Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:28, 28 March 2012

Archives

1

Your GA nomination of Don 2

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Don 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ASHU 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Don 2 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Don 2 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. ASHU 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Great if you think so. Yes, accuracy is of utmost importance in Misplaced Pages and you should understand that by now, so no point in trying to tell me that the dubbed versions don't matter because they do. Why the hell did you not open up an RfC? You knew that such problems would occur. Besides, do you know how much of trouble I had to go through because of this gross issue? It is not a matter of just 10 cr or 15 cr; even 1 cr is important. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ACCURATE. You cannot side-step that fact even if you wish the article to go to GA (and I do as well, even if you don't think so). I hate it when people bring up old controversies like this gross stuff, especially the ones where there has been such appalling dirty tricks used; this issue is very tricky and very touchy, and it must be handled properly. No way can anybody say "All right that's it" etc. and put a full stop unless everybody agrees. And that is exactly what this GA review was trying to do.

And yes, people have called me absurd, a liar, "evil", a diva, a troll and many other stuff but I have chosen to ignore such stuff; do not think that you are the only one who has had to be at the receiving end of insults. I am not going to apologize as I know I have done no wrong, no matter what the world thinks of me. If this must mark the end of our Misplaced Pages work, so be it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, thank you SO MUCH for calling me "childish and absurd". Do you have any more insults to use on me? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I see you do. Fine then. Do not bother responding to this; delete this immediately. Next time, don't bother calling me for anything at all. All right? Happy at last that you have me out of the way? I will not bother disturbing you with my "nonsense". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is to inform you that there is currently a peer review going on for the article Ra.One here. Your participation is most welcome. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

controversy in Shahrukh wiki

Whats wrong ?

Why there is problem in mentioning controversy in Shahrukh wiki when we are mentioning controversy in Amitabh wiki. As honest wiki writer we should report everything without favor, prejudice, fear and fair in our reporting. Why to hide. I thought you being the most fair as I read your wiki work will be correct to all and will defend the freedom of free press and honest reporting.

~~rohit roy ~~

New message

Hey Meryam, in the coming months I will be in the process of working on Kapoor's "in the media" section - this includes removing unnecessary information and adding some new ones as well. For now, I removed the Eastern Eye poll that you added to the article. I hope you don't mind. Cheers -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One

Could you take a look here, go down to the bottom and see the problems regarding the critical reception section? I'd be much obliged. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Don 2

Plot and casting info are not appropriate in the cast section, nor are those images. Move it to the relevant section if not present, and if it is, remove it. Don't overdo stuff just for the sake of it, if at all it is being done. Secret of success (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The appropriat section IS cast. plus it is a method used in most Hollywood films. U don't seem to mind Ra.One's cast section tho...--Meryam90 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant here, be it a Hollywood or Bollywood film. We do not judge an article by comparison. First, the step results in bad consequences by flooding of images in the section. Most of the info regarding the storyline are already under consideration in the plot. It is just resorting to repetition for the individual characters, I don't see any form of argumentation for that. If there exists quite a lot of information about the production of the cast, a section titled "casting" can be fabricated or the info moved to "development". It is high time you realized that the layout of the article is getting affected by it, by all those images and apparent jargon. Secret of success (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is your opinion, I browsed through alot of articles and read meant policies and it is all in order + U see it flooding the article...no one else does. That would be all. and at the very least, U can learn to respect ppl's work by not calling it redundant and deleting it, U have an opinion abt something, take it to the talk page...-Meryam90 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, please get a clear stand of my comments before hastily jumping to conclusions. First, I said that other articles cannot be compared with this one, at least not when a controversial issue arises. That is by no means constructive here. You are weakening your argument by doing that, intentionally or otherwise. Second, removing a person's addition does not, by any means, signify that one is disrespecting it. I would suggest assuming good faith before getting such ideas. Secret of success (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind if I am intervening but the only problem I can see in the cast section is the non-matching sizes of the two photo columns. Meryam, I suggest you experiment a bit in your infobox and make sure that the two rows end up having the same height, otherwise it does give the sense of unnecessary overcrowding. This may mean that you will have to reduce the width of the SRK-PC column but in the end the section looks better.

Regarding the content of the cast section, such a rigorous application of WP:OSE will get us nowhere. In fact, what Meryam did in the cast section is actually what is done by pretty much several film articles. Though I must mention that adding details of the Cast section in the lead is unadvised, it falls under repetition. There can be changes here and there (and they are undoubtedly required) but as of now, yes the cast section does look good. The photo thing I used in Ra.One was because it would be difficult to put the 4 images in a single column (it would come out of the section itself) but if Meryam can add proper pre-casting and role-preparation info into the Cast section, then she can go ahead and put all the photos into one vertical multiple image template.

Hope this helps. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need for the cast images? If a reader wants to look at SRK or Chopra, all (s)he has to do is a click the links in the infobox, lead or any other section which lead to their respective articles containing all relevant information. Why is that piece repeated in Don 2, and what is its relevance that would mean its omission being detrimental to their understanding? What is the rationale for this argument? Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you have totally failed in reading half of my statement. I pointed out that any repetitions must be removed (and I have done a bit) but I am currently a bit busy with some other articles and cannot devote attention to Don 2. The article is not perfect and not only in the Cast, there may be repetitions in other parts of the article as well. Clarify your rationale of argument as to why a Cast photo is not necessary. By you logic, there can be several photos that need not be there at all, for example the Ra.One default face look because one can just read the lines in the text. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in keeping Cast images as it does not go against MOS:FILM and there is no rule to keep it out. And before you pull up WP:OSE again, let me tell you that it is futile; editors will look to to other articles to seek improvement methods and will cite them, and most better-looking articles (several of them GAs and FAs) do have Cast photos. Your given example of Taare Zameen Par has a Darsheel Safary cast photo. Even I can click on the link and see his picture; why is it there then? That sort of logic is faulty. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

On Ra.One, go through WP:NFCC#8 which says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."—If it does not satisfy this, I'm afraid it will have to be deleted—I did doubt the importance of the two images in the "Suits" section, and now that you mention it, I feel it is time to have a formal discussion about this. It is not just wrongly licensed (it consists of retouched posters, not film screenshots), but also goes against NFCC. Secret of success (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Don 2, yes, those are unnecessary. I have already clarified in the above rationale, as the main images of SRK and Chopra are just reproduced here. Further, the section looks odd and disfigured (some points are big, some consist of one-liners), thus affecting the layout of the article. Do you really think that a reader will be so inclined to see how the four look in real life, that they cannot click once and go to their articles? Use them sparingly, do not overdo articles. Just because there "is no rule to keep it out", a license to say "there is absolutely nothing wrong in keeping Cast images" cannot spring up without a reason, and I have seen no arguments to retain the images, other than WP:OSE, which I am striving away for now—I am not objecting it, but they should be used only if they do nothing else but improve an article. Secret of success (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to point out, the Ra.One suits section has only one image, it looks like two because the actual image was like that. There was a hindrance with the proper license to be used because if I had to put the photo as a poster, the requirement is that the image "must be used as the prime indicator of the article, and at the top of the article" which was not the purpose of the image at all. Oh, so the main superhero suits that is worn by the two main characters (one of them being the title character) and such suits being a first in Indian films (neither Enthiran nor Krrish had superhero suits of anything remotely like it) are "unimportant"? You doubt the importance of half the things I add in the article, so no real surprise there, but yes they are important. They add considerably to the understanding of the reader, especially in case of Ra.One (character) as the only other image of him in the article is that of his "faceless face" and that does not have the suit in any form. Feel free to have any formal discussion you wish to have.

Regarding the "disfiguring" I suggest you take the matter up with Meryam as I have not contributed significantly to Don 2 to be able to knowledgeably comment on it. I have also pointed out, using exactly your pointed-out article when I had asked you about tips for improving Ra.One to FA status, about Taare Zameen Par. You cannot conveniently sidestep that issue, so answer that query as well. Yes, if it does not violate any rule and if it does not harm the article in any way, then there is no problem with keeping the image. Explain how it harms the section. I have asked Meryam to re-size the image columns; seeing your sleepless zeal to remove those photos, I shall undertake the re-sizing process myself. Yes, the images in both Ra.One and Don 2 are improving the article, and there is also the point to consider that most of the Misplaced Pages readers rarely/never view sub-pages or inside links; they browse through the main page information as few are aware of the actual scope of the project. In light of that, yes, placing the images in the section are quite proper and hardly unnecessary. Obviously your next step will be to ask for "links" and "confirmation" that proves that normal readers don't go deeper into the article, and quite unfortunately I do not have the patience to even think of responding to such requests. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is usually recommended to a film article that having more than one poster is purely extraneous. G.One's suit is represented in the infobox poster, upto some extent. That issue does need discussion, as the idea of an article having three posters is well, preposterous. If an explanation is available for that, other than the fact that no other Indian film has had that till now, I stand corrected. But otherwise, no. In Don 2, I believe my explanations in my previous comments are adequate. Do look at that. Secret of success (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am finding it really hard to continue applying WP:AGF as this issue is becoming increasingly silly. G.One's suit is barely represented in the infobox; all you can see is his collar. That is not adequate by any stretch of imagination. Let me make myself much clearer: the photo is not another poster. It is an official press release, and two such press release photos were combined into one by the source. As per Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy, as little of the photo as possible should be taken. Which is why I cropped out the title part and kept the area to a bare minimum. So the photo is not another poster for the film; just having the name of the film in the photo, without the production house details or other such details, does not constitute a poster in case you are unaware of this basic fact.

That you still have side-stepped the issue about Taare Zameen Par evidently shows that you are just arguing for your personal dislike of the photo so this discussion most probably ends here. Your only gripe is that there are supposedly "too many photos" in the article, which is a blasphemous excuse not to mention extremely funny. I suggest you follow WP:NPOV before continuing this futile and pointless fault-finding where there is no real fault. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

king of bollywood and child of bollywood

(queen of bollywood and king of bollywood is term cannot be associated to personality. It's degrading for personality status. ~~hopefloat~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefloat007 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? how did u conclude THAT? --Meryam90 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same question can be asked from you ? It is derogatory, will you be liked to call king of Arab. Please SRK is above all this pop fanfare status. Wiki is factual not pop article of fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefloat007 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not derogatory...he LIKES being called that...if U knew enough of the guy, U would actually know he is fond of teh name as well as being called King Khan. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I study with his son in reliance school, he never say I am the king of "bollywood". There is difference between king khan and king of bollywood. I hope you are understanding the difference. Later is pretentious contemptuous presumptuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefloat007 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what is all this about? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:P don't even ask...check SRK's page...U'll get the full idea *facepalms self*--Meryam90 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Chak De India...

I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at Chak De India. I brought it to GA in 2009 but have been away from it for awhile. I looked at it again recently and found that it was in need of some repair, which I've been attempting to do. I believe the potential is there for an FA but it would need quite a bit of development and a group of editors interested in expanding it. I have a lot going on in real life so I come and go but am generally trying to spread the word that this might be an article to focus on. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)