User talk:Classicfilms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Lage Raho Munna Bhai
Yes you're right, it is a surprise cameo appearance, no need to spoil the surprise. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your great work on the cast list! -Classicfilms 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bollywood Barnstar
 |
An Award | |
| The Bollywood Barnstar for Classicfilms for her contributions to Indian Cinema, particularly for her contributions to Lage Raho Munnabhai. Thanks a ton, mate! -- Awarded by Plumcouch Talk2Me and thunderboltz(Deepu) 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
- Hi Plumcouch Talk2Me - What an honor - thanks so much! It's a great film - let's make this a good article...-Classicfilms 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I find myself screaming NOT FAIR!! I wanted to do this yesterday, but fell short of time. I come here today, and see myself preempted. I hope Plumcouch doesn't mind me sharing the honour of awarding you this barnstar. You deserve it, Classicfilms. Great job! All the best for your future contributions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi thunderboltz(Deepu) - Thank you so much!! I really appreciate the feedback and am glad to help out! -Classicfilms 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find myself screaming NOT FAIR!! I wanted to do this yesterday, but fell short of time. I come here today, and see myself preempted. I hope Plumcouch doesn't mind me sharing the honour of awarding you this barnstar. You deserve it, Classicfilms. Great job! All the best for your future contributions.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Plumcouch Talk2Me - Thanks for asking - the text originally used "his" which I changed it to "her" - it is now correct. Not a problem at all! Again, many thanks for the barnstar... -Classicfilms 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Yes Classicfilm, you really deserve this award. And the way Lage Raho Munna Bhai is going, it should turn out to be a Good Article soon. Then we can even think about FA!! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I really appreciate the feedback - many thanks! Looking forward to seeing edits from others in the Bollywood wikiproject as well...so that the article can continue to grow and improve -Classicfilms 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lage Raho... further
I was going through the article. What is lacking (in "Reaction" section or as an independent section) is Criticism, which would contain negative criticism about the film also. If this can be incorporated (and red links turned blue - which should not be a major problem), the article should be ready for being nominated as a GA. What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's tough to get negative words about the film, let alone a wholly negative review! A few words in the IndiaFM review about one or two minor flaws, and this is what I got trying to search for some not-so-praising words for the movie. Also I remember watching a Gandhi-specialist in TV telling about some flaws in the film. But cannot remember which channel. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Dwaipayan - Fair enough, though it says something about the film if criticism is hard to find. I have not, to date, come across articles which critique the film on an aesthetic level. I have, however, come across two particular criticisms of the content: a)articles about Jahnu Barua (such as the one you offer from The Telegraph, and b) articles such as this one which argue that Lage Raho "dumbs down" issues related to Gandhi and Gandhism. I would suggest that a subsection under the "Reaction" section is made called "Criticism" which states the above (ie. while there has been little in the way of aesthetic criticism from reviewers, there were two recurring critiques concerning content etc.). -Classicfilms 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I agree with your comments about the red links being turned to blue - I'd also like to add that if there is time, it might be nice to add a few more actor names in order to develop the fact that Vidhu Vinod Chopra uses many of the same actors for small roles --much of the cast of Lage Raho is either from Munna Bhai M.B.B.S. or from Parineeta. -Classicfilms 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Dwaipayan - Fair enough, though it says something about the film if criticism is hard to find. I have not, to date, come across articles which critique the film on an aesthetic level. I have, however, come across two particular criticisms of the content: a)articles about Jahnu Barua (such as the one you offer from The Telegraph, and b) articles such as this one which argue that Lage Raho "dumbs down" issues related to Gandhi and Gandhism. I would suggest that a subsection under the "Reaction" section is made called "Criticism" which states the above (ie. while there has been little in the way of aesthetic criticism from reviewers, there were two recurring critiques concerning content etc.). -Classicfilms 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Lage Raho... in Portal:India/Selected article candidates
I've nominated Lage Raho Munna Bhai in Portal:India/Selected article candidates. Hope to get some comments that will help improve the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi Dwaipayan - Great news, thanks for doing that. I'll be looking forward to the feedback. -Classicfilms 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- One more point - I do hope that as feedback comes in, other members of the Bollywood wikiproject will also contribute to the article (though I do appreciate being given credit as a contributor). -Classicfilms 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema, in order to notify people in the project. However, usually response is lukewarm in Portal:India selected article candidates. We may soon have to go for a peer review and/or GA nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Sounds like a good plan... -Classicfilms 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cinema, in order to notify people in the project. However, usually response is lukewarm in Portal:India selected article candidates. We may soon have to go for a peer review and/or GA nomination.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How modify TV show box?
How do I add composer to show template?: How do I add the composer to the Mod Squad show template?Dogru144 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- You should probably ask over at the Wikipedia:Help_desk. -Classicfilms 02:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lage Raho... even more
Please have a look at other film articles which are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media. 'Lage Raho... needs a section on Production. FAs on recent films like V for Vendetta also have this section, rather elaborately. This section should be incorporated before going for a GA nom. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines also lists this. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Great, this is a good start. Could you post this comment on the Lage Raho talk page as well? Thanks -Classicfilms 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Additional comment - perhaps you could also research and start the production section? -Classicfilms 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Great, this is a good start. Could you post this comment on the Lage Raho talk page as well? Thanks -Classicfilms 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bengal Renaissance and Brahmo Samaj
Please see the Bengal Renaissance talk page. I am looking forward to a positive response from you. With regards. -- Seejee 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Seejee - Thanks for responding to Talk:Bengal_Renaissance#Merge_request. Both articles have developed considerably since that time. However, if you would like to start the article I would be happy to look at it. -Classicfilms 04:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:FU violation
Your recent edit to Aishwarya Rai has been reverted. We are not permitted to use fair-use images to depict living people. Additionally, you did not add the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image. Please see WP:FU which explains this policy. Thanks. --Yamla 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies - since the image was used on the film page for Bride and Prejudice, I thought it was within fair use. Thanks for the information - -Classicfilms 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also please note that it was the original poster of the image who did not add the "mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image." -Classicfilms 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the fair-use rationale must be added for each use of the image, so given that you were adding it to a new article, you would have to add it. But that's not particularly important here, as the image was unusable. Please don't think that I'm coming down hard on you, though. Most people are not aware that only freely-licensed images can be used to depict living people and every editor runs foul of some of the policies from time to time. Have a good day! --Yamla 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your good words here - I do appreciate the feedback, particularly the clarification about fair use as I wasn't aware of what you wrote above - I certainly will follow these proceedures in the future. Please always feel free to contribute this kind of advice to my talk page in the future since mistakes can sometimes be the path to learning...-Classicfilms 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the fair-use rationale must be added for each use of the image, so given that you were adding it to a new article, you would have to add it. But that's not particularly important here, as the image was unusable. Please don't think that I'm coming down hard on you, though. Most people are not aware that only freely-licensed images can be used to depict living people and every editor runs foul of some of the policies from time to time. Have a good day! --Yamla 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also please note that it was the original poster of the image who did not add the "mandatory detailed fair-use rationale justifying the use of that image." -Classicfilms 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lage Raho Classicfilms!
Hey, well done on your great work on Lage Raho Munna Bhai. The production section is very important though and needs to be made soon before we can take it to GAC. It's looking good though. Also, don't worry about the article if it starts becoming a little too long, please do not delete any content to trim the article, lots of FAs are 50kb and above. Regards. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. In terms of length, I am following the recommendations found on this page -Wikipedia:Article size - which suggest that when an article becomes too long, "readability" becomes an issue. I've been editing the article for style and flow, reducing repetitions and fixing awkward sentences - which can mean that information is condensed. However, if you would like to restore a point and can make a good argument for doing so, then by all means do it. And certainly if you want to add a production section, then by all means, research and write it. Thanks for your contributions to the article. -Classicfilms 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
