Talk:Chidambaram Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
 |
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Another ugly template
Well, Indian temples are losing their charm and beauty. Canceled my trip to India -- no longer looks like a place one wants to see. You might want to consult Wikipedia:Wheel war as what you are doing violates many Wikipedia policies, including WP:OWN. Well, I can do without ugly articles on Indian temples. I do wonder why you don't consult with others, as I had suggested before, with pople of superior knowledge to yours and a more professional approach to their work, like User talk:Dineshkannambadi who adds real quality and professionalism. But you don't so that is the way it is. Too bad, as India deserves more that rushed up junk articles. Perhaps you will reconsider and and start to believe that a quality article is worth it. Until then, Mattisse(talk) 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consult others -- don't be the Long Ranger
I guess someone appointed you to be the king, and it is good to be the king. Problems is thatyou are harming India. But maybe that doesn't matter to you as there are many wonderful places in the world where this mentality of yours is not evident. We will go to those places, those of us you are trampling over. I will continute to call you on your outright unethical behavior -- obvious copyvio and such. Can't let you do too much harm to Wikipedia although you can gp ahead and trash India. Mattisse(talk) 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overlap with city page
The Chidambaram city and temple articles include a lot of overlap. I'm doing some cleanup on them and want to move the information to the most appropriate articles. Sci girl 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright violations removed so far were from http://www.delhitourism.com/tamilnadu/places-worship-in-tamilnadu.html and the Lonly Planet India guidebook. Sci girl 03:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chidambaram.jpg
Image:Chidambaram.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merge
I think there's enough here to have an article about the temple itself. Maybe the geography bits could be pared down some so there's no overlap. I think the temple material should be moved out of the town article to here rather than add this into the town article, which already focuses too much on the temple, in my opinion. Sci girl (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the temple-related information here from the town article, but it could use some more cleanup. Hugh16 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
