Talk:Marthandavarma (novel)

Hi
whoever from 203.194.103.100 form Maharashtra/Mumbai - are you sure the panchavankaadu movie is adapated (even loosely) from Marthandavarma novel ?, in my negligible knowledge its not.
(Harithvh (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

Panchavankadu movie is based on the novel of the same name by Vaikkom Chandrasekharan Nair, so removed the entry from this article
(Harithvh (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC))Reply

The plot summary is detailed with the required explanations of major events and exclusion of events that are not so important for the understanding of explained events of the novel.

• Discussion of Marthanda Varma and Parameswaran Pilla on heading to Bhoothapandi and Thiruvanthapuram after getting news on serious condition of the king
• Channan's direction to the prince to hide in the hole of a tree
• Discussion of prince and Mangoikkal Kuruppu
• Murder of Channan people
• Search for Marthanda Varma by Velu Kuruppu
• Ear slicing of Velu Kuruppu
• Discussion of Parukutty and Karthyayani Amma about Ananthapadmanabhan
• Story of Neeli
• Shanku Assan response to Sundrayyan's arrival at Chembakassery
• Discussion about Thambi and Sundarayyan about Parukutty
• Intentions of Thambi to go for a prostitute
• Sundarayyan's actions after departure of Thirumukhathu Pilla
• Conversation about Thambi's arrival by Parukutty, Karthyayani Amma and Mootha Pilla
• Talk of Thambi and resultant response from Parukutty
• Arrival of Sundarayyan at Chembakassery
• Reference to Ramanan Madathil Pilla's actions
• Reaction of Karthyayani Amma and Shanku Assan on the illness of Parukutty
• Shanku Assan's frantic responses and fainting on the Subadras query about theft
• Shanku Assan's explanation about the Shamsudeen
• Discussions at Pathan camp
• Detailed discussion between Ramayyan, Marthanda Varma and Parameswaran Pilla
• The discussion among Marthanda Varma, Kilimanoor Kerala Varma and Ramayyan
• Interaction of Managoikkal Kuruppu and Channan
• Detailed recovery of Ananthapadmanbhan
• Introduction of Mangoikkal Kuruppu to Hakkim by Channan
• Reasoning of return of Pathan people to Kerala
• Story of Sundarayyan and Kodanki
• Pappu revelation about women at Pathan camp
• Meeting of Ananthapadmanabhan and Parukutty
• Intervention by Thirumukhathu Pilla
• Nuradeen's marriage
• Return of Pathan people
• State of Zuleikha, Pappu, Koch Velu
• Tagging of Mangoikkal as house and the men
• State of Kalakkutty
• State of Chulliyil Chadachi
• State of Thurumukhathu Pilla

If the plot summary seems to be just lengthy, because of the number of words, kindly mention which events are/can be excluded to make otherwise, considering the above instead of tagging it Over Detailed or Long Plot (harith (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC))Reply

Harithvh asked for specifics if this was tagged excessive detail, here you go. I do like the effort that was put into organizing the article though. Despite the length(it is currently the 18th longest article on wikipedia), it is well organized. Really the problem is the article is written like an encyclopedia specifically made for the book, with every single detail that could be mentioned and dissected. I didn't do these myself because I figured someone who is more familiar with the subject matter would like a first crack at it:

1. The characters section: WAY too many minor characters. Generally don't include any characters the author didn't feel important enough to give a name. Characters with brief presences should be removed as well. The characters section containing only major characters would probably be best, and moving the rest of the characters with a more prolonged presence in the novel to a separate 'characters of' article would be nice as well.
2. Development: Too much info on the author. Leave it for the author's article.
3. Publication: Too much detail about different versions/translations. Try to cut this at least to about half its current size.
4. Reception: Not a length issue, more of a WP:PEACOCK one. "When the Marthandavarma was released, people of Trivandrum devoured the novel, the release of novel was celebrated like a literary festival and, C. V. Raman Pillai rose to his everlasting fame as a writer of remarkable talents."
5. Allusions sections: Far too lengthy. Maybe a few of the major themes at most should be kept.
6. Adaptations: Abridgement subsection could all be 1 paragraph cutting out the description of each abridgement. These sections don't need to describe every difference in the adaptations. Adaptations are supposed to be re-interpretations of the work and have differences from the original work. The movie details are already covered at their own articles, really only need the names, director/screenplay writer, maybe a major star or two if they have them. characterization of the second film as 'loose adaptation' and the first as 'silent film' are probably okay, but the majority of these details should be in the films' own articles. TV/theatre/radio adaptations could use the same fixes. ― Padenton|✉   00:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Padenton:

Thanks for the specifics of excessive detail, which crossed limits here and there. I myself did not want the article to be this big, but in process it grown long.

• The characters section – Yes, this is really over-detailed, we must remove most of the ones under the other characters, and some of those in the main characters should be be moved to other characters section. Is it possible to have a List article / sub article about the characters of this work ?
• Development – The details of author's life are given as related to his writing, but as you pointed we shall remove some of the matters that are just author's personal life. However, I am not sure that I know enough about the author to edit the article about the author.
• Publication – We shall remove some details, especially I vouch to remove the section Reprints, by condensing the details to a line or two as a sub para of revised edition. I believe both sections Release and Revised edition should stand. The details of translations shall also be reduced by keeping the information about each in one line.
• Reception – Terribly sorry for overriding of the policy, the words were mix of quotes by two biographers of the author, however "C. V. Raman Pillai rose to his everlasting fame as a writer of remarkable talents" shall be removed, also we should rewrite the "literary work was hailed as a masterpiece" as a quote by the respective biographer.
• Adaptations – We shall reduce the detailing of abridgments and other adaptations mostly to one or two lines. In the films, it will be better if we could keep the information about the litigation relating to first film and awards relating to the second film.
• Allusions – Its lengthy of course, but I am not sure which sections really need a condensing, as those are relatively equal in importance in the novel. It's better if we could keep those.

The changes need some rewriting, and I will be available and be able to make only by this coming weekend or by next week max, in meantime anybody shall do the editing as applicable; and once again thanks a ton for reviewing the article.
(harith (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC))Reply

The following sections are rewritten to be in line with required removal of excessive detail.

The minor characters are removed and same is done for all the unnamed characters. This is very much condensed now. If possible we shall create a sub article as List of characters in Marthandavarma novel including all.

All the lines that are pointing to the life of author that are less related to the development of novel are removed and the section is rewritten accordingly.

The reprints section is replaced with an one-line sub paragraph under revised edition. The translations details are much reduced with information about each kept in a line respectively.

The reception section is re-written to be in line with the policies of Wikipedia, and line that made to override the WP:PEACOCK is removed.

The details about various adaptations= are kept at minimum, at-times in one line whereever possible.

Though the section seems to be lengthy, only a few parts are elaborated moderately w.r.t its relevance in novel. On a further review of the contents, some of the historical events and cultural themes are avoided or pointed as minor forms in the write up as follows:

• Legend about tree worship at Ananthankadu (in chapter 3)
• Explicit Cast references like Śūdrabhavanaṁ (House of Śūdra - Nair), Śūdrāḷ, Brāhmaṇāḷ, Caṇṭāḷāppāvi etc.
• Details of Epigraph allusions to the plot of each chapter
• Exclusion of unnamed literary works used as epigraphs of chapters 13, 14, 15.
• Non-detailed write-up about extensive usage of Tamil and Sanskrit words in the novel
• Usage of Pistol in the novel and historical relevance

Kindly read the novel and the related studies multiple times for further review of this Allusions section. if any themes are found to be left out from the write up please do list those in this talk page, and re-review the section w.r.t to the newly listed non referred aspects along with previously listed similar to the above before concluding the same to be condensed.

The sections are very much condesnsed to be non over detailed, so removing the templates {{Overdetailed}}, {{Very long}}.

(harith (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC))Reply

Condensing of Excessive detail (correction)

Please read the second bulleted line in the above as

• Explicit Cast Caste references like Śūdrabhavanaṁ (House of Śūdra - Nair), Śūdrāḷ, Brāhmaṇāḷ, Caṇṭāḷāppāvi etc.

Please read the last line in the above as

The sections are very much condesnsed condensed to be non overly detailed, so removing the templates {{Overdetailed}} {{Overlydetailed}}, {{Very long}}.
(harith (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC))Reply

The sub article, List of Marthandavarma characters is created with the full list of characters that was included in this article as part of re-condensing the article referring to above discussions with User:Padenton, inline with the suggestion to reduce the size of allusions section in the main article, the allusions related to characters are also included in this sub article. The whole list is edited and formatted accordingly.
(harith (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC))Reply

To editor Fdssdf:
This is reference to your edit, tagging the Plot Summary as {{Template: very long}}. Kindly go through the talk page discussions Plot Summary Explanation and the following ones. Please raise constructive suggestions for editing as seen in the discussions to avoid unexplained tagging of sections with templates. Kindly read the source novel, if possible and revise the tagging as applicable. Thanks.
(harith (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

Hello, Harith. The tag is for the section to be pared down because it is 3,600 words, which is too long for a plot summary. For comparison, the Great Expectation summary is much shorter and perfectly understandable and navigable. The Ulysses structure layout is akin to a summary, and it has two separate articles to help explain the summary and structure. As far Marthandavarma, I don't know what information needs to be deleted as unencyclopedic or what needs to be moved to a new article because of specificity, but one of those two options (ideally both) has to be executed to shorten the section. fds^Talk 05:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Fdssdf:
Hi, sorry for the late reply, I was not online for a few days.
Thanks for the points raised, and I’ve been re-reading the old text to reduce the narration to convey the major events in less no. of words. Among the samples, Great Expectation summary is no way related to this novel, as the narration of source novel is similar to that of Sir Walter Scott, particularly his way of using the same timeline for different set of events at different locations. The other sample Ulysses (novel) might be similar, as I haven’t read the original I am not sure though; creating a new article for the narration scheme could be an option, but I am not sure about its notability and further we are yet to attain references that could lead to a consensus on such a narration style, we do have some which we mentioned under the Style. I had this second persona problem in re-editing the summary, though I had listed some points to be removed, but now with excellent editing by User:Louieoddie, the plot summary size has been reduced considerably with the removal of points I listed (earlier) plus the additional ones that I never noticed and the condensing, that could only be done from a third person point of view, Thanks To editor Louieoddie:. The plot summary was written in-line with the principles under How to write a plot summary, I hope the length w.r.t no. of words is been reduced after the editing by User:Louieoddie, if it’s okay we shall remove the {{Template: very long}} from the section as applicable, Thanks again for reviewing the article.
(harith (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

Hello, Harith. My mentioning Great Expectations and Ulysses was not to compare their subject matters to Marthandavarma; rather, it was to point out that plot summaries do not need to be a few thousand words, even for some of the most well-regarded pieces of fiction, as those two articles exemplify. I'm glad another editor has reduced the summary's size, but it remains much too long. Look at The Grapes of Wrath summary: It is about 550 words. I don't bring it up to compare its subject matter to Marthandavarma's. It begs the question: Why would Marthandavarma need such a long summary when other important pieces of fiction do not? Alas, if you feel that the summary is short enough to remove the very long template, then, by all means, remove it. I will not re-apply it. However, I would disagree with its removal at the moment. Cheers. fds^Talk 17:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Fdssdf:
Hi, Thanks for pointing about The Grapes of Wrath summary, I think its one of best concise ones. The Marthandavarma novel is the small one among the novels of it’s author, though it’s been identified as the incident rich and fast paced among all, according to various academics and scholars (a few are cited in the references of article). If you have a chance to go thru those, you could find it yourself. As you still pointing out it’s being lengthy due to no. of words we shall let the tagging to be there for some time, so that editors like User:Louieoddie could condense it, if its still lengthy not just with no. of words, but also due to the narration style of plot summary. I will also try to pick up some narrative points to be condensed, by consulting with third parties, as they could do the best; I am still compiling a few references and validating some information to update some sections of this article, so it might take some time, like more than a month or two, so in meantime other users could edit it accordingly as mentioned above if applicable, and we shall remove the tagging then. Thanks again for the suggestion.
(harith (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

Now that I think about it, if editors are actively working to reduce the summary's size, there isn't too much need for the template anyway. fds^Talk 04:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Fdssdf:
Absolutely!!, similar to the situation when doctors and police in the world are jobless, then either the world has become smart or the people in there are smarter, its like having consensus for every activity, without seeking for it.
(harith (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

To editor Louieoddie:
This is in reference to your edit under Controversy over the period, where you have changed who reportedly stated that he lost the letter to who said that he'd lost it . The edit perfectly conveys the information to any reader in lesser words, no second thoughts about it, however the usage of contraction is not a preferred way in Wikipedia as per MOS:CONTRACTION. I hope this might have overlooked in your speedy edit, if you have no objection kindly revise. Thanks.
(harith (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC))Reply

@Harithvh: Yes. It is not preferable to use too many contractions in an encyclopedia. I've changed it from he'd to he had. Louieoddie (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The plot summary is very much condensed after the editing by User:Louieoddie, and the plot summary seems to be unchanged since the last edit; and so as discussed earlier the we are removing the tag.
(harith (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

The lead section is updated with the summarized details of the article, and references are removed accordingly as all the points in the lead are narrated and cited with references in the respective sections.
(harith (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

I have reassessed the article as a B class, because it clearly approaches our goals for coprehensive understanding of the topic, and to appears to be largely tied to reliable sources.

However, in general, the article has an unwarranted amount of WP:Trivia principally in the "allusions" sections: Wikipedia is not a comprehensive guide to a work (see WP:NOTGUIDE), not even a comprehensive list of potential topics of interest about that work. Instead, it should be a summary of what experts that talk about the topic focus on. Right now it reads like an overwhelming mess of information. These notes would be better suited as part of an annotated and edited version of the text, not on Wikipedia (our sister projects like WikiSource would definitely support such an edited version).

Moreover, more than just the overwhelming amount of trivia on the page: there is also the very confusing synthesis that is going on in each of the paragraphs: each sentence should have WP:Inline citations to the particular work that the information in the sentence draws on. The strategy to cite 5-10 sources at the end of the paragraph is becoming very confusing: which source do I go to first to WP:Verify a piece of information? How am I, as a researcher, supposed to find and read the sources I am most interested in when every paragraph relies on 6 or more sources, and does not distinguish which information comes from which source(s)? I would not want to be a peer reviewer or WP:GA/WP:FA reviewer for this article, because it would be impossible to distinguish between the origin of this information, and to try and spotcheck sourcing. Sadads (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I recommend reading WP:CITEDENSE about the inline citation concerns. Sadads (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads:
Hi, sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reassessing the article and for your valuable comments.

Citation style

Citations were done as per WP:CITEDENSE, which is the main reason why we kept the citations at the end of paragraph. However as you mentioned, the same at times creates confusion, so, it is better that we shall re-allocate the citations as per line wherever possible, except in the cases where the information at various places in a paragraph comes from the same page of source. In some cases, we may have to split the references, w.r.t. single page of reference source to have a clear lead, which may require some time as applicable. We always follow Wikipedia:Five pillars above anything, so we shall do in-line citations to be avoid any confusion to reader and be in-line with content that anyone can use.

Allusions as Trivia

Mentioning allusions as unwarranted amount of WP:Trivia broadly won’t be right for this article. If you could suggest any points to re-condense particular sections, as being lengthy that will be very much helpful.

Allusion to legends, history, politics, geography and real life
This section was earlier tagged for condensing w.r.t. discussions with User:Padenton, and eventually we have created a sub-article for the list of characters.

Events based on legends, history and politics

The section points to historical events referred in the novel explicitly; being an article about historical novel we hope the section is very much warranted. Any suggestion to re-condense the same are welcome.

Architectural and Geographical references

This section points to places where actions of story take place including the locations that are referred. This seems be a bit lengthy and excessive. The suggestions to condense the section are 1) split the content to a sub-article 2)Re-write the section to keep the descriptions of places where oly major locations of the novel and keep rest only a as a list under the same and move some descriptions to notes. The suggestion 1) is doubtful as creating a sub-article brings up its notability in question. Kindly provide your suggestions to condense the section.

Allusion to medicine, sociocultural system and lifestyle practices

This section comprises only the main references in the novel that were crucial to the plot development. For example, the intimation of fraternal biandry by Sundarayyan to Ananthapadmanabhan, makes the latter to make racist remark on the former, which enrages the former to support the attack on latter. The incident is related to Thambi’s philandering, due to which Ananthapadmanabhan refuses the marriage proposal to his younger sister. Same is the case of other themes mentioned in the section, all are one way or other very much related to the development of story line, neither one of the sections are over-detailed. Tagging it with {{too much detail}} is a miscalculation or rather non-familiarity with the source novel. We could condense the section, if any of those are less related to plot, like the ones under Supersition – though novel mentions about it, the sub-items listed under are not crucial to the plot development. Kindly put forward your suggestions to condense the section.

Allusion to writers, literatures and languages

This section only refers that are explicitly quoted in the source novel. Apart from the excluded points that were mentioned in the discussions above with User: Padenton, references to puranas and puranic characters in narration are completely avoided. Tagging of this section with {{too much detail}} shall be a case like above. Any suggestion to condense the section is welcome.

Theme

This section really needs expansion. The explanation of four different themes in a few lines is really short. We will try to get some valid information regarding the same, it shall take some time as it has to be neutral and not POV.

Style

This section also needs expansion. The description is not enough to have a clear view, though it is not tagged.

We will try to re-allocate all the possible citations as per line, by this weekend as it requires re-collection of some of the referred source materials. In mean time, I hope you can provide your suggestions for the condensing specifically for the separate sections and other editors can suitably the edit the same as required.
(harith (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

Thanks for the detailed response. I agree with User:Ugog Nizdast: this article is on the boundaries of C and B class, and I rated it with the benefit of the doubt based on the strength of the development/context material. Also, thank you for planning to work on the citations: if you read the whole policy page that CITEDENSE points to: you will see that end of paragraph citations are for when only one or two sources are being summarized in the whole paragraph.

I don't have specific revision suggestions about the allusion sections, since I have no knowledge of the novel or its cultural context. However, I do think there is room for summarizing their importance as they are described from the scholarly perspective, instead of the creating an indiscriminate list as is happening now; remember, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia is a summarized introduction to a topic, not an indiscriminate collection of information about that topic -> if the reader wants to better understand the historical allusions, they should be using a heavily annotated version of the text or reading it with a companion. I would recommend using the Allusion sections in Finnegans Wake#Allusions to other works (a Good article) as an example. Its the most allusion heavy novel written in English, yet because we are focused on critical examination of the text, not acting as a guide to the text, it only summarizes the main critical opinions about the allusions, sometimes explaining allusions, but most of the time explaining how experts see the allusions working in the text. If you think some of these allusions are crucial to the plot: than they should be explained as part of the plot. However, I get the impression that you are providing way too much detail in both the plot and the : remember, we have WP:Wikilinking to provide readers access to explanations of topics, if they need them. You should be directing readers to other articles, if a topic is complex or difficult. 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely hard to assess this article given it's size and confusing structure (see the Allusions to... sections). They read like an indiscriminate list, they should be converted to prose. Each large section of this article should be trimmed or summarised and split into another sub-article. Short sections should be merged. See Summary style and WP:TOOLONG. Also, due to its structure, I'm reassessing it to C class for now. Please consider asking for a reassessment only after the size issue is solved. For reference on how to improve this, see the Romeo and Juliet and The King and I which are Featured articles. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ugog Nizdast:
Hi, Thanks for the suggestions of reference pages. Could you please provide specific methods to condense or trim the Allusion sections individually. I hope User:Sadads will also be able to give suggestions soon. So, we could opt better condensing ways for different sections as applicable. Thanks again.
(harith (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

Great work with this article but the length is a problem. If you're the major contributor, you will no doubt have good background information about this topic as well. Since I'm unfamiliar, I can only tell which guidelines to apply and how to go about with it. I can only point out specific instances when I have fully read the article. The guidelines and example articles which I have linked above should be able help you understand what can be trimmed or split. If you're unsure, bring them up here and I'll provide my two annas on it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Allusion sections are re-written as condensed version expect for historical events, as the main article is a historical novel, the historical events are as important to be in the main article. The details of other allusions are moved to the new sub-article and appropriate sections are linked. So removing the {{Template:very long}} for now.
(harith (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

I just did a word count of the readable text within the article (not including the footnotes): 14861 words, and 95377 characters (just shy of 100 kb in length). If someone were to read the whole thing from the beginning: at 300 words per minute it would take close an hour, if they can read directly through without any confusion or need to understand something else (which in this article, would not be the case). This is not useful: nor is it reader friendly, especially when the majority of the audience for this article about this novel (people in the Indian Subcontinent) are downloading content on mobile through slow and/or expensive data plans: you need to give a more approachable/accessable version of the most important material.

The current strategy of spinning of side articles is okay (kindof), because it helps lead readers that do need that additional information to it (and in the same environment). However, there is still a major readibility problem goin on. The easiest places to trim right now: reducing the wordiness of the plot, to focus on major action changes- rather than what is happening right now which is a blow-by-blow of scenes: we simply don't need that. Second, I would still recommend cleaning up the historical events section: its simply too much; you should be linking to seperate Wikipedia articles which describe those events, not depicting them all them in verbatim. Moreover, it doesn't matter what the veracity of the novels depiction of these events are, unless a scholar is interested in that difference-> right now it looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH, based on a mix of secondary sources about the novel and secondary sources about the history. Remember: our job is not to provide a guide for reading the novel, but instead survey the major critical opinions about the topic. Sadads (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads:
Hi,Thanks for the suggestions. The allusion to historical events is further condensed, by splitting the content to sub-article. There is no original research incorporated in the allusion text either and no conclusions are made. The plot summary has been very much reduced over the time, Thanks to User:Louieoddie, I could not have done that much from the earlier version, which was quite long–though its not a scene by scene narration, a lot of events were excluded (listed in the above discussions), however if there is any room for condensing, we shall do it, but could not bank on the accessibility of the article w.r.t. geographical classification, it is like (no offense) telling one's daughter to put on reduced shoe size because the place to where they heading does not have a rack to keep an over-sized foot wear; just pointing the philosophical implication.
(harith (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

I disagree with Sadads' classification of the audience for this article. I'm from Canada and am interested in this topic. Many people enjoy books and other media from all over the world.

However, I would agree that all articles on Wikipedia should be as condensed and readable as possible. People frequently access the internet via mobile devices. Also, with more internet providers starting to count how much data you download/view, long articles may not be accessible to everyone. Louieoddie (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Harithvh and Louieoddie: I am suggesting that we want to make this as accessible as possible for our ideal audience (which would be someone who needs this information in the most extreme situations). Quite frankly the length problem is not just for people in the context I describe above: I have a brand new Chromebook, with a relatively fast, and my computer has trouble rendering the article (and letting me edit it). But, I am also imagining a local-language readership who is a) learning and/or b) improving their understanding of Malayalam or indian-subcontinent literatures and languages, but who have tried to access it in a remote area with a slow or expensive connection andcan't use a speedy device with large RAM. We need to meet all of these needs, without overwhelming our readers with less than ideal information.

That being said, the article is beginning to be more accessible as less than a wall of text for me, and more an organized representation of what is important (as someone who has never read the novel, nor understands the literary context, but wants to learn about the novel). I cleaned up the sections headers per the MOS standards for Novels. However I am still concerned with the "list-i-ness" of what we have in the allusion sections: I am frequently asking "Why did I just learn that?" and "What is the importance of this particular cultural element to the novel itself?" The worst section for that is the allusions to Sociocultural practices subsection. I have placed comments where I find needing more explanation as to why they are important. I would recommend returning to the scholarship for these: what arguments do the scholars make about these allusions? Why are they important for them? What meaning or insight do they contribute for someone learning about the novel and its context? Once you have revised that section, I would recommend applying the same questions to the rest of the allusions material. They need a good revision to be insightful and useful to a inexperienced reader. Sadads (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads:
Hi, Thanks for your review and valuable suggestions. The socio-cultural allusions were re-written at the time of splitting, considering some of major references in the novel, it’s possible some slip-up may happened. As you pointed as in-line style, I have pointed the suggestions and explanations right next to them as follows:

The novel presents that practices of Indian traditional medicine and Unani traditional medicine were prevailed in Venad during the timeline of the story.^[1] The novel states that Hakkim tried a kind of narcoanalysis on Ananthapadmanabhan after getting him drugged, to know the whereabouts of the latter however it did not yield any results.^{[citation needed]—citation can be provided} The novel refers to astrological practices, such as Prashnam vaypu, one of the astrological services that prevails in Kerala, and Natal astrology, which is referred when Shanku Assan says to Parukutty that chothirisham or jyothisham will not go wrong.^{[why?]—its only pointing the narration that the troubles faced by character Parukutty during the time-line are predicted, also that she is about have more troubles, the conversation happens a few hours before, Padmanabhan Thambi tried to attain her, so it seems to be a major point in the narration of novel}

The novel remarks about superstitious customs prevail among the hindu religion followers such as Ūṭṭŭ or Kāḷiyūṭṭŭ, Pāṭṭŭ,^[2] Uruvaṁ Vaypŭ,^[3] Amman Koṭa,^[4] Cāvūṭṭŭ,^[4] Uccinakāḷi Sēva.^[5] The novel mentions that the people at palace opts to conduct occult acts by clergies, priests and magicians to extend the lifetime of the king. Thirumukhathu Pilla goes for paranormal retrocognition through Mashinottam, an Indian clairvoyant practice, to confirm about the rumors about the death of his son, Ananthapadmanabhan. Velu Kuruppu mentions about the sorcery done by a namboothiripad of Akavoor family^{[notes 1]—changed to refn template} by evoking protection on his armor shield by the incantation of seventy million Dhanwantharam, a set of hymns offered to Dhanvantari in order to safeguard from any ill luck.

The novel refers to the ideology of single god in Islam, mentions about Quran, states about Hindu religious practice of fasting on Mondays.^{[why?]—it is not so important to the major turning points of plot, so can be avoided} The novel presents Beeram Khan as a converted Muslim, who was a Nair and ex-spouse of Subhadra; he married Fathima after proselytization to Islam, as he became a dependent of the Hakkim's family. In the novel, at one point of time Hakkim intended to proselytize Ananthapadmanabhan to Islam with the support of Usman Khan while the latter was unconscious as being drugged, but could not do so because Zulaikha opposed the act.^{[why?]—this is one of the major points in the plot, which holds the reasons why Ananthapadmanabhan does not reveals his secrets to Hakkim, who in-turn compels the former to make a vow, to not to reveal his identity to his dear ones; Zulaikha loves the former and does not want to stand against his wishes, he already informed her that he is against proselytization} The novel presents the miscegenation between a Shasthri (an aryan race) and a lady of Marvar caste (a dravidian race); whom are the parents of Sundarayyan and Kondanki.^{[why?]—this is also one of the major points in the plot, as Sundarayyan is been referred as Paṭṭaṟ and as a Maṟava, and its only revealed after the final confrontation–and also (not mentioned in the article or sub-articles as references are not found yet about this), the ending of Sundrayyan and Kodanki also implies the belief among hindus that miscegenation between prohibited groups will lead to the end of lineage.}

In the novel, Padmanabhan Thambi is presented as philanderer, who keeps relationships with the paramours Kamalam, Sivakami, the mistress at the seventh house, and the unnamed female prostitute at Kottar.^{[why?]—this is why Ananthapadmanabhan opposes the agreement of his father to the marriage proposal for his younger sister and the following attack on him, also this is the reason why Subadra was separated from her earlier spouse, also this is the reason for confrontation of Thambi and Ananthapadmanabhan – the major plot leads are very much depended on it.} Subhadra mentions that he was after her since she was ten years old. So, Ananthapadmanabhan opposes the agreement of his father to the marriage proposal for his younger sister from Padmanabhan Thambi and when the proposal is cancelled, an enraged Sundarayyan says to Ananthapadmanabhan to keep an incestuous relationship with his younger sister; to which Ananthapadmanabhan makes a racist remark against Sundarayyan that "thān maṟavanaṭō" (hey! you are a Maravar). This further enrages Sundarayyan to favor the attack on Anathapadmanabhan at Panchavankadu, which starts the series of events in the novel.^{[why?]— the major plot leads are very much depended on it.}

The Venad royal family follows the heirship through Marumakkathayam, collateral descent through maternal nephews. In the novel, Sundarayyan points that the above system is opposed to the common system of heirship through Makkathayam, which is lineal descent through sons, and propose to raise the claim of throne for the elder son of the king Rama Varma, Padmanabhan Thambi, who at one point of time conveys his worry to Sunadarayyan about the latter system, which will bring his younger brother Raman Thambi against him. Ettuveettil Pillas pledge to make Padmanabhan Thambi as the next king by taking lethal actions against the prince Marthanda Varma, the legal heir to the kingdom, even though Ettuveettil Pillas follow the system of matrilineality with avuncular paterfamilias.^{[citation needed]—citation can be provided}

We shall re-edit, the article as required. I may need to re-collect some reference materials as not all of those are in one place or possessed by one. Hopefully, we could add the required references by this weekend. If possible kindly review and put forward all the possible suggestions at once for other sections if applicable, so that we could collect and refer the required source materials, if any new references are required in a single stretch as some of the source materials are available at only farther distances. We are very glad to know that this article is been reviewed again, and have this kind of attention not encountered before. Thanks again.
(harith (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

@Harithvh: Sounds good! Thanks for the update: I will definitely work through that when I have some down time later in the evening. I am happy to give feedback on articles about novels: its what I specialize in, and I read and write a lot of them :) Also, I am always happy to engage with editors who respond to feedback, and work to be constructive in responding to feedback. Its definitely refreshing to have people that want to collaborate (its part of the charm of the Wikipedia community, and part of the reason I have been around for so long :) Sadads (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

To editor Sadads:
Hi, this is regarding your recent edit redlinks for lead, linking [[Dharmaraja]] and [[Ramarajabahadur]]. Both Dharmaraja and Ramarajabahadur are titles of Karthika Thirunal Rama Varma, who succeeded Marthanda Varma in 1758, and commonly known as Dharma Raja, so even the red-link Ramarajabahadur should be redirected to Dharma Raja. In this novel article we may use as [[Dharmaraja (novel)|Dharmaraja]] and [[Ramarajabahadur (novel)|Ramarajabahadur]]. The same are corrected accordingly. Thanks.
(harith (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

To editor Sadads:
The article is updated with the available references for the most important allusions mentioned, others that are less important are removed. The other areas from Architectural and geographical are also removed,, as the locations are not main areas where the major events of the novel take place. Accordingly the clarification templates are removed.
(harith (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC))Reply

Now the novel avalibale in ml Wikisource s:ml:മാർത്താണ്ഡവർമ്മ. --Manojk (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Manojk: Hi Manoj, the Wikisource page is already linked in the page through the infobox and is accessible thru the same. The {{Wikisource}} is used when using the old format of {{Infobox book}}, which is now depreciated in en:Wiki unlike in Indian regional language versions of Wikipedia, if I am not wrong. Is the usage of Wikisource template is deemed necessary in the present layout ?, if otherwise we could keep the See also section only for the links that are not refereed in article content. —(harith·discuss) 18:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the <div></div> tags surrounding the {{reflist}} for this article. It causes problems if you want to print the article for any reason, as anything past the first 20 references get cut off. The footnotes themselves, however, seem to be fine. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• But excessive, and I am going to remove the bibliographical notes--we do not need, in this article, extensive footnotes on the people who are quoted in the article. That is total overkill. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
• Wow--how did you clean 60k out of that article? Impressive--thanks, and thanks also on behalf of our reader. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Hi, Thanks for the edits, its my mistake in adding the scrolling list, though I have seen the discussions about it. I had to remove the &nbsp; from some of the reference citations, where it creates CS1 error, Check date values in: |date= . Thanks again.

@Drmies: Hi, Special Thanks for your bold edits. I have restored the section Character relations, which was removed while blanking out the Characters section. The Chart illustration is not included in the sub article, as its out of context of a list. I hope, we could keep the proofreading section, if you could re-think about it. Thanks again.

Regarding the length of plot summary, this has been discussed multiple times on this talk page. I did the first edit of the same followed by the condensing by User:Louieoddie. Its been quite common on Wikipedia to tag a plot summary to be long, if consecutive events or events from consecutive days are described in the summary, be it a film or book, regardless of how those are relevant to the respective. This normally happens due to non-exposure of editor to the subject item. I believe the tagging of the same is not done in the same way, so, we shall keep the tag for some-time to have notified to the readers about the length and they can edit it accordingly, if they felt it same way; and we shall remove the tag accordingly after the period, though there are changes or not, as done once post the tagging by User:Fdssdf. There are plenty of discussions above to refer.

Looking ahead for suggestions and constructive comments.
(harith·discuss) 10:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Harithvh: Glad to help. I think maybe an article split is appropriate here, given its length and the number of references. I think splitting the article into two or three articles would be sufficient, and summaries of the split articles could be placed in this article.

@Drmies: Just for clarification, I just got rid of some whitespace, which took out 50,000 or so bytes. I did not remove a single word. epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Drmies and Epicgenius: I am really concerned about the size of the article, and the amount of WP:Trivia and WP:SYNTH. It might be worth splitting, but I think there is also room for a heavy handed editors pen (see my feedback above). I still have trouble rendering the article in my chromebook (with a decent internet connection), so I can't imagine what it must be like on other less new devices or on a mobile network. Sadads (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sadads, thanks. Your note, above, on readers and devices is well taken. That which Harithvh just restored in this edit is, of course, illegible on many mobile device, takes up 12K, and adds what? Epicgenius, I don't think we need to split anything--we need to cut this down to size. What we have is a master's thesis, not an encyclopedic article. There is no way in which this amount of material is acceptable. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Relating to this article's size, I agree completely that it is still too long and that the plot summary is the main contributor to its length. Casually scanning FAs in literature shows that this article is too long by perhaps several hundred percent. Fdssdf (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fdssdf, Drmies, and Sadads: I agree with all of you that this is a long article. Per our page on article size, the ideal page length is less than 100 KB, or 102,400 bytes. This is about 420,000 bytes, or about four times the recommendation. @Harithvh: will you be amenable to splitting the article and/or trimming some minor details back? There are some real concerns being expressed over the article's size. epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Article just crashed my browser. I'm going to get rid of these notes, for starters. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem isn't even in the plot, which is straight up text. The mass of the article is in the material around it--the excessive historical background, the excessive thematics, the excessive...everything. Extensive notes, footnotes within the notes, transliterations--all of that adds up, though we're slightly under 400k now. And then there's the 180k worth of List of allusions in Marthandavarma novel. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads:, @Epicgenius:, @Drmies:, @Fdssdf:
Hi, Thanks to the valuable suggestions. There is no WP:Trivia and WP:SYNTH included here as mentioned by Sadads to the best of my knowledge, and have tried to avoid any of such to maximum. If notified, we could evaluate and do the appropriate changes. The user Drmies, seems like really annoyed with this article and my edits, It’s so unfortunate to the revert of my last edit, and brought back the CS1 error, Check date values in: |date= , as the tree illustration thru {{Chart}} was illegible on some mobile device or crashed the browser, though a normal edit could have been employed, instead of a revert.

The mobile version of the page does not displays the tree and loads to the end of the page and scroll, I have tested the same multiple times to ok, when the size was high at 487+k on a Nokia E6-00, on 2G and 3G connections. The desktop version of the page was tested on the same device, and the browser crashed twice, and loaded fully after clearing the cache, and scrolled to the end (including the tree) without crash on third time, only on 3G connection, though this is not a requirement. I hope all are using advanced devices and applications to check this page. The page is also tested to ok (at 487+k) on other browsers on PCs and iPhone as well. The problem with crash of browser is a technical issue, which shall be escalated to technical ends on both sides (Wikipedia and browsing device), and not an article-size issue. I admit that there was some issue in loading during the article’s last assessment due to some unidentified control characters and unnecessary line-breaks, all those were removed over the time. The removal of tree illustration using chart is completely pathetic and defeat the purpose of {{Chart}}, and will vouch to add back those on consensus. Also please be patient enough to remove the unused reference citations while removing the texts, to avoid creating so many errors in the page.

It’s completely okay to splitting the article and/or trimming the article to bring the same to an acceptable size as pointed out by Epicgenius. I would recommend to remove the text from each of the allusions sections, that has a {{further}} notification, similar to the edits at Characters section by Drmies, but please bring back the {{Chart}} usages on the page, it really gives the reader a better information.

Referring to the edit summary wikilink chivalric romance, the chivalric romance was linked multiple times in the Theme section, as paragraphs have also links to romance (love), and romanticism using the word romantic. It’s my bad in overlooking the excessive wikilink, and sorry for the troubles caused in editing. Thanks a ton for the edits. I will be able to do the major edits by (myself) this weekend, in meantime others can do the edits accordingly, as of now I’ll try to remove the errors created due to edits of respective. I see now some of the reference errors are removed. Thanks again.

(harith·discuss) 06:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Harithvh, Sadads, Drmies, Epicgenius, and Fdssdf: I've reduced the plot summary as much as I can without resolving two problems.

1) I don't know how to abbreviate the character's names. To use their complete names when they are first mentioned is fine but it would be nice to use shorter names for the rest of the summary. I can't do this because I don't understand the naming conventions.

2) I need to read the book to better understand the importance of each event and which to remove from the summary. I recently purchased an English copy of this book from AbeBooks and will read it as soon as I can but I don't want the events to get tangled in my mind with those of the book that I'm currently reading, The Mahabharata. Since the book I am currently reading is very long it will be a while before I can approach this summary as someone who has read the book.Louieoddie (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Epicgenius, why all those spaces around parameters? I never use them, and they add considerably to the article's girth. Harithvh, please note that since Epicgenius started that series of edits, the article has lost 100k, and I think it has gotten better, not worse. The goal here is to bring it up to GA standards, and size is--as you've seen from the responses here--an obvious concern. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • @Drmies: I can fix these back if you want. I tried to remove all the extra "tab" spaces in the citations using a user script. Apparently it didn't work as well. It'll take me only five seconds to revert. epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • But you also added those nobreakspace things, and you'd lose those in a revert, no? Or do you do this automatically? From what I understand you don't need those spaces, though I see AWB editors add them all the time for reasons I don't know (Bgwhite, you know this stuff, no?). If we don't need them, cut them: every bit helps. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • @Drmies: Non-breaking spaces are used to prevent a symbol, letter, or word from "splitting" into several lines. They're a very minor addition, and while it does have a visual impact, it won't be noticeable unless the reader zooms in to a very small window. epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Epicgenius, sorry, I meant the other spaces, the ones in the parameters. :) Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• @Drmies: It's OK, I fixed the white spaces.   epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of references, I indicated earlier that much of the bulk resides not in the text but in the added material. For instance, notes 3 and 5 and 6 are to the same source. References to that particular source, Menon's History of Travancore from the Earliest Times, aren't even particularly meaty (no transliterations, thank god), but the book template is thus used at least three times instead of one. Cleaning up the references, by making those footnotes refer to a separate bibliography, would probably cut down considerably on overall size. And really--do we need three different sets of notes? I think all those biographical notes should go: what do they add for the reader of the article? Drmies (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would try to do some merging of refernces -- almost too much metadata (I shudder at ever imagining writing that). I think we should be able to cut out the biographical notes, we don't need to convince anyone of the authorship of the scholars (I wouldn't think). I started some pruning in the geography section, and can do a bit more incrementally over the next few weeks (this is really complicated hard reading). Sadads (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree, the biography notes are getting a little too technical for casual reading. However, I must admit, they make a nice touch to the article. epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I copied the entire references section onto a notepad. It was 56 pages and 23,807 words long. I think that's the longest references section I have ever seen. epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure enough, it's 178.8 KB (223,000 bytes), about 2/3 of the article. I've seen featured or highly-viewed articles that were not as long. epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That data had me ROFL . I am so glad its not just me making comments on this article anymore :) We should be careful not to get rid of much of the research, or displace some of it into a (seperate) bibliography of research about Marthandavarma. After all, that must have been a huge amount of work to compile, and I would hate to see that work lost, Sadads (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

:::::@Sadads: A bibliography article would be a good idea. Bibliography of Marthandavarma novel should probably be created soon. epicgenius (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads:, @Epicgenius:, @Drmies:, @Louieoddie:
Hi, I made some edits, in the lead section, was is changed to is, as the subject title is still the first of its kind as mentioned in the line, I hope it’s right; also changed three to the, as the following line has another count three, which should be four, if there is a three earlier. Thanks again for greater trimming, I also added a line in the composition section to have continuity with the following, I hope it’s not against the interest of the reader in the context of the section.

I would recommend to add a line or half regarding the proofreading in the printing section, as this will provide better continuity in the following sections Release as well as Reception. I have also removed some citations, that were overkill-alike. The errors in the previous edits were also removed.

Regarding references, it was thought earlier to change the referencing into two sections References and Bibliography, so as to keep description of one source title to only once; however it was not sure how to use that when we use quote parameter, so avoided. Kindly provide some suggestions. If we create Bibliography of Marthandavarma novel page, how do we link the page to the main page?, I believe the main page may still have references, right? Apart from this, if suggestions to edit other sections similar way once did by Padenton will also be helpful.

(harith·discuss)

@Harithvh: The hatnote {{main}} can be placed in the references section of this article and on the top of the new bibliography article. epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius:, thanks for the info. I'll try to compile the citation sources and discuss it here later.

@Sadads:, I have added reference for the sought one, and rephrased the line tagged with {{who}}, I hope we don't need the another biographical note. The tagged templates are removed accordingly.

As I mentioned above regrading the re-arranging the references in a different format such as {{harv}} models to reduce space, the |quote= parameter works only once for a given page no., if that was the model referred above, and of that case, we may have to exclude all the |quote= values, also the style of using last name brings up confusion, it might be better to change all the parameter |last1= and |first1 to |author in the reference template and use the fullname in {{sfnp}} for the applicable ones.
I might be off from active editing to none till the end of next week due to some anticipated commitments.
(harith·discuss) 08:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marthandavarma (novel). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412153224/http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/malayalamcinemamore.htm to http://www.prd.kerala.gov.in/malayalamcinemamore.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924083357/http://www.puzha.com/puzha/cgi-bin/generate-article.cgi?channel=puzhakids&article_xml=kunjunni9.xml&gen_type=printer&work_type=serialize to http://www.puzha.com/puzha/cgi-bin/generate-article.cgi?channel=puzhakids&article_xml=kunjunni9.xml&gen_type=printer&work_type=serialize
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310110159/http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/jobs/gujarats-last-rajput-king-karan-ghelo-a-kings-life/91058/ to http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/jobs/gujarats-last-rajput-king-karan-ghelo-a-kings-life/91058/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029194015/http://bzu.edu.pk/jrlanguages/Vol-1%202001/Farida%20Yousaf-4.pdf to http://www.bzu.edu.pk/jrlanguages/Vol-1%202001/Farida%20Yousaf-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kerala in the Late Middle Ages.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Plot summary is reduced as possible, so Template:long plot usage is removed.
• The section Style is restructured and made condense.
• Relevance section is re-edited.
• Biographical notes are reduced, and kept of those who have connection to the novel.
• Small edit Sequels
• Some minor edits.
• Reference format is changed to reduce space as in the above discussions.
• Bibliography page is to be created as suggested by @Sadads:
  • Template:Marthandavarma (novel) is to be re-structred to include the Bibliography page

((harith·discuss) 06:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC))Reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=notes> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=notes}} template (see the help page).