Talk:Jigarthanda (2014 film)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 171.61.154.134 in topic Proposed split

Restoring full plot edit

Most of the plot section was deleted by a user, with an aim (probably) to prevent spoilers. However most movie plot pages contain the full story rather than the setup to the climax (as was edited here). I have restored the full version now.


Lagadapaandi (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that Jigarthanda (soundtrack) be merged into this article. With the page of 48kb of this article, I think that the content in the soundtrack article (8kb) can easily be explained in the context of the movie article, and need not be forked. The soundtrack has not won any particular award as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

But then soundtrack images cannot be used in the main article per WP:NFCC. That is why a separate article for the soundtrack was created. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Seriously?? You want another article so that you can use the image. Is that your best argument? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, because a picture is worth a thousand words  . Ssven2, since you were among the earliest contributors to the soundtrack article, you are invited to share your views. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Merge if not delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Merge, not particularly notable on its own. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose would make the article too long and it has reliable sources coverage so is a valid stand alone article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support merge: A combined article is well under 100k, and would be reasonable in terms of length. The soundtrack doesn't have independent notability, and there is a general principle that albums for films should be include on the film page unless there are other reasons for notability, which I can't see; for example, there is no non-routine coverage of the music independent of the film. This is on the basis that newspaper music reviews can be considered as routine. The argument based on the image seems spurious and the policy link doesn't support not merging.Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done Merging AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 October 2018 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply


– I don't think a fictional film can be the primary topic, when there is a real-life drink of the same name. Besides, there's also a 2016 film with the same name. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed split edit

Here is the link for the draft article. 171.61.154.134 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply