User talk:Sriram Vikram/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vikram Shankar

Anniyan

Brilliant work! Editor 2050 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant work indeed Sriram. So is this your next GA? If yes, I have one suggestion: how about giving the soundtrack of Anniyan a separate article? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, the soundtrack can stay. Its not even as long as the soundtrack of MeA which doesn't have a separate article. With the dubbed tracklists collapsed, I don't think its too long to command a separate article. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 04:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

At first I felt length was a reason that the soundtrack could have a separate article, but never mind. Later, I realised that because soundtrack covers are not acceptable on film articles (from this policy), but allowed on soundtrack articles, a separate article for the soundtrack of Anniyan could do. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Does that policy apply only to non-bollywood film articles? Why does Sholay and Mughal-E-Azam have an album cover but we Kollywood should resolve to cheap tricks like creating a separate article for them to allow using a cover art? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 05:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two cases where a soundtrack image is acceptable in a film article: If it is not too identical to the poster in the infobox, and the soundtrack section must describe the image and it's connection to the plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Forgive me for the delay. Academic commitments kept me busy for more than a month. Btw, let the soundtrack section stay. When the article is in GAN, is the reviewer raises a issue regarding the image, then we can consider creating a separate article. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Can you lend a little help with this article? I'm not comfortable with the 'Box office' section which I had intended to add for a long time now. Can you help me with it? I will provide you with all available sources. You can work on it in your sandbox and add to the article when done. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will add, provided you give me the promised sources. In fact, I'm not so good at finding box office reports via Google. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:Thanks man. I have added the sources as a test edit and undid them. You can use the older revision to work on them. Just add as much info as you can. They can be consolidated and made more concise if need be. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made another test edit, just in case you were wondering why a few references were repeated. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:Hey! Btw, I have reworked the 'Critical reception' section a little differently, taking inspiration from American Beauty wherein the comments from a reviewer isn't cohesive but split according to content. Will that be better? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 10:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. But why does each review have a separate paragraph? I prefer that every three reviews share one paragraph. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is because, what you see in the article right now was my previous work. As I wasn't satisfied with it, I reworked it in my PC's notepad and haven't made that edit to wiki yet. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Just made the reworked edit. Check out. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good one. I have removed ApunKaChoice and Thiraipadam as they are not reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the 'Critical reception' section is large enough to require a separate section, as seen in American Beauty? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That would look good, provided it is impossible to further trim the section. But in American Beauty's "Release" section, there are sub sections named "Publicity", "Theatrical run" and "Home media". So how about adding a new sub-section to the "release" section of Anniyan after "Critical reception" becomes a level two section? The now Kailash29792 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. We will complete the article first and get it copy-edited. Then we can ask for suggestions from the experienced lot (like Blofeld) and decide which works the best. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bro, I got the box office value. The box office gross information for Gemini, also had Anniyan's box office gross value. :D Ssven2 (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is nowrunning.com a RS, bro? Ssven2 (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, bro. While most sources that are published physically like newspapers and magazines are accepted as RS, with regards to web sources I don't know which are the ones that are RS and which aren't. Thats why I added everything; those that aren't will be pointed out during review and can be removed as and when necessary. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, bro, the references from The Hindu are themselves archives, so u don't need to archive them. The ones whose URL end with ".ece" are not archived and the ones with the URL ".htm" or ".html" are archived. Check this link Ssven2 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just the plot was trimmed by both me and Kailash. Nothing wrong with your writing. You made the 1st FA on a Tamil film, dude. Hats off for that. If there is anything I can do to help with Anniyan, do let me know. BTW, shall I help u archive d references for the article? :) Ssven2 (talk)

1. I suggest you keep conversations at one place as much as possible for reasons of continuity. Which mean, it is advisable that you reply in the same talk page where the discussions begin. Its a suggestion: take it or leave it.

2. I have to absolve Kailash because he has made only a few minor edits.

3. And, I would not have questioned you, if you have just trimmed the plot or copy edited them. But, you have rewrote most of it. Everyone has a style of writing. If one individual works on an article, the prose will be more consistent. There have been occasions when Kailash has asked me for help with some Tamil translations and sometimes with paraphrasing for articles he was working on. And, I make it a point that I don't edit the article myself as much as possible but leave suggestions at talk pages (like you might find at Chandralekhas talk page). I suggest you consider that in the future.

4. When I first wrote the plot, it was close to 1000 words. I trimmed it down, removing some fluff. And, I found that I could move contents relating to Garuda Purana to the inspiration section where it would fit more appropriately, while also trimming the plot. But, I see that you have added them back. I am gonna rework the plot, combining both our versions hoping it will be better. Hope you don't mind.

5. As I already said, I would like if you could help with the 'Box office' section. I'm not comfortable with statistics. There are a number of useful references in this revision. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 13:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reference for the box office section was the same one as in Gemini, so I added it. Meanwhile, here is a link on KNI from The Hindu that might interest you. It was screened at a film festival Ssven2 (talk)

All the best for the c/e. Ssven2 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sriram, why did you remove Anniyan from the GOCE list? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I intended to develop the 'Themes and influences' section and was kinda hoping I would be able to do that before the c/e began. But unfortunately, I got a little busy and could not allocate time for it now. So I decided the c/e can wait. I dont want a repeat of the Gemini episode-the article has already been c'ed by a member of GOCE twice and it still needs another! -- Sriram ^{speak up} 12:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you used the pages from Dhananjayan's book? I sent you them. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't yet. I'll add them soon. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 12:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This source mentions the terms "ஜெகில்" "ஹைடு" and "அந்நியன்". But does it compare Vikram's film to the novel Jekyll and Hyde? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ssven2:May I know why you removed the IndiaGlitz reference? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's because the source fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are more than a dozen IndiaGlitz references used in the article. Moreover, who gets to decide which of the sources are RS? He creating an article for Behindwoods.com it will become a RS? So, guess if I create an article for IndiaGlitz, it can be used as an RS too! -- Sriram ^{speak up} 02:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's true. The Behindoods article evaded deletion because of containing third-party sources, while IndiaGlitz may not have as many. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mind if I ask which of the sources are reliable sources? Except for Alexa Internet, others doesn't seem good enough. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 03:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sriram, I removed IndiaGlitz because it would be asked by reviewers in FAC to be removed.Moreover, another reference from The Hindu already mentions about Aparichit, so that's why I removed the IndiaGlitz source. In Gemini, only Rediff.com, The Hindu and Sify are used for a major portion of the article and some references from DC, DNA as well. Try to see such RS's for replacing the IndiaGlitz references as reviewers will ask to remove IndiaGlitz references. Ssven2 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. In my opinion, IndiaGlitz is more reliable than Behindwoods. I'll try to find sources and see if I can create an article for IndiaGlitz. If not, I'll consider removing the IndiaGlitz sources during the FAC. As such, it has been used as a source in 15 instances. If I were to remove them all, the prose might need to be rewritten slightly. I'll see what can be done. Thanks for your concern. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 03:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

annIyan

Let's make I an FA as well. :D Ssven2 (talk)

And by the way, the "Music" section of the film, Anniyan was quite long enough to have a separate article, so I created a separate article. But if u want to remove it and put it back, u can do so, bro :D. Cheers. Will do my best to help you take Anniyan to FA status.Ssven2 (talk)

Hey bro! Good to see you have been doing some good work here. But don't be offended when I say you are a little over enthusiastic.! I haven't had its audio launch yet and you wanna take it to FA!! Around the time the film releases, there would be a lot of activity and vandalisms particularly from IP editors. May I suggest you work on a lot of other deserving FA candidates for the time being and return to I a couple months after the film's release when the activity from IPs and vandals would have dropped considerably.

I would appreciate if you could pitch in for Anniyan. In my opinion, only the 'Critical reception' and 'Box office' needs work. When we are done with that, we can get the article polished by the GOCE and go for an FA nom. I had already asked Kailash for help, but he seems busy with his first attempt at FA. So, I would be glad if you could help. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Will do bo, :D Ssven2 (talk)

Kailash had already proposed to move the music section. The reason why I wanted it to stay was, when we request for a copyedit prior to making a FA or GA nom, the music section will also be copyedited. I was actually expecting that atleast one of the FA reviewers would raise an issue about the section deserving a separate article and I would move them as and when it happens. You moving the article isn't any wrong. But, I suggest before doing such things in the future you consult someone who is working on it 'coz they might have different plans. Thanks anyway and continue the good work. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 09:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ssven2:If you intend to improve the 'Box office' section, you could find all the required references from a previous revision of the page which I have added as a test edit. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 09:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I (film)

Saw the teaser, bro? :D Ssven2 (talk)

Yup! How could I miss it? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, is I (wikipedia article) good? Ssven2 (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It needs some massive copyediting. Also, do not use sources in the middle of sentences until there are most than one subject and each ref. points only to that. In all the other cases, cite refs at the end of the sentences. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 09:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This could be useful. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 09:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Better Now? :D Ssven2 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, better. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ssven2:Hey! Have you seen this interview? With regards to I, Rajinikanth says he was narrated the script even before Sivaji happened. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation

Darsaka Brahma means "The director equal to the creator Brahma" or "supreme director" there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Vikram filmography

You never ask a question by reverting. You ask a question on a talk page and do not revert.

1. YOU NEVER add a link to user space. NEVER.
2. Gyllenhaal's commercial/videos were all notable (ie, an article) when it became an FL.
3. Mukerji's doesn't have any commercials and one video. It wasn't raised at the FLC and I don't know why. It should have.
4. We don't go around listing every fricking commercial a person has been in. Only if the commercial or music videos were notable. Studio or major independent films are assumed to be notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Those commercials and music videos aren't notable enough to deserve a separate article, but they were notable enough to be discussed in independent, third-party sources. I have referenced every single of them. Notability doesn't necessarily mean they should an article by themselves. With that argument, an actor's film which doesn't have an article in wiki, should not be mentioned in his filmography. Of the three commercials, two organisations have an article in wiki. If Gyllenhaal's commercial is notable, why not this? If you want more referencing, I can provide them too. I am adding that content back. If you got a problem with that, go ahead and make a request at WP:RFC. Wikipedia is a work in progress. And, watch your tone next time. You aren't my boss; so, stop giving me orders. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 11:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point, they aren't "notable enough to deserve a separate article" so why even mention them here. Alot of people and things are not notable, but have links that mention them. All long films made by studios or major independents are assumed notable. There is no such rule for commercials or music videos. Gyllenhaal's commercial was notable enough to have an article.

You have now gone into defensive mode with your refusal to discuss and laying accusations.... "you aren't my boss" "watch your tone" "stop giving orders". Just because one can site Wikipedia is a work in progress doesn't mean we don't follow rules. Just because you don't like a rule or another person's argument, doesn't mead we resort to name calling.

As you have now resulted to name calling, this discussion is now over. WP:RFC is not the place for dispute resolutions, WP:DR is. As you have broken off discussions, started name calling and reverted, the onus is now on you. Any more reverts by you will be met with a block. The only way to change this situation will be thru WP:DR. Bgwhite (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite mentioned this conversation to me and is aware that things have got a bit heated. One thing is for sure, Bgwhite can't issue a block but if the edit warring continues then blocks could be issued by others. While RFC is an option, it is often like using a hammer to crack a nut. There are other forms of dispute resolution and some of the issues raised here look remarkably simple to deal with, like the linking to userspace which, as Bgwhite says, should never be done. I think that you perhaps both should walk away from the article and each other for a few hours: cooling off a bit might work wonders and it looks to me like you could both benefit from it.

I'm off to bed soon but if you're both willing then I'm happy to see what can be done when I get back from work tomorrow evening. We'd continue any discussion on the article talk page, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90 Hey! I wanna take the article to FLC and am waiting for the c/e. If you can't, can you atleast lemme know? So that I can nominate it and make the necessary changes during the review. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 13:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to keep you hanging. You can go ahead and nominate it. The least I can do is review it then. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ssven2

Chandramukhi

Bro, I am pleased to inform you that the article has passed its GA review. My first GA success and my first success as wikipedia editor. Ssven2 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Velaiyilla Pattathari

This film, which I have nominated for GA has also passed its review just now. Ssven2 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First Kamal film

Hi Sriram, I am pleased to inform you that my GA nomination for Aval Appadithan was passed straight (without any changes being asked to be made). The film is the first Kamal Haasan film and the fourth Rajinikanth film to be given a GA status. Ssven2 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)