Talk:Jannat 2

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in November 2014.

Poster

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jannat2theatricalreleaseposter.jpg.
This can be used as movie poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfanpuniali (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Problems with copied verison

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The IP asked me to give an explanation for what was wrong with that version, and, specifically what policies apply. There are several.

WP:NOT, specifically, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize relevant information. We don't copy a line from every different review we can find. Instead, we provide summaries and pick out particularly notable or well-written reviews.
WP:Quotations, while an essay, is one of the most generally followed essays I can think of. It says, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them." Look, in fact, at the whole section linked at WP:QUOTEFARM.
WP:CONSENSUS. I bring this up because Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. When editors disagree, they seek consensus on talk pages. If they can't come to an agreement themselves, then they follow dispute resolution. It is abundantly obvious to me and at least one other editor that this article would be far worse, far less useful to readers, and far less encylopedic if it were a quote farm. As such, the burden is on the other editor to convince us that we're wrong, and to follow DR if xe can't.

So, 111, convince us. Explain to us why your version doesn't violate WP:NOT, and why, even if it's technically within those boundaries, it's a better version. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK! In WP:NOTREPOSITORY, I have not added mere collections of public domain or other source material. According to WP:QUOTEFARM, my revision was "over quoted" according to you in the critical reception and soundtrack reception sections, but I have added only significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Also, I have not added excessive listings of statistics, as stated in WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Now, to the question that which version is better. I have never said that my version is the better one or your's it. It is just that I have tried to add more information, while deleting unwanted details that was added in the page. So, the edit becomes a better one than what it was earlier. Now, say why is my edit so wrong in your judgement? Let us discuss it in this page, according to WP:Consensus. Bye! 111.92.95.7 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And I also agree that the current version is bad. We definitely want to have some info. But we don't want a list of a dozen different reviews. Of the reviews you found, which ones do you think are the most important? I don't know enough about Indian cinema to know where the most important movie review sites are. Let's try to find 3 to start with. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I think that the reviews by Taran Adarsh and Rajeev Masand are important. Rest, I am not sure. In soundtrack reception, the review by Joginder Tuteja seems important.111.92.95.8 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a review by someone notable enough to have a WP article is a good place to start. But your last point is problematic. Yes, we could at at least 5 reviews. Heck, we "could" add all of them, like you previously did. But we don't because that's not what Wikipedia is for. We are here to provide an encyclopedic overview, not list everything under the sun about the subject. As for the soundtrack, I need the input of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

First thing i have seen in every good article ,reviews of critics are arranged in descending order as i dont know the reason but it seems good and well maintained.Taran Adarsh,Anupama Chopra,Komal Nahta,Aniruddha Guha,Rajeev Masand,Gaurav Malani etc are well known critics from news websites.--Zeeyanketu ✉ 23:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here is my opinion. Add any 3-5 of the reviews of Taran Adarsh (Bollywood Hungama), Gaurav Malani (The Economic Times), Madhureeta Mukherjee (The Times of India), Rajeev Masand (CNN-IBN), Zee News, Sonia Chopra (Sify) and Raja Sen (Rediff) in that descending order. In sound track reception, add the reviews of Joginder Tuteja (Bollywood Hungama) and The Times of India. Thanks! Josephjames.me (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Jannat 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic