non-Western Perspectives. Cengage. pp. xi–xii, 1–5, etc. ISBN 0-495-57367-1.
  2. ^ Marilyn Stokstad (2008). Art History: Fourteenth to sevententh century art. Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. ix–xiii, etc. ISBN 978-0-13-605407-8.
But (even if these were the best exemplars, which they are not) that is not how the word is used here. Nor is there any painting here (according to your recent edit anyway) so everything is sculpture, or at the least carving, and of course "art". Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No attempts to give the best exemplars, just the quickest careless ones! Change it to "works of art" or whatever. You are welcome to reword, copyedit and improve the article as and where appropriate. You are right, it should be "reliefs" and not "relief artworks", etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
As I accepted the GOCE request left by Sarah, I have been working my way through the article. Some of the phrasing is cumbersome and taking some time to interpret. That being said, I hadn't noticed the number of times that "artwork" had been used. I'll prune the usage where appropriate during my copyedit. Blackmane (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Blackmane. Your effort, and GOCE team in general, is very helpful and much appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Now down to 2! Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference check required[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch and Johnbod: In the Hindu monuments section, (Caves 13-29), there is a statement about work starting on cave 19 in the first period of construction but later it states that cave 19 was one of the last to be constructed. Would either of you have access to the sources to clarify this? Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blackmane: Unless Johnbod does it sooner, I will locate the source and check/clarify this by tomorrow. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Michell, George, The Penguin Guide to the Monuments of India, Volume 1: Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, 1989, Penguin Books, ISBN 0140081445 says it was one of the earliest Hindu caves, with 20 & 21. Page 358. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've adjusted the text accordingly. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and Johnbod: thanks for your patience in waiting for me to complete this copyedit. It's been quite difficult to get time between work and RL commitments. I've finished the copyedit but some statements are not clear to me as when I try to use Google preview, the pages I need are not included in the preview. Below are a couple of statements that require some checking, if you happen to have the physical text

  1. Visitors, desecration and damage paragraph 1: "Ellora was known to have been frequented by Buddhist monks in the 9th and 10th centuries" This needs a source
  2. Visitors, desecration and damage paragraph 1: Some of these accounts suggest the importance of Ellora, but include ahistorical claims; for example, a description of the caves by Venetian traveller Niccolao Manucci is based on interviewing Mughal officials who made claims that "...they were executed by the ancient Chinese" The page of the reference are not available to me in Google preview.

thanks, Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I embedded quotes in both cases for your convenience. Please feel free to wordsmith it further. Thanks for the steady progress, I for one admire your work. As always, there is no hurry. Please take your time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for that. I've tweaked the text after your addition to the sourcing. That is the last part of the copy editing that needed to be done. Please feel free to ping me or drop a message on my TP if you need anything. Regards. Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Cave 34[edit]

I have not done any copyediting for this section. The text is particularly thin and requires expansion before a copy edit would make sense. Blackmane (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I revised the Cave 34 section. Would appreciate another look, whenever you find some time. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I've run my comb through the section and polished it up a bit. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"center"[edit]

On another pernickety point, this should use (a formal version of) Indian English, which surely generally means British rather than US spellings. But I notice "center" rather than "centre" here and in other articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod: Indeed. I take part / much of the blame. My British/Indian spelling skill is not too good. I edit using a dictation system plus auto-correct that messes things further. I clean up as I go along. This is a problem with some of my Southeast Asia/Africa/West Asia space article contributions too. I wish our wikipedia coding wizards created a bot which fixes this automatically for certain cat of articles. Meanwhile, please feel free to change American -> British/Indian/whatever spellings! Appreciate your help, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say the fault lies with me. For the most part, I have kept the use of British English (as I should being a resident of a Commonwealth nation!) but obviously overlooked these ones. I've changed all instances of "center" to "centre" to maintain consistency. I'll double check for words ending in "-or" which would end in "-our" in British English. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)