Talk:Mysore literature in Kannada

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarvajna Manauscipts.jpg

Image:Sarvajna Manauscipts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence from 18th/19th literature section

"His contributions to treatises on music include Nija Dipika Ratna, Anubhava Rasayana, Bhakti Marga Sarovara and Gnana Sarovara, both with eighty six compositions, and a host of sangatya, gadya, vachana compositions and eighteen philosophical compositions in the work Shalyada Arasinavara Tikina Kirtane."

I'm not sure exactly what this means - what two compositions does "both" refer to? I've left it as is for now, because I don't want to change the intended meaning. Damanmundine1 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwill refer to my book and make sure I did not alter the intended meaning.thanksDineshkannambadi 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a minor uncontroversial move

You are in the middle of a FAR on Kingdom of Mysore, in which one of the issues being discussed is the page name "Kingdom of Mysore" and whether it is appropriate. This page name includes "Kingdom of Mysore" as an integral part; furthermore, it is the mother article of a section in the Kingdom of Mysore page. You cannot simply change the name without informing anyone on this talk page, and, to boot, check the "minor edit" box in the edit notes. This is a very controversial move and it has to be done through the proper channels. Before you can even attempt to do that though, you need to conduct a discussion on this talk and provide your reasons for requesting this move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If a larger set of writers are to be included, you nonetheless need to tell us who they are, how much content will their inclusion add, but most importantly why does the page name need to be changed now, when for many many months you have used artifices like naming (long) sections, "Contemporary developments and then including material that did not contemporaneously originate within the realm of the Kingdom of Mysore. Why do we need this change now, when we didn't need it earlier? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the article and enjoy it. As the author of the article, I dont see what the problem is in changing the name to what I feel is appropriate at any point in time. If the PR or FAC reviewers dont like it, I will change it to what they feel is correct. Is there a wiki rule that the entire sub-article, line to line, should include only info on Mysore kingdom? I think not. I wanted to expand it, so I did it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I am disputing the page name change, you need to do it through the proper channels of a "controversial move." As simple as that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing controversial here. The article includes literature from outside Mysore too.. and it would be incorrect to name it to suggest otherwise. The new title, if anything, is a more accurate description of the content of the article. Sarvagnya 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a question with the FAR directors since your first revert was based on the FAR. I will go by their advice. If you continue to protest and change the name back, for no good reason, then we can bring in admins.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the FAR directors. I do protest the change without any prior discussion on the talk page. Since I subscribe to 1RR, I will, however, not revert user:Sarvagyna's revert move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)What I am suggesting is not that the sub-article's name "remain frozen," but rather that when such a name change involves issues related to the FAR (and explicitly discussed in My concerns (#5)), it should be discussed on the talk page first. The page move certainly shouldn't be made without any explanation anywhere and with the "minor edit" box checked. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The subarticle's name has changed now in the FAR article, in the name of accuracy and improvements that a FAR is all about.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what is at stake here. The page name needs to be changed back to Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. One of the points of the FAR (My concerns#5) has been that both the literature section and the mother article have never been about Kannada literature within the Kingdom of Mysore, and that among other things they have included non-Kingdom-of-Mysore literature through the artifice of sections like Contemporary developments, which describe the Kannada literature of surrounding kingdoms. You need to explain why you are doing this now and why these latest changes cannot be accommodated in more "Contemporary developments." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is you who needs to explain why you linked one of your issues to a sub-article, when the FAR is about the main article. Sub-articles are meant to be expanded and that is what I did. I dont need to explain anything. I have made 27,000 edits on wiki, did I explain them all to you?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi, I linked it for the same reason that this page name had "Kingdom of Mysore" in it: "consistency." Please see, reference to peer-reviewer user:Damanmundine1's page move in a post below. That post, BTW, has gone answered for more than a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain removal of content

Dear user:Sarvagnya, Could you please explain why you removed my three posts, which presented evidence for both why the recent page move was controversial and why the sources used in this article are flawed? The edits I refer to are: this edit of 23:24 17 December 2008, with edit summary, "rm vios of WP:TALK and abuse of the talk page... this is not a personal scratchpad..." and, after my subsequent revert, this edit of 23:28 17 December 2008 with edit summary, "Read up on WP:TALK") I just reread WP:TALK. What Wikipedia policy (please cite chapter and verse) did my three posts violate? Here they are for convenience of referring: A record of the creation of this page and its name changes, Name change: What about the period 1900–1947?], and Sources used in this article Could you also explain what part of WP:TALK policy did you use to override the WP:TALK injunction: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. Please reply below. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PS user:Sarvagnya and user:Dineshkannambadi, you might want to read the admins' final comments at the AN/I incident about your removal of my recent posts here. The admins at AN/I are pretty categorical that nothing I did came even remotely close to being called trolling and that you should not have removed talk page content. What I had was a "listy" post whose list best belonged to my subpage; that's not trolling. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Page Move: Consistency with other Kingdom of Mysore sub-articles

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi, Since you have recently changed the page name from Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE without requesting a move or initiating any concurrent discussion on the talk page, I'd like to ask you a few questions. During the period mid-September 2007 to mid-October 2007, this page was copy edited by, among others, User:Damanmundine1 and User:Writtenright; see history. In this edit of 12:54 13 October 2007, user:Damanmundine1, changed the name of the page, from its original name, Mysore Kingdom literature, to its longest-lasting name, Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore. Furthermore user:Damanmundine1 cited "consistency with other Kingdom of Mysore sub-articles," in this edit summary. I have provided full details of the history of the name changes of this page in my subpage: A record of the creation of this page and its name changes In light of the evidence: Why are you now downplaying this need for "consistency" Why did you let user:Damanmundine1's page name stay for over a year? Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Page Move: What about the period 1900–1947?

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi, The content of the page Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore included the literature of the "Kingdom of Mysore" until the year 1947 (when the Princely State of Mysore acceded to the Union of India). I have included brief outline of the coverage of Kannada literature of the period 1900–1947 on my subpage: Name change: What about the period 1900–1947? . By changing the page name to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE aren't you not only changing, without any prior discussion on this talk page, the geographical range of the literature, but also the chronological range? In other words, what will you say in response to readers of this page—which is the mother page of the Literature sub-section of the History FA Kingdom of Mysore—when they will ask, "What about the literature of the period 1900–1947 in the "Kingdom of Mysore?" Regardless of what your answer to question above is, do you still consider the page move you made to be routine and uncontroversial? Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

F&f's critique of last paragraph in lead (randomly selected as a sample)

• Sentence 1: "Not only were the court poets prolific writers, some rulers of the Mysore royal family were themselves men of letters."
  • At least three grammatical errors, one major; I am guessing that what is intended is something like, "The men of letters in the Mysore royal court included not only the court poets, who were often quite prolific, but also on occasion the rulers themselves."
• Sentence 2: "Wandering mendicant-poets wrote compositions meant for the country folk and popularised native metres."
  • What does this tell us about Mysore? It could apply to any medieval kingdom.
• Sentence 3: "A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic, were popular including 2-line verse, 3-line verse, 4-line verse, 6-line verse, 7-line verse, free verse, verses rendered to the accompaniment of an instrument and prose metres."
  • I have removed the vernacular names to give readers a feeling for the actual information content of the sentence. What does it really say? Is a literature article about naming names? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead

• Sentence 1: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed in the Kannada language, a Dravidian language spoken in the historical Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India and written in the Kannada script."
  • The sentence is ambiguous. It certainly suggests that Kannada language was spoken and written in the Kingdom of Mysore, but it says nothing about the the literature. In other words, when was the literature composed?
• Sentence 2: "The available writings date from around 1600 CE to the early 20th century."
  • Available? Is that needed? Are some writings from that period extinct? If so, what is known about them? Tautologically, any literature has some extinct writings of the variety that were consigned to the trash-heap or fire-place by their authors. Why "early 20th century?" The kingdom (or rather the princely state) lived on until the mid-20C.
• Sentence 3:"Many of the works of this literature are labeled Veerashaiva or Vaishnava in acknowledgment of the two faiths that both gave form to the literature and fostered it until the advent of the modern era."
  • You make it sound that the faiths were charitable foundations. Surely, the works themselves must have espoused the tenets of these faiths in some form. This passive-voiced writing makes it very easy to introduce weasel words: "labeled" (by whom?) and "in acknowledgment" (by whom?); also, "gave form" (how?) and "fostered it" (how?) are vague, as is "modern era" (the reader shouldn't have to click a link in sentence 3; replace it with a date, a year, a decade, or a half-century.
• Sentence 4: "Despite a gradual decline in their popularity, Jain authors produced some works of merit"
  • "Despite a gradual decline ..." assumes that we are familiar with "Jain writers," but this is their first mention. What are "Jain writers" anyway (we are given no clue unless we click)? Are they a subset of the faiths already mentioned? (After all we were told "many of the works of the literature" are of those two faiths?) Note: I am not asking you these questions; just stating that these would not at all be obvious to a general reader.

The dominions of the Wodeyars of Mysore at their greatest extent, c. 1704, shown on a 2001 map of southern India.

• Sentence 5: "Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on."
  • We were never told that V- and V- were sacred writings? "Secular" doesn't just mean profane; it can also mean non-religious in a mundane way. Why couldn't V- and V- support such mundane secular writings? "dealing with a wide variety of subjects were also written on." I'm willing to overlook the grammatical mistakes, but what does this really mean?
• Sentence 6: "Organised Kannada literature flourished for a short while in the neighbouring kingdom of the Nayakas of Keladi, before it was annexed by Mysore in 1763."
  • Organised? What does that mean and why is it relevant? Is this article only about organized literature? Also, what about the large expanse of other Kannada-speaking kingdoms outside the borders of the Kingdoms of Mysore and Keladi? (Please see map of Karnataka.) Was the rest of the Kannada-speaking region (at least twice as large, perhaps even three times) not producing any literature? You need to answer this if you're looking to change the name of the page to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900."

This is just the lead. As I've already indicated, each of the three sentences of the third paragraph in the lead has similar problems. Doesn't bode well for an article aspiring to be an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f's explanation of tags

• Sentence 1 and 2: What you need to say is something like: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of Kannada language literature composed during the period 1600–1947 CE in the historical Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India. (Kannada is a Dravidian language which is written in the Kannada script.)" (You then don't need anything about "available writings" or "mid-20 C." The sentence in parentheses, is less important; it can even be relegated to a footnote.
• Sentence 3: You referred to the version I had hurriedly reverted to on 28 December. See [2]. That I had reverted the edit to a previous version doesn't make it correct. The problem with the sentence is not so much that my choice of "acknowledgment," in retrospect, is not the best choice of word, but that the sentence doesn't give an ordinary reader (who is far from an expert) even an inkling of what these writings are about. In particular, you need to tell that reader, what it is in the writings themselves (i.e. what characteristics) that make them Ve* or Va*. In other words, what gods and what literary genres or styles are favored in Va* and Ve* respectively. For example, how would you explain Va* and Ve* to high-school or college kids? That sort of explanation is needed here (a brief one that is, and one that persuades the reader to continue on to the sections themselves).

Map showing wodeyar (Kingdom of) Mysore and other petty kingdoms and principalities in the region ca. 1625, all Kannada speaking.

• Sentence 4: When you say, "Despite a gradual decline in the popularity of Jainism, authors devoted to the faith produced some works of merit," you assume that the reader is familiar not only with Jainism, but also with its literary history. It is better to say something along the lines of, "Literary works on themes related to the Jain faith, which had dominated the literature of the previous age (whatever its name is), were, however, produced less prolifically in the Kingdom of Mysore; this was in part due to the decline in the practice of the faith itself" (You don't need to say what I just wrote, but you do need to give the reader some indication of the previous history of Jain works and perhaps why the practice of Jainism declined (if that is important and if it is true).) Also, I'm not sure I'd use the word "popularity." In medieval and early-modern times, people didn't necessarily have "freedom" in their choice of religion.
• Sentence 5: "Secular themes ..." Too general. You need to give some examples of these themes, i.e. something along the lines of, "In addition to writing devotional poetry/songs/drama ... many/some authors wrote about X, Y, Z, and other secular themes/topics."
• Sentence 6: Please refer to the map in the previous section as well as the map in this one. You need to explain why (of all the Kannada-speaking regions, kingdoms, and principalities) you have singled out Keladi for mention in the lead and for extended discussion in the article. What about the other kingdoms and principalities? Was no literature produced in them during this period? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Last update. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysore palace image

The image originally had a caption that simply said, "Mysore Palace." After I made my first post in the FAC referring to the image, user:Dineshkannambadi changed it to "Mysore palace, centre of the court and its literary circle." Now when I've asked (in the FAC) what literary circle was he talking about (since the palace was inaugurated in 1912 and the literature's scope ends in the "early 20th century"), he has changed the caption to be about the archives (with two "citations" as well)!

• If this is indeed the case, why had this supposedly salient fact about the palace gone unmentioned in the text thus far, and
• Why are the citations that same Bangalore University PhD dissertation in Music (by Pranesh) and that same regional college history text-book (by Kamath) that have been cited each time the contribution of the Wodeyars has needed to be established? This is especially suspicious, when the citation from Pranesh is from the preface of her dissertation! What exactly did she say? And what did Kamath say (please provide exact quotation) about the Mysore palace? user:Dineshkannambadi says he has 20 sources, of which one is Pranesh and another is Kamath, but that still leaves 18. Do those 18 say anything about these vaunted archives? The irrelevant mention of the 1881 date should also be removed. The Mysore Palace, built between 1897 and 1912, was a brand new palace, with a completely different architectural style. If he has an image of the old palace, he is welcome to add it, if he can establish relevance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• PS I've removed the false information about the 1881 date in the caption, the caption now reads, "Mysore Palace, completed in 1912, currently holds the royal archives which has a huge collection of records regarding composers under royal patronage, covering a period of over 100 years." However, this is still not satisfactory. What composers? And why are they being mentioned in an article about literature?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

F&f Post 4 from FAC

F&f's post 4

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. (Reply to user:DK's post of 18:18, 24 February 2009, which states, "Removing an image before the actual name change happens, is a hypotheical (sic) approach. If the name change seems to be popular among the reviewers, then we can revisit the issue." During the period, 16 December to 21 December, when the name of the page was changed to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE," the Mysore palace image was not removed. Here are some diffs from that time; they all have the Mysore palace image: 16 December 2008, 17 December 2008 and 19 December 2008. Regardless of the page name, the lead paragraph says, "the available literature dates from around 1600 to the early 20th century." A palace that was completed in 1912 cannot convincingly represent a literature whose scope extends only up to the early 20th century.
2. This is more perplexing because the Kingdom (or Princely State) of Mysore lasted until 1947, in other words, the mid-20th century. Shouldn't the scope of the literature be 1600–1947?
3. Wikipedia articles beginning with "Kannada literature" are:
   1. Kannada literature
   2. Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire
   3. Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire
   4. Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. Please note that articles 2 and 3 also refer to historical kingdoms or empires. Can user:DK explain why the last page's name alone should be different?
4. Finally, the period 1600–1900 CE, conforms to no known periodization of Kannada literature. user:DK has stated in the page's peer review, that he plans to include the remaining period 1900–present in the page Modern Kannada literature; however
   1. the main Kannada literature page itself, has a section, Modern period, which seems to be saying that Modern Kannada literature begins around 1830?
   2. Not only the Kannada literature page, but even the Modern Kannada literature page has a section, Dawn of Modern Kannada literature: 1800–1900. Wouldn't 1800–present, or 1830–present, be a better periodization for "modern Kannada literature?"
   3. A search of the scholarly literature seems to confirm the 1830-ish date. I've created a subpage, Modern Kannada literature periodization that lists four sources which consider modern Kannada literature to begin early in the 19th century; the page also provides quotes from these sources. Three of the four are works published by India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters). Copied here by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -SpacemanSpiff 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I will review this article. I'll take a look and note my initial comments over the next few hours. -SpacemanSpiff 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably also read the failed FAC review from February 2009. Please read the concluding comments of RegentsPark, LaserBrain, and myself. The issues of synthesis (especially by the exceptional use of Pranesh and Kamath, both little known in the field of Kannada literature) will be a concern for GA candidacy as well. (Who, btw, nominated this for GA? The primary author is user:Dineshkannambadi and I'm not sure if non-significant authors can nominate such an article.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Accuracy_of_sourcing_in_Kannada_literature_in_KM_FAC about accuracy of sourcing in the article. Has the article changed much since March 2009? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've already read the talk page, and based on the article history, asked this question at WT:GAN -- I was concerned about the major contributors not being involved. -SpacemanSpiff 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I also read the FAC earlier -- to get upto speed on FA criteria and how articles get promoted or not. -SpacemanSpiff 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. (Just wanted to make sure you knew about the article's past, which you obviously do. Also, wanted to make sure that this was not a frivolous GAN.) Good luck with the reviewing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Preliminary comments

These comments are based on a cursory reading of the article, not a detailed review.

• Why the double link to Keladi Nayaka and Keladi in the lead?
• "Many of the works...produced some works of merit" in the lead. The two sentences in this are referenced to the same page, of the source, but together they appear to cause more confusion than anything else. It's quite likely that som information is missing in this pair of sentences.
• "Secular themes with a wide range of subjects were also written on." This is in addition to the many and some from the above pair of sentences, and referred to multiple sources. It reads like a collection of disconnected statements right now. If all this needs more explanation, it shouldn't belong in the lead as it appears to cause confusion.
• The article and title don't appear to match. There are instances where it focuses on Kannada literature in general vs in the Mysore kingdom.

I'll add more later (I have a fair bit on first look), but I hope the nominator can comment on these before we delve in. -SpacemanSpiff 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As you've noted in your reply to me, it's be best to fail this in the next few days if someone cannot be found to handle the issues noted in the FA review or the issues you've noted. Wizardman 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've also posted on WT:INB to see if anyone there would be able to take this up, if I don't hear from anyone by the end of the week, then I'll fail it. -SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not very well-versed in the subject, I'll try and see if I can help out. Some comments in response to yours above:

• Keladi Nayaka links to the dynasty, while Keladi links to the place.
• The references mentioned there are themselves problematic. Shastri (1955) is cited, but not mentioned in the bibliography, so I have no idea which book is being referred to. However, what seems to be suggested is that literature flourished under the Veerashaiva, Vaishnava as well as Jain traditions.
• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article; as such further elaboration of the concepts presented in the lead must be presented in the body of the article. However, the sentences could use some rephrasing and I'll try and do that.
• The only instance where the article seems to focus on Kannada literature is in the first sub-section, which merely provides a historical perspective to the development of Kannada literature in the kingdom of Mysore. The subsequent sections deal with the transition and development of Kannada literature from Vijayanagara to the Mysore region.

Also, the references and bibliography do not link to each other, which I'll try and solve using Harvard citation templates. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The above mentioned points were just first comments to get started, there are quite a lot, especially related to quality of sources and verification of what the sources say. I think using {{Harvnb}} cites can be done at the end after the content is finalized. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some minor tweaks required, but good for the most part

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Source verification is difficult, questions regarding references haven't been addressed

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Some areas appear to be OR or synthesis

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article has the potential to be brought up to GA standards. The main problem identified is around the sourcing of the content, including the reliability of some sources, lack of details of some, and the appearance of synthesis. These issues will have to be addressed before renomination. Part of the problem here was that the nominator was not available to follow through with the review.

Title

I notice that the article was moved from Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Mysore literature in Kannada. I'm ok with any title but this seems a bit odd since Mysore is a noun but there should be an adjective there instead. Mysorean literature? Or, Literature of Mysore. Or Kannada literature from Mysore. --regentspark (comment) 18:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)