Talk:Sack of Surat

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Maratha

The Marathas were clearly not an Empire, they deny being a Confederacy...therefore they should just be called Marathas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.56.188 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualities & Strength

In one of more recent revisions, Utkarshraj Atmaram noticed that strength & casualties of Shivaji & Mughal army is unsourced; diff, but apparently a IP editor 39.33.70.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed this tag inserted by Utkarshraj again, diff. I took the article back to the last stable version, but CoveringIncidents objected this version.

@CoveringIncidents: Please don't use edit summaries like these, diff where you removed the cn template but claimed of providing sources. If you or anyone else got a reliable scholarly work which mentions about strength and casualities in these battle, feel free to add it back. Untill then, I think it's best to remove all these unverified claims. Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it blank, PROBLEM SOLVED CoveringIncidents (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CoveringIncidents:

Done, diff. I concur with you on it. Cheers. Packer&Tracker (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]