Template talk:Hindu temples in Thanjavur District

Temple regional classification

I think the original classification by the author holds good. For temples, the municipal corporation limits won't be applicable - what will be the classification for remote temples outside the municipality? If you refer to the published sources, all these temples come under the classification of Kumbakonam temples only. The template is helpful in linking related information. We can have generic templates like temples in india, tamilnadu etc, but it is way too large to accommodate.

Also it would be advisable to discuss in talk pages rather than simply reverting the changes.S Sriram 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt

Additionally, there are lot of duplicate pages in this region like Thirukadaiyur had 3, nallur has 2 etc. This is an effort to reduce duplication. I am renaming to Thanjavur district and modifying the contents accordingly S Sriram 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt

How many times do I need to need to state that this is an encyclopedia! And in an encyclopedia, exactness is very important. And can you please provide the "reliable and published" sources which state that Thiruvidaimarudur or Thiruvisanallur are in Kumbakonam. We go by prevalent entities not non-existent boundaries in the mind. Reversion of obvious nonsense need not be discussed in talk page. Just because there is no need to source the contents of a template, we find templates created for everything and anything with dubious verifiability. And it would be nice if you can provide details about the redundant articles on places in WIkipedia.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 10:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes for Tanjore

(How many times do I need to reiterate that the official name of the district is Thanjavur and not Tanjore. And the state is "Tamil Nadu" not "TamilNadu") (undo) 

Please check user changes before making personal comments. When the original change for Thanjavur was made it was in only one of the places. Complaints can be made before prior checking S Sriram 01:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt

You might very well care to check this out. When you commit errors, you can't expect people to simply tag the article and leave it alone as you've stated in my talkpage. Tags are not there to beautify the article. There are people who might advice or even warn you. By the way, I've only complained about you edits, not anything about you as a person or what you do outside Wikipedia. So, how can you consider my comments to be personal.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 11:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole point is you have presumed that i have reverted your edit which is not the case - I edited some other link within the template. I know tags are not there to beautify, but they are not for meaningless allegations as well. Who committed the error first place - When you made the change in one place and left in the other and when you complain others for it without verifying, are you not at fault? My only point is check thoroughly before jumping to allegations - i do agree every content is bound to be reviewed, but simple edits will cost lesser time/resources than resorting to arguments. S Sriram 14:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt