Talk:Architecture of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. 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/20130705060724/http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_tour_bangaruvakili.htm to http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_tour_bangaruvakili.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224144118/http://tirumala.org/maintemple_tour_garbhagriham.htm to http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_tour_garbhagriham.htm
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) 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Tag
editHello Slamforeman. The current tag on the page was added by you, stating the article is too long to read/certain sections are too long. Can you clarify which sections you are referring to and what makes the article too long? Wondering because the article is currently rated as a start class article per WP:ASSESS, so, to me, the amount of content seems appropriate and also because there are a lot of other (much longer) articles out there. Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Eucalyptusmint, the sections I would contend are too long are Sampangi pradakshina, Vimana pradakshina, Ananda Nilayam Vimanam, Bangaru vakili, and Garbhagriha. These in particular have a great deal of detail which ordinarily would be fine. However, because each section has so many run on sentences, needlessly complicated words (i.e. "circumambulates", "appellation"), grammatical errors (i.e. "in olden days",) and little to no sources, this makes the article too long. Although all these issues do indeed place the article in the start class category, as I am sure you know, improving these issues would graduate it from start class.
- Additionally, it should be said that the size of the article (12,640), puts it in the WP:SIZERULE category of "Probably should be divided or trimmed".
- Kind regards, Slamforeman (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts and definitely agree that the article needs a lot of ce clean up, which am hoping to fix and that might help trim it down some with goal being to resolve the tag. Took a closer look at the policy and looks like WP:SIZERULE is based on an article's word count not the actual article's length/bytes (which is 12,640) per the page info, am assuming you were looking at that? So I put the article into a word processor (as suggested by the policy) and the word count comes out to be 1500ish. So per the policy "Length alone does not justify division or trimming" if it's less than 6000 words. Based on this, would you be agreeable if the tag was removed? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for correcting me, I did confuse bytes and words. Recognising that, I would not have any qualms if you were to remove the tag but I would ask you to consider placing a tag on the CE, source, or grammar issues. Slamforeman (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great! and sure, I can do that. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for correcting me, I did confuse bytes and words. Recognising that, I would not have any qualms if you were to remove the tag but I would ask you to consider placing a tag on the CE, source, or grammar issues. Slamforeman (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts and definitely agree that the article needs a lot of ce clean up, which am hoping to fix and that might help trim it down some with goal being to resolve the tag. Took a closer look at the policy and looks like WP:SIZERULE is based on an article's word count not the actual article's length/bytes (which is 12,640) per the page info, am assuming you were looking at that? So I put the article into a word processor (as suggested by the policy) and the word count comes out to be 1500ish. So per the policy "Length alone does not justify division or trimming" if it's less than 6000 words. Based on this, would you be agreeable if the tag was removed? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)