Talk:Chahamanas of Shakambhari

India: Rajasthan / History Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.
	This article was last assessed in March 2019.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Chauhan#Origin|Chahamana]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Disputed move

How this page move seems in concurance with the common name rule and neither it was discussed on talk page which is must before a disputed page move. I never came through a source which mentions the Chauhans of Sambhar as Kingdom of Ajmer beside the fact that this article is explicitly about the Chauhan clan which was swept aside by the Ghurids in 1192 after Tarain-II and the junior branch came into effect as Ghurid vassals from Ranthambore. I disagree with this move, please build consensus on talk page. I am also pinging Utcursch for his opinion. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is better discussed through Wikipedia:Requested moves. "Kingdom of Ajmer gives 1,370 hits" (presumably on Google Books) is not a convincing explanation when half of those books are exam prep MCQs, self-published sources or reprints of older sources that have been rendered obsolete by later epigraphic/literary discoveries. "Sapadalaksha" gives 1,700 results by that logic. utcursch | talk 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sapadalkhsa is a territory. Ajmer gives 1,370,000 hits by that logic. What we should be comparing with is "Kingdom of Sapadalkhsa" which gives precisely 1 hit.

Also as for MCQs and older sources being a problem, I certainly agree with you on that point. That can, however, be easily avoided by providing a time range. (MCQ booklets appear to be more or less non-existent before 2015 and also getting rid of older sources by limiting to after 1970). "Kingdom of Ajmer" (bw. 1970–2015) gives 770 hits while "Chahamanas of Sakhambari" (bw. 1970–2015) gives only 420 hits. This clearly shows that the former is the common name. PadFoot (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited on this article like the one from Sharma, R.B. Singh, Hooja et al which are detailed study about the Cahamanas never used Kingdom of Ajmer, even going back neither Ojha used this, further Kingdom of Ajmer hardly makes any sense as this article is primiarly about the Cahamanas unlike Mewar where two family ruled over a kingdom belonging to the same lineage. Such contentious moves must be discussed before making as such. It's similar to call the Ghaznawids as Kingdom of Ghazni, the former name Chahamanas of Shakambhari must be reinstated as the article solely focuses on this clan and more authoritive sources on the topic uses Chauhans of Ajmer. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 11:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article focuses not solely on the clan but also on the kingdom ruled. Compare with actual articles about dynasties such as Timurid dynasty, Safavid dynasty, Capetian dynasty, Dogra dynasty, and so on. Probably, the other better alternative would be to fork this article into two articles – one about the clan and one about the kingdom, see Timurid dynasty and Timurid Empire for instance. PadFoot (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]