Talk:Enthiran/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA reassessment

You may have missed the notice so raising it in the thread here, your comments are welcome on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Enthiran/1. Fæ (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Merchandise - online game

Should this game be included in the article? Kollyfan (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It has no notability. EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page once more in view of the content dispute and edit warring. Please discuss and arrive at a consensus on the talk page (above discussion). If consensus is arrived at earlier, I see no reason to reduce protection to semi-protection at that time. —SpacemanSpiff 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Industrial Light & Magic

ILM did not work on this film. Neither IMDB, nor ILM's official website mentions any work on it. There have been no articles in any visual effects or film magazine or website that mentions this alleged work. Nor do there seem to be any sources for this claim in the article. Nor does ILM appear in the credits of the movie itself. There was a discussion of this on this page months ago which has since been deleted. Riotnrrd (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the earlier discussion in the archives for this talk page: Talk:Enthiran/Archive 1#Inaccurate statement about Stan Winston and ILM. I've also looked for sources and could not find any reliable sources indicating that ILM worked on Enthiran — there is one rumor reposted in a couple of articles about what might happen with the production of the movie, but no actual sources of the kind that you would expect from a major company working on a major movie. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission for expanding review section

Would it be okay if I added points from a few notable sites in the review section? It seems to have only Bollywood reviews. Secret of success (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a lot there now. I was told by a reviewer to remove some quotes, which I did. If you add, keep it brief, with no quotes, and reliable sources, not blogs, etc., and show both good and bad. BollyJeff || talk 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done it. Plz see if any changes are needed.Secret of success (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you added 5 quotes. BollyJeff || talk 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that ok or does it require a change?Secret of success (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need anyone's permission on here. BollyJeff || talk 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove gross revenue figure of 405.42cr

The figure currently in the infobox is misleadingly accurate precise. It appears to be based on a very approximate figure of $90 million re-quoted in an informal interview with an employee of the production company and then precisely converted to 5 significant figures. Even with the word "estimate" after it, the figure lacks any context by being put in the infobox. I propose that this should be removed and if used then put in the body of the article with an appropriate explanation that avoids arbitrary cherry-picking of estimates. Fæ (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is better to keep the gross field empty until concensus is reached. However, can you change the budget figure to ₹132 crore (official)? That is not really disputed by anyone.Kollyfan (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I intend to make the changes that I proposed above later today. But I have a question first. Would it be okay to quote the old figure of 375 tagged as (disputed) and put a link to the Box office section, or leave the word "disputed" all by itself and a link, or are links discouraged? BollyJeff || talk 16:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the numbers 375 and 405 form the very core of ongoing dispute. So they should not be anywhere in the article until consensus is reached. As a compromise, we could list the gross field as atleast ₹255.5 crore (estimated) and add all conflicting references next to it.Kollyfan (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also can you add the break up too in the narrative (not the total). No other source is giving break-up of collections for this film for each language.Kollyfan (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you tag or rewrite Dasavatharam infobox too? These numbers are outlandish.Kollyfan (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

These fields in the infobox are all optional (as indeed is the infobox itself) and if left blank just do not get displayed. It seems a bit redundant and poor practice to introduce a disputed link in the infobox for the sake of it when there is already a link nearby to the related section in the standard TOC. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Collapse disruptive thread based on comments from a blocked account

Disagree with you. The figure is not "cherry-picked", it was merely updated according to producer officials published in a reliable newspaper. You haven't produced any well sourced quote for your claim, that the company produces false information about the gross estimate. Needless to say, that all older estimates became obsolete and that there are plenty of reliabe sources claiming it to be the Indian top grosser of all time. I would like to know, why you want to remove this completely uncontroversial gross estimate. --David Fraudly (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Vaguely waiving my hands and saying that Wikipedia has more than a half billion readers every year is not a "false" claim, I just have no evidence to support it. Similarly I have not made any statement that the production company has published "false" information. Without any context, published accounts or explained process of estimation the figure of $90 million is just meaningless rather than false. You are free to disagree with me, but to state in the middle of this disagreement that the number we are disagreeing about is uncontroversial is rather strange when obviously I find it controversial as I thought was obvious from my statements above and similar statements about past estimates of all sorts from many, many different sources over the last eight months as you can see in the talk page archives. Fæ (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) You say the nr has no context, while the source provides also information about its worldwide release. Frankly I'm not interested in past discussions with an intolerable pov pusher like you. I've seen enough nonsense from your side.--David Fraudly (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you should take a break? If you are seeing me as an intolerable POV pusher then you might benefit from taking a little time out to think about how consensus works on Wikipedia. You might also think about who you are talking to before making assumptions, you can see some of my interests by looking at my user page linked in my signature or examining my varied contribution history which you can see a link to in the toolbox on your sidebar. From that you might deduce that I have no axe to grind. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I'm old enough to know how to build consensus. I'm rather disappointed, that somebody like you, a Director of Wikimedia UK (LOL), really needs to read this guide for consensus, because according to this guide, you shouldn't disrupt consensus building with irrational arguments and if you continue to do so, I hope the Wikimedia UK board will begin to reconsider your position. Anyway, how on Earth you became involved into this humble Tamil movie gross figure? You seem to be very emotionally attached to it reading your stuff above. What's your interest in all this, because Tamil films are not really known in the western world.--David Fraudly (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I can't speak for Fae, but for my part, I consider the English Wikipedia pertinent to the western world. I like Indian films and want to see their articles have similar quality to the western film articles. I don't want them to be viewed as a joke on here. I made my change now, and I hope it can help to keep the article more stable. BollyJeff || talk 23:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I have made slight modification in your narration to reduce number spam and easy reading. User:David Fraudly reverted against concensus. I undid it. The phrase highest grossing Indian film is against consensus. So, I removed it. Currently 3 Idiots holds that record. Kollyfan (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I have added a new source from ibos network claiming ₹259.26 crore as global gross (unadjusted for inflation).Kollyfan (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC) This source also confirms ₹250 crore as total receipts. It is affiliated to prestigious India Today magazine group.Kollyfan (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I have added a note saying Enthiran is second highest grosser ever based on established ranks.Kollyfan (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) What makes "ibosnetwork" a reliable source. I have reverted your edits. Do not make further changes until everyone agrees. --Commander (Ping Me) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Pleasee don't ignore previous discussion about Bollysources. Western film articles don't use dubious sources like BOI.--David Fraudly (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the gross figures being removed from the infobox. Since box-office figures aren't official in India, this must apply for all Indian film articles, isn't it? Just check other high-grossing Indian films and I want the gross figures not to be mentioned in the infobox just like this article. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No other Tamil film is claiming outrageous records exceeding ₹100 crore.Kollyfan (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all it's inappropriate to term "outrageous records". Is Dasavathaaram is a non-Tamil film? I personally ask Mr. kollyfan one thing, do you have the real tally of box-office figures of all Indian films. I guess you came to WP primarily for editing Enthiran and not for really contributing to other areas. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 05:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need to remove budget value from the infobox, when it is officially announced to be Rs. 132 cr? It is disputed only by unofficial sources (which were published much before official announcement). We should rely only on the official source in this case. -- Arfaz (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Collapse disruptive thread based on comments from a blocked account

Official sources are not reliable according to Wikimedia UK Director Fae. As budget, so were gross revenues published from the officials, and these sources are considered as bad as Bollywoodsite estimates, who usually ignore South Indian film industry by some agenda driven users here. "Kollyfan" only allows these bollywoodcentric sources. Bollyjeff is hard at work to establish essentially the same, that Endhiran was merely one of the biggest grossers, never let the people know, that it has clearly broken all records. Moreover they deliberately use old reports from October to establish they gross nrs, while it's normal, that gross nr changed during the last 8 months. The single most priority for them seems to be to censur the infobox with latest official gross announcement. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/indias-kollywood-seeks-global-movie-spotlight-2293368.html --David Fraudly (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC) David Fraudly is hereby remimded to focus solely on editors' actions and article content and warned that comments on motivation or unrelated wikipedia realms is not permitted. Editors should read WP:CIVIL if they need a reminder of the behavior policy on wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I do solely focus in editors action. It can't be illegal to express my view on editors based on their actions. As already said in the discussion before, I'm an open minded, mature, person.--David Fraudly (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Here I present a WP paper, which describes the basic issues with these editors, Wikipedia:Honesty. Anybody who feels honestly, that dubious Bollywood Box Office "experts", "semi-experts" opinions, who cover no South Indian films, were reliable and (un)biased as official producer announcements from South India, please stand up.--David Fraudly (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Ignoring what you said about me, you do have a point that the 'Independent' article is newer than the others, and the gross should go up over time, if it's still in theaters. However, I think Fae is concerned that it is still a quote from a first party source, the maker/distributor of the film, and thus cannot be taken as truth. Wikipedia usually requires third party sources to back up claims, not merely quotes, and so far this doesn't seem possible in this case. Box office India is considered a good third party source for Bollywood films, so it is okay for those articles. Unfortunately, they don't cover non-Bollywood films very well, so they can't be used as the sole source here. What is so bad listing a range and calling it an estimate until other good sources come out in the future and agree on a number? BollyJeff || talk 15:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not against any ranges as long the sources are not derived from Bollywood sources, but any other source from known South Indian websites with latest dates and figures. So far independent seems to be the only acceptable source. We will have to wait for 3rd parties South cinema sources to generate a range, which is absolutely unnecessary in this case, since there is no issue around this announcement.--David Fraudly (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As this discussion has been disrupted by pointy personal comments and parodies of the comments of others, I suggest it is abandoned in favour of a structured local RFC process where opinions can be individually expressed against a clearly worded proposal. I also suggest that disruptive and personal comments are collapsed or struck in accordance with WP:TALKNO to avoid putting off editors from expressing their opinions. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Break

Well Mr. Kollyfan, I thought it was you who said that the information from the producer or distributor is the most reliable one. The TOI link states that Ajay Vidyasagar, Chief operator of the Sun TV network said the gross of the movie is 375 crore. Frankly, I feel that the 3 Idiots gross is the one which is fake and not Enthiran. Did the BOI and IBOS estimate the numbers themselves or did they consult the sources? Secret of success (Talk) 12:36 June 25 2011 (UTC)

Why does this link state Enthiran on top of the list. IBOS] Secret of success (Talk) 15:13 June 25 2011 (UTC)

Because they gave it the largest number. Considering that accounts for all ticket sales are impossible to verify at the current time, the fact the IBOS provide a number precise to ten significant figures is a bit of a red warning flag, and as they provide absolutely no information on how they estimate the number, it is impossible to say how accurate it might be in comparison to any other number that anyone else might make up or wildly guess. Fæ (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, now can the budget and gross be restored in the infobox as we have no proof from where the BOI and IBOS get their numbers? Secret of success (Talk) 21:16 June 27 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I thought it was obvious that non-notable and unverified factoids are not considered encyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What was non-notable and unverified? The TOI is definitely notable. Secret of success (Talk) 22:28 June 27 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be on a logical tangent. The Times of India is notable (as shown by the fact that it has its own Wikipedia article), a vague estimate mentioned in extract from an informal interview with an employee of a film production company is not notable, and in this case not verifiable as a statement of box office income either. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily complicating this simple issue. What do you mean by vague statement? The person who said it was definitely not half asleep when he did so and 375 and 250 are definitely not close numbers. And it was definitely not an informal interview as the TOI has a reputation for providing correct statements. Do you think they would have published it if it was an informal and incorrect statement?? Think of what you are saying. Even the 3 idiots gross is varying provided by different sites. IBOS states 311 crore which seems more convincing and not 339 as stated by BOI.[1] The interview from the publisher can under no circumstances be called unnotable. And the person who stated it was not just a normal employee being the Chief Operator of Sun TV Network. Secret of success (Talk) 16:46 June 28 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need to hold off Dasavathaaram data, when there is no contradicting source? Secret of success (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and POV

Can someone care to explain why {{fansite|date=July 2011}} and {{pov-check|date=July 2011}} were added to the article? From seeing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Enthiran/1, an editor has accused main editors of this page of turning Wikipedia into a 'fancruft paperbag' — a statement which I believe is pretty harsh and misinformed. That editor happens to be the one who added the tags, however they have failed to provide a meaningful justification, so I'm going to go ahead and remove them. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah those tags were unnecessary. Honestly I don't see any 'fancruft' in the article. I did not understand why they added those tags without proper explanation. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion between prints and screens

The page states that the no of screens in which the movie released was 2250. This is incorrect as that was the no. of prints allotted. The total no. of screens worldwide is estimated to be 3000 and not 2250. It can be verified here Secret of success (Talk) 13:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So how does one show a print on more than one screen at a time? Pretty silly. BollyJeff || talk 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be at the same time? Copies being made is also possible. Look at this link. It states that Magadheera was released with 500 prints in 1250 screens across the globe. Same story right? Secret of success (Talk) 09:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If copies are being made, I don't think the distributor would be too happy. Anyway, if screens and not prints is the normal figure used in India, then put it, or put both. BollyJeff || talk 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided for no. of screens in Andhra Pradesh was dead, so I removed that. Other modifications have been made. Plz see if it needs further change. Secret of success (Talk) 09:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to create separate article for critical response

There are too many reviews jammed in the page and the excerpts described should have been a bit more detailed to reflect the fact that the film received positive reviews. So, can we create a separate article for critical response titled Critical Response to Enthiran to rearrange and add more emphasised points?? Quite a few film articles have separate critical articles attached. One more correction to be made is Gautaman Bhaskaran's review, which is negative. It should be phrased like "On the contrary, Gautaman Bhaskaran of Hindustan Times gave the film a negative review..." at the bottom of the para. Thanks! Secret of success (Talk) 09:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Such an article would struggle to meet WP:CFORK, I would think the issue is how to summarize such a section rather than giving it space to expand and fail WP:IINFO. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that we remove some quotes? Secret of success (Talk) 10:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot see how it could be summarised without making some cuts. At the moment it seems at least 3 times longer than anyone could be expected to read. Fæ (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I had trimmed it before, but it grew again. That's WikiPedia; nothing stays done. BollyJeff || talk 16:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By cutting, do you mean modifying a quote or removing it completely?? Secret of success (Talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I suggest that the overseas reviews be left undisturbed. The Indian reviews alone can be modified because they are less notable. Secret of success (Talk) 09:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Distributors

Due to the limitations regarding Sun Pictures, there were many distributors for whom the film's share was divided to open up the film in various parts of the globe. However, the main distributors were Sun Pictures, Gemini Film circuit and Eros International. So, isn't it sufficient to mention these three in the info box?? Ayngaran and B4U network distributed the film only in UK and they did it in partnership with Eros. So, naturally their shares were negligible. Plus, I don't think they were credited in the screening of the film. If we had to mention them, what about other minor distributors like Seven arts in Kerala, Ficus movies in USA, etc??? Thus, I suggest we put only Sun Pictures, Gemini Film Circuit and Eros in the main list. What do you think?? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no replies yet. I have removed Ayngaran and B4U from the infobox. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I request you to add it once again. But with a small note on the region it distributed. For example B4u in Mumbai: B4u (Mumbai). Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then what about other distributors like Seven Arts in Kerala and Ficus movies in USA?? It is better to keep the list short by emphasizing the main ones. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

inclusion of box office discrepancies in the box office section

Yes, adding the box ofice collection or budget may create problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishradcliffe (talk • contribs) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the editors of this article please place the reports of the theater owners suffering losses in a separate section because this is in contrast to what the box office reports projectRevharder (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It looks fine in the Box office section and plus, this article is already overcrowded so adding another section doesn't make it better in any way. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important that people know the truth, mixing it somewhere in the box office section doesn't highlight the fact and i guess the purpose of having such an article is lost. this fact challenges the truthfulness of box office reports cited . please create a new section for it,as it is a shocking news for many that rajinikant's movies also make losses. mixing it in the main section of defeats the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.174.12 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a separate section will be like giving more weightage for it. It can be mentioned in the box-office section. Wikipedia focuses mainly on Verifiability rather than the truth. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is absolutely verifiable. and absolutely reliable,times of India being a national newspaper. moreover it is an incident which has happened and not mere representation of numbers. Revharder (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that TOI source is unreliable. Adding a separate section for that isn't really needed. The same TOI, published that the film had grossed over ₹ 300 crore before a few months. So we shouldn't take that seriously. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we should take it seriously, but not to the extent of creating a separate section. Its been highlighted in the box office section where it is appropriate enough. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

well in that case atleast a sub section could be created in the box office section itself,because the statements do not reflect the box office report.124.123.174.12 (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the statement reflects the figures quoted by the media or not, rather it is about creating a separate section for a bare 2 sentences which has not yet been verified by another source. Also, the report states that the owners got losses only in Trichy and business was hardly affected. Enthiran was anyway a success, that's was majority of the sources say and it has been verified by the producers. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of this template

Can someone add this template to the the top?? {{WikiProject Science Fiction|class =|importance =|listas =}} Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose Pudhiya Manidha be merged to Enthiran, because it deals with a song specifically written for the film and is a stub, so would not make this article cumbersome at all. I'm marking Pudhiya Manidha as patrolled on the New Pages list to eliminate backlog, since it seems to be good in every other way, but I think a merge would still be best. Yelyzaveta 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interungulate (talk • contribs)

What about Enthiran (soundtrack)? That song and several others are linked from there, and that would naturally be a better fit, if the songs do not stand on their own, which they probably do not. BollyJeff || talk 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above mentioned song as well as Chitti Dance Showcase, Boom Boom Robo Da and Irumbile Oru Irudhaiyam should be merged to the soundtrack page. Also almost the entire content of Arima Arima has been included in the soundtrack page already. Johannes003 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Irumbile Oru Irudhaiyam seems good. What's wrong with having that page? The other two definitely need to be merged. X.One ^SOS 13:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to say the same. Irumbile Oru Irudhaiyam looks good. Two other songs need to be merged. -- Karthik Nadar 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are any of these songs notable? They do not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. BollyJeff || talk 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, should I mark Pudhiya Manidha for proposed deletion under Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs? I feel it might be a bit overzealous to delete it instead of just merging the tiny article. If one is merged, the other two would have to be, but I suppose they could all fall under Notability for proposed deletion. My apologies, I do not seem to be aware of what is the most prudent thing to do in this case. Yelyzaveta (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been involved in a merger before. I would say change it to an AfD (deletion) for the stub articles, and just do the merger into Enthiran (soundtrack) now, making the song articles redundant. BollyJeff || talk 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at WP:NSONG before. Going by that, even IOI needs to be merged, I guess. X.One ^SOS 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected three songs (Chitti Dance Showcase, Boom Boom Robo Da, Puthiya Manitha) that didn't have any real unique content to the soundtrack. You can work out a merge/standalone for the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 21:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the merge tag and the links on those songs. Who wants to volunteer to merge content of other songs? BollyJeff || talk 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Budget/Gross

Since budget and gross have been already mentioned in the description and critical response I am inputting it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.198.203 (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Use "Tamil Indian Science Fiction"

...because omitting "Indian" makes foreigners wonder which country it's from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldastamil (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Enthiran → Endhiran – Per WP:COMMONNAME, a Google search on "Endhiran" gives 2.9 million results, which is nearly twice the amount received for "Enthiran" (1.6 million). The official website also says "Endhiran". The opening sentence should say something like "Endhiran, also known as Enthiran....". Secret of success (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the title cards and the official English name of the project spell it as Enthiran, hence there should be no real argument otherwise. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you elaborate as to what is more "official" than the website of the film? Secret of success (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, already discussed to exhaustion. Please look at /Archive 1 for move proposals. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not find any valid arguments with required evidence in the previous moves present in the archive link you gave. If you have any other basis for determining the name (other than the ones I have given above), please show them here. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You carry on, I'm not excited at the prospect of spending time debating either case which boil down to debating transliteration. I'm happy with the fact that it has already been discussed to exhaustion in the archives from last time and Google tests are not on their own normally grounds for overturning past consensus, though if you find other significant published material suitable to demonstrate Endhiran as the most appropriate English Wikipedia article title and this is more persuasive that before, then there may be something to action. As usual we should be led by the best quality sources. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I will. I ought to bring it to your notice that you should be glad I think twice before jumping to conclusions about editors, especially those who spew comments consisting of possibly defective and loathsome reasons like being "happy" that there was a discussion sometime ago, which is, unable to furnish their stance. Regarding your question of high quality sources, here you go, a news search : Endhiran - 120 results, Enthiran - 80 results. Secret of success (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Spew? Loathsome? Being happy with my opinion is not intended as an attack on you, my apologies if there is some sort of unexpected problem here with my phrasing as I find your response unexpectedly aggressive. Anyway, I guess that puts pay to any positive dialogue on this subject. Good luck. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Editor 2050. The title card spells it as Enthiran only, what more is needed? Nothing can be more decisive than the title card of a film. I think people will find this article anyway. The opening sentence could also be like "Enthiran, also known/spelled as Endhiran....". Nobody would care about it. Johannes003 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Construing the title card's opinion as superior, is unlikely to be an accurate apprehension when it has not been verified that it is used in third party sources. Secret of success (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, first of all, I'm not exactly understanding what you are trying to tell me. Why do you think third-party sources are superior? If the production house says, "Enthiran, this is how our film is titled", then that is the official title. What's there to discuss still? Since when do third-party sources decide on a film title? Come on, after all this is such a petty matter and I don't feel like spending much time on such a trivial discussion. Enthiran or Endhiran or Entiran...is that going to set the world on fire? Why getting so serious dear? Johannes003 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The official website is also owned by Sun Pictures, that is explicitly stated in the disclaimer. If the production company contradicts itself, how do you say that one of their cherry-picked opinions is valid? Secret of success (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Per reasons given by nominator. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – The title card clearly mentions it as "Enthiran". We cannot take the official website into serious consideration because they might have constructed it before the film's release. True it was spelt both ways prior to the film's release. The 58th NFA archives clearly mentions the title to be "Enthiran". You might also need to have a look at the official site of Sun Pictures to know how it's spelt. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the claim that "Enthiran" was a name used by the minority. Yet, I wish to clear up certain views. Firstly, can anyone clarify if the poster is notable (present in reliable sources)? If it is found in the negative, I'm afraid that the argument using it becomes crude and unsophisticated. Moving that aside, I would like second thoughts on whether the opinions of the producers can overrule the commonly used names in third party sources. Secret of success (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus, even the film's entry in the Sun Pictures website was added before the release. Secret of success (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Official sites from Producer (one listed by Vensatry) and Director has used the current title spelling. However, Music director has used the proposed spelling. Surprisingly, audio CD inlay does not support the proposed spelling. Considering the fact that audio CDs are officially released, I would oppose this move. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 04:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see this article to get moved to proposed title as title track also mentions it that way. But then, Wikipedia is not what I feel or wish. I believe, Tamil character 'த' has created much confusion as it is used either ways for 'th' and 'dh'. With the conclusion here, we shall also check the possible move for Pudhiya Mugam and Muthal Mariyathai.

Shankar's website has used both spellings. Given the fact that the producers went against their opinion, the only resort left is to go by third party sources. In one of my comments above, I have listed a news search containing results from October 1, 2010 till today. "Endhiran" appeared 120 times, which is 50% more than "Enthiran". Secret of success (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How about audio CD inlay? Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Can someone post a picture of link to the title cards. I am not sure what that is. In the material that has been presented here I have of course seen it both ways. I tried to go to the website pointed to on the CD and it does not exist (in either version of spelling). One thing that is pretty consistent is that under the Tamil characters in green, it always says "the ROBOT", in English. Someone recently added that (as a translation) and it was immediately reverted. Why? This should either be a part of the title, or in the article lead since it is the English title, and is universally accepted, unlike this spelling controversy. BollyJeff | talk 11:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Why was that reverted? Robot is also the title for the Hindi version. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here it is at 1:40. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

More like 1:38 but yes, definitely Enthiran. There should be no question.

• Oppose - based on title card. BollyJeff | talk 16:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translation

The reason I added the translation was not to enrage users like Secret of success, but to help it serve as the film's international title! (For Endhiran has got such wide recognition) Everyone supports that idea, even professionals like Bollyjeff and Animesh Kulkarni! Yet why was it removed? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just to reiterate what was stated above, in the title card from the film it says 'Enthiran' and 'The Robot' on the same graphic. Certainly, 'The Robot' should be mentioned in the article lead. Its not really a matter of translation in this case; it is an official subtitle, IMO. BollyJeff | talk 11:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think 'The Robot' is translation for 'Enthiran'. It, I believe, is a tagline like Daag: The Fire where the words 'Daag' and 'fire' has nothing to do with each other. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 11:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is a tagline, please add it like Enthiran: The Robot and not as Enthiran (English: Robot). Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Enthiran actually means a "machine man", which directly refers to "Robot". That's why I put the translation as Robot. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it was agreed to not put translations, is it okay to do "Enthiran also known as Enthiran: The Robot" ?? BollyJeff | talk 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets not put our assumptions and considerations, so "NO" for translations. Just put tagline. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 01:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Enthiran, tagline: The Robot" ? BollyJeff | talk 02:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya. Same as SoS' suggestion. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 02:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-Assessment

This article was once a GA, but was delisted for some reason. I think now it has really improved now, so can a re-nomination do? If not, at least this article can be elevated to B class. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Name

Is it "Enthiran" or "Endhiran"? Both names are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.27.71 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See move discussion above. BollyJeff | talk 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Endhiran is highest grossing movie in India?

Yes,Endhiran beats 3 idiots collection Yugendranellumalay (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Informal review

• "the first production made by Legacy Effects studio, responsible for the film's animatronics, for Indian cinema" : Needs to be reworded. If this is trying to say this is the first Indian production for this American special effects company, say it without the split infinitive and mention the nationality of the effects company. It is good that it is stated that Legacy is an effects company as opposed to any studio, but I thought that they were in charge of more than the anamatronics.

 Done Reworded. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "S. Shankar announced" and "After including Rajinikanth" : These are their introduction to the prose (not counting the lede or cast list or plot synopsis or quote box), so introduce them properly (say who they are or what their occupation is or why should we know them)

 Done mentioned them as director and actor respectively. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "but refused the role due to date issues. She was replaced with Zinta" : say "but she refused", reword "date issues" as it almost sounds like "dating issues", and made the Zinta sentence part of the previous sentence as they are closely related.

 Done as asked. Rewritten "date issues" as scheduling conflicts". — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "and was paid INR60 million" : say "and who was paid" OR "and paid". Remove the comma before the "and". Please search the entire article for this; a comma should very seldom appear before an "and" (exception of course is closing a list with the Oxford comma)

 Done written as "and paid". — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "and rehearsed them the night before the day of filming" : She only filmed one day? Maybe "each day of filming", and if so, maybe explain why she would put it off until the night before (if the source explains).

 Done The source doesn't explain why she would put it off until the night before. It simply states this. but I have rephrased as per your suggestion to "each day of filming". — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "A. R. Rahman composed the film's soundtrack" : Needs a link. Perhaps insert a phrase indicating his fame/reputation/awards, that is, somehow briefly communicate his importance/prominence/prolificity, that he is probably the first composer any film goes to.

@Prhartcom: Actually, he is not the first film composer any film goes to. I have rephrased the sentence though. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "waited patiently for two three hours to put on the make-up" : Add "each day" something to indicate it was not just a one-time occurrence.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "completed — two" : Read MOS:DASH and correct the spaces on both sides of the dash (or not) accordingly (it gives you two choices, pick one and use it consistently). I caught some of these already but you can alter what I changed if you do so consistently.

 Done Corrected. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "the scene where Vaseegaran introduces Chitti at the international robotics conference, was shot at" : Consider changing to: "for Chitti's introduction to the international robotics conference, principal photography was at"

 Done reworded. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The robot Chitti featured in the film was a mannequin" : Perhaps this sentence belongs in the Effects section instead of the Photography section. Check all sections to ensure each sentence discusses only what its heading states.

 Done Placed the 3rd para of "Prinicpal photography" in "Visual effects" section. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In June 2008, Shankar and Rathnavelu, along with Ramji, the location designer for the song "Konjam Neram" from Chandramukhi (2005), went to Austria, Germany, Peru, Brazil and Argentina to shoot "Kilimanjaro" and "Kadhal Anukkal" : Reword this. If possible, don't start more than one section with "In [year]". Perhaps establish who Ramji is in their own sentence. Perhaps begin by establishing the songs themselves, then explain who wrote them, where they were shot, who sang them.

 Done I have removed the part about Ramji and "In June 2008," portion. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please change "clones", this is not a clone, you are trying to use a figure of speech here and it is not encyclopedic. Don't say "besides", reword the sentence to simply communicate other junior artists stood in for the hero.

 Done Reworded. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In December 2007, Srinivas Mohan" : Again use "In [year]" only rarely. Provide a link to this technician (name begins with "V.")

 Done rephrased. The name is already wikilinked in "Technical crew" section. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I will continue later. Prhartcom (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I had asked that the entire article be checked to avoid placing a comma before the "and" (the "and" takes the place of the comma); this has not been done. I have begun checking for it myself and removing it if appropriate.

 Done Removed inappropriate ones where "and" comes after the comma. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 03:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Principal photography section: Who is Maran? Please introduce properly.

 Done Introduced. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "within six months" : Let's reword it since it is a phrase that normally needs a comma after it, yet we don't use a comma, so; e.g.: "Technician Maran took six months to ..."

 Done Rephrased. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Realising that it would be a difficult task, Mohan requested Shankar to use previsualisation" : The previz would be difficult task? I think you mean the effects would be a difficult task without first using previz. If so, please correct this.

 Done Corrected. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Out of the 60 scenes featured in the film" : There are more than 60 scenes in the film. Do you mean visual effect scenes?

 Done Thanks for mentioning that. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "the Sphere and Snake formations and the helicopters" : No idea what this is, especially since it is never related to us in the plot synopsis. Please reword this sentence using terms that we don't first have to know (also see next note).

 Done Rewritten. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• When referring to scenes from the plot, please always omit the definite article "the" before an object from the film, which implies to the reader they should know about the object as if they have seen the film; e.g.: instead of "the helicopters" just say "helicopters". Please check the entire article for this type of issue (e.g. I have already changed "on the scene where Chitti jumps on the train to save Sana from the thugs" to "a scene in which Chitti jumps on a train to save Sana from thugs).

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The robot Chitti featured in the film was a mannequin created in Los Angeles by Legacy Effects." : I'm sorry, I am confused; I thought that Rajinikanth played Chitti, not a mannequin. Do you mean only for certain shots? I believe others will be confused and this needs to be clarified. Also, it probably needs to be placed somewhere else (again) in a more appropriate location within this section (or completely deleted), not tacked on near the end.

@Prhartcom: Rajinikanth acted in only certain scenes as Chitti. The fire building scene and the scene where Bohra retrieves Chitti are where the mannequin is used. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I will continue later. I have done no work starting at "Themes and influences"; I will soon resume there; please focus below there also. I believe everything above it is looking very FA. Prhartcom (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The "Themes and influences" section begins by intriguing the reader, stating that Enthiran focuses on the battle between man and machine, then the next two sentences, rather than demonstrate that point, instead have nothing to do with it. I have no idea what point those two sentences are trying to make. In a section with this title, who cares what actions an actor does? He does what a writer and director tell him to do. A section called "Themes and influences" should be about the writer and director. This is poor writing.

• Note. Brilliant writing is an FA requirement. If you want an idea of what constitutes it, one example is an article that has recurring themes. For example, you are on the right track when the article says, "Despite Shankar's claim that Enthiran was a purely original idea" because you are setting the reader up with a recurring theme of plagiarism that is yet to come further down. The skillful writer deliberately weaves these recurring themes into and out of the article, rather than just presenting an article that just states facts one after the other. If you can, see if you can write this way.

• Note: Another idea of what constitutes brilliant writing is an article that causes the reader to feel an emotion. It's not easy to do in the confines of encyclopedic writing, but it's possible and can be a goal. The last line of the plot synopsis comes very close. I challenge you to try to accomplish this.

• "Frankenstein's monster's" : Do what you can to avoid two "apostrophe s" in a row, as you should know that is not going to work.

• "to go rogue" : Sounds amateurish. Delete.

• "like figure on speed" : What does he mean? His quote was fine up until that point. Those four words don't seem to belong together.

• "Chitti's pranks were similar to those featured in The Mask" : Have we strayed from the topic of Frankenstein? One paragraph should be a cohesive unit.

• "sci-fi plot, moulded it within the trappings of his already complex mixed masala genre. The end product is a fascinating blend" : What is his point? What does it have to do with Frankenstein or indeed with Themes and influences? This sentence is simply fawning over the movie. It isn't saying anything.

• "He compared Enthiran to the Hindu epic, Ramayana by mentioning, 'the villain even compares the abducted heroine Sana to Sita'" : I am completely lost here. I know Sana, who is Sita? She had better not be a character in Ramayana that you are expecting me to know all about; that isn't fair and will cause me to stop reading; these things have to be properly introduced (and it probably isn't worth introducing to make this particular point). And what point are you, the writer of the article, trying to make here anyway by including this quote?

• The paragraph finishes with the Terminator. So we're back to the battle between man and machine, which I thought was the last paragraph. Are you just going through the motions here or are you actually trying to communicate something specific and cohesive to the reader?

• "zigabytes" : No such thing. I assume it is a fictional unit of data within the confines of this story? So why link it? Why mention it at all? The other two things on either side of it are fine, but please think of some other example of the point you are illustrating and insert it here.

• The line 'Neutron Electron ...' refers to the neutron and electron" : Pointlessly obvious. It's like saying "The movie Star Wars is about a war on a star." You're not saying anything.

• "essentially comparing the robot to them" : Okay, but wasn't this paragraph supposed to be about what you intrigued us with in the paragraph's opening sentence, about how the events of the director's story contradict what the director had promised his illiterate viewers? You're just listing random Enthiran science facts, one after the other. (The next sentence in this section is better: "The song ... also makes references to many technical terms", as you finally start to steer back to the point you were making.)

I honestly thought I was going to be able to get through more than one section, but I had no idea that section was going to need as much work as this one really does. It is nowhere near FA quality, it is not even GA quality; I'm very sorry to be blunt but I hope I am at least a little bit helpful. I hope you're not planing on arguing with me. I will continue reviewing later; I have seen better from you so I'm sure the quality will pick up. Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I know you are helping me, Prhartcom. I won't argue as whatever opinions you have posted here are for the article's own good. The article is also trimmed to a great extent through your comments. I have made some changes to the section. Can you check whether it is better now? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought "Themes and influences" was a section good enough to note the parallels that critics draw between Enthiran and other works. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the tighter section is now better, more focused on the three points. It is still not great, though, but it is good. What Kailash says would be good if it could be expounded on. I removed one word "often" as it sounded a bit like a claim being made probably not entirely backed up by sources (although I haven't checked them). I'm sorry you had to ruthlessly cut, but like a rose bush, it now thrives. I will continue reviewing tomorrow. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The Tamil and Telugu versions were released by Think Music, while the Hindi version was released by Venus Music" : I thought you just mentioned Think Music and the Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi versions. Is this sentence necessary? I think Venus Music is the only thing that isn't redundant. Make it part of the previous sentences.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• The music section is over just as it was starting; hardly worth it. Isn't there anything else, the making of, etc. that can be said about the music?

@Prhartcom: Many of the peer reviewers mentioned the article as being too long. The article has been trimmed considerably and I just wanted to post the basic info about the film's soundtrack. BTW, there isn't really that much important info about the soundtrack in general. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• "the Babri Masjid demolition case" : Well, what is this case and why did its existence delay the film's release? Are you insisting that everyone who reads this article already know what it is? Or do you insist we leave the article by clicking on the link? (We may not come back.) Or you could you just briefly tell us? It seems like I keep repeating this same advice, can you please look ahead for this kind of issue?

@Prhartcom: Just the link is enough in this case. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The film was released on 1 October 2010" : I see that it was only delayed a week; please say so in the previous sentence, then; naturally when a delay was first mention I had assumed a significant delay had occurred.

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is an inline link to List of most expensive non-English-language films, but Enthiran, despite the article's claim of being the most expensive Indian film ever made, isn't on that article's list (neither is Blue), hurting the credibility of this article. Update: I wasn't asking you to remove a category, I was just pointing out that this article links to the above list article that I assumed should include this movie, but didn't. If that list article is wrong you could consider adding this movie to it's list. Prhartcom (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done The expensive films just get updated. Cest la vie. But Enthiran is much further away and I honestly don't know which position it is at. So I removed the link for now. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• "after being edited to a running time of two hours" : Exactly two hours, eh? Is this encyclopedic? And then is says "the original unedited three-hour version" : Exactly three hours, eh? When I read about the two-hour length I wondered if that was longer or shorter than the original, and had to wait until the next sentence to find out, so perhaps tell us the original length before telling us the shortened length.

 Done I have mentioned a footnote about the original length (Note 1). — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Did you have any Europeans or American's review this, or just Indians? Am I the first non-Indian? Not everyone at the FAC is going to be Indian, you know. I ask because the experience of reading this article needs to work outside of India. The article may be an "ambassador" from India.

@Prhartcom: Dr. Blofeld, Bede735, Tim riley and SchroCat are non-Indians and the last three provided most of the comments at the PR. I guess they are more used to reviewing Indian film articles than you are. BTW, is this your first Indian film article? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, but not my first exposure to Indian cinema. I'm glad to hear editors from outside India have reviewed this and am surprised that they missed the problems in "Themes", etc. Prhartcom (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention "Oslo" next to "Colosseum Kino"? Maybe mention "United Kingdom" or "UK" next to "Bath". (The third foreign location has both "Japan" and "Tokyo".)

 Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I just noticed how often Behindwoods is mentioned and referenced in this article. This quote from Behindwoods in the Marketing section sounds very disingenuous, as if they were dishonestly being paid to make such a promotional statement. Do you suppose that could be the case? And now the article is repeating that likely-paid quote. I hope Behindwoods didn't write this article.

@Prhartcom: Don't think so really. It's just that trailer reviews are full of hype. Even The Times of India, one of India's leading dailies, does it sometimes. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am up to "Reception". I will continue later. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Happy Diwali, folks" : This is in this article, why exactly? If the article has had so many reviewers, I cannot fathom why I am the first person to notice that this quote is quite a bit off topic.

 Done Removed the quote. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have finally finished reading this article. Copy edit wise, it is in good shape. I have watched a few scenes from the film; I believe I would agree with Roger Moore's opinion of it. Good luck with your FA. Prhartcom (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran BO

RameshNambiath, please discuss what you want to add/remove to the BO section here. Ssven2 and Josephjames.me are also invited. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite Kailash29792! It is a fact that there is an argument/debate about the final figures for 'Enthiran' (as is there for most South Indian films in general). So what we can do is select the most reliable sources for use in the 'box office' section. Anyway, I'd vastly prefer the current revision by Ssven2. Josephjames.me (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Language of the film

User Bhuvannalla thinks the film was shot in Hindi as Robot, although the vast majority of sources say it was dubbed. Ssven2, as the chief contributor to this article's FA status, you are encouraged to participate in this discussion. Others may also debate on which is true - whether the film was shot or dubbed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bhuvannalla, the sources you added are those before the film's release, the languages in which it were released were pretty much unconfirmed at that time (August 2010, even the release date wasn't confirmed, as in 24 September 2010, which was the original date). Post-release sources confirm it was dubbed. Maybe it is due to the film's magnanimity (being India's costliest film at the time of its release) that certain sources were "contradictory". I have seen Robot on Sony MAX and I feel that Ash dubbed for her portions in the film's Hindi version, but the entire film was the same as the Tamil version frame by frame. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Enthiran. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.mid-day.com/news/2008/dec/301208-Rajinikanth-Aishwarya-Rai-Enthiran-Hollywood-HBO-simultaneous-release.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321115240/http://inwww.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-rupee-vs-dollar-in-the-last-2-decades/20120518.htm?print=true to http://inwww.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-rupee-vs-dollar-in-the-last-2-decades/20120518.htm?print=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Rajinis-unflappable-Danny/articleshow/6512564.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ibnlive.in.com/news/robot-endhiran--behind-the-camera/131984-8-66.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Man-behind-Rajnis-looks/articleshow/6706929.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/others/news-interviews/Rajinis-metallic-look/articleshow/4131575.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/regional/news-interviews/Kollywood-in-search-of-exotic-locations/articleshow/6809384.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/interviews/Enthiran-doesnt-have-a-regional-mosaic/articleshow/6644888.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/business-of-bollywood/the-experience-of-first-show-of-a-rajinikanth-film/articleshow/6668088.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.mail-archive.com/arrahmanfans@yahoogroups.com/msg66979.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/HC-stay-on-case-against-Kalanithi/articleshow/8794646.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-beats-endhirans-lifetime-box-office-record-639747
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/baahubali-box-office-collection-beats-rajinikanth-enthiran-ss-rajamouli-prabhas-rana-daggubati-anushka-shetty-tamannaah-bhatia-rs-300-crore-club/1/452399.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/10/01/review-round-up-endhiranrobot/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/movie-review/Robot/movie-review/6658514.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masand-robot-is-an-adventure-waiting-for-you/132161-47-84.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/Rajinikanth-Lesser-known-facts/photostory/34830196.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/Superstar-Rajinikanth-as-Minions/photostory/45519505.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/Enthiran-sequel-to-start-filming-by-the-end-of-this-year/articleshow/48773748.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.co.in/rajinikanths-2-0-release-date-revealed-shankar-set-thrill-rajini-fans-diwali-2017-704851
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Akshay-Kumar-plays-the-villain-in-Robot-2/articleshow/50203162.cms

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Enthiran story original?

After watching a russian movie called Ego zvali Robert (1967) also known as We Called Him Robert (1967) directed by Ilya Olshvanger and Writen by Lev Kuklin (as L. Kuklin), Yuri Printsyov, feel Enthiran story is an adaption of original story written by Lev Kuklin, Yuri Printsyov.

Ego zvali Robert (1967) - www.imdb.com/title/tt0062508/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.29.114 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The premise is indeed similar, though I can't find a RS comparing the two films. But I think the artificial intelligence gaining sentience has become a common trope of sci-fi movies. If we say Enthiran was inspired by this, it's like saying Avatar was inspired by Vietnam Colony. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Oh oh, Neengalum Chennai 600028 II partheengala?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I see many common things between these two two movies, If we watch the movie in English or with proper sub titles then similarities are obvious, I am quoting few here

1. How Tanya teaches Robert to feel and the robot becomes more human than his rationalistic creator

2. At the end of the movie how Robert is made to behave like a real robot by removing things that made him smart

Since I have not watched Vietnam Colony movie, I can not comment on how it is similar to Avatar. Looking forward for a comparison of these two movies by movie experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.29.114 (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enthiran. 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/20150204152807/http://www.hindustantimes.com/reviews/mayank-shekhar-s-review-robot/article1-607005.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/reviews/mayank-shekhar-s-review-robot/article1-607005.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enthiran. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101071/rajnikanths-endhiran-truly-entertaining-movie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707213303/http://bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-%20City&sectid=10&contentid=2010092520100925051125158c0163429 to http://bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-%20City&sectid=10&contentid=2010092520100925051125158c0163429

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enthiran. 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://archive.is/20170519071126/http://www.zoomtv.com/bollywood-news/instapic/imagegallery/omg-here-are-the-movies-rejected-by-priyanka-chopra-that-will-leave-you-shocked/30188 to http://www.zoomtv.com/bollywood-news/instapic/imagegallery/omg-here-are-the-movies-rejected-by-priyanka-chopra-that-will-leave-you-shocked/30188

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Chitti a machine or a humanoid?

Came across an article The Terminator where the character Terminator (whose a humanoid by default) is denoted as Him as a machine. However, just to clarify that Chitti, whose also a humanoid should be denoted as Him or not?

Although robots typically don't have genders, Chitti was designed to look male and at one point is revealed to have gained the human ability to reproduce. Hence, I'd call it a "he". ----Kailash29792 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography section

I changed the "Bibliography" section to "Further reading". I could not see a direct connection from the link to this article to show the entry was used as sourcing. Named as such, as a section, it would be in the wrong location. Otr500 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)