User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Gandhi

Thank you for fixing my edits.Hornplease 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hornplease - Actually, you did a great job, I was really impressed. It's my habit to go in and tweak. Thanks so much for your hard work. -Classicfilms 15:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Durga Puja

Belated greetings! -Classicfilms 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Greetings to you, too :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi!! How are you? --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Haven't heard from you in awhile. What articles are you working on now? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I'll be away for a few days, if I don't respond right away. I don't know if you noticed but Parineeta (2005 film) is now G.A. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have noticed. Not only Parineeta, several other film articles such as Lagaan has become GA.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm back - this is great news. Perhaps another will make F.A. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj/ Brahmo / Brahmoism

Dear User:Classicfilms. I suspect you know something about Brahmoism, so I refer to an old discussion you initiated on the Bengal Renaissance involving Brahmoism. I quote - "Fair enough. Another solution would be to divide the Brahmo Samaj article into two - one devoted to the history and development of the Brahmo movement (which is associated with the Bengal Renaissance) and one which talks about Brahmoism as a religious movement. -Classicfilms 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC) This article (from the website for the Rabindra Bharati University Museum, Kolkata) called The Tagores and Society reflects the direction I am suggesting above. -Classicfilms 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". Through a completely different set of circumstances what you had foreseen is taking place. If this interests you, kindly check out Brahmoism, Brahmo, Brahmo Samaj AND their talk pages which are now getting overwhelming. There are some significant changes taking place in Brahmoism now. Although the issues at present are limited to issues like "Can Communists be Brahmos?", the others in the pipeline are "challenging" to say the least. YTG. Yvantanguy (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yvantanguy - Thanks for the post. Yes, quite awhile ago I did make this suggestion. My knowledge is a relatively academic one concerning the Brahmo Samaj as a social movement during the Bengal Ren. I have reviewed all of the pages which have been created in the meantime. I'm pretty busy in RL to become involved in long discussions at this point though I do think that the vote could go either way depending upon how well developed all three articles become. Perhaps if they are merged again into one article, the article could be written in such a way as to state that there was a social movement which developed from the religion specific to the Bengal Renaissance, which is in some respects separate from general discussions of the religion. Hope this helps. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chak De article

Hi Dwaipayanc, Hope all is well. I've been working on the 2007 film article, Chak De India and think it is at the point where - with help from some other editors - it could move to at least GA status. I'm (not very successfully) trying to take a semi-wikibreak so that I can attend to RL - but am checking in every once and awhile. I know you have a number of RL commitments as well, so if you don't have the time to work on it, that's fine - if you know of other editors who might want to put some time into it, that would be also great. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. I have not gone through the article. Some quick comments: "Notable quotes" - section not needed. References absolutely unformatted.
Suggestion: Presently some editors are doing great jobs in Indian film article. Several article [become] GA. You can try to communicate with the related users, such as User:Mspraveen. I shall try to chip in.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I moved the quotes to Wikiquote (with a link to that site). Yes, the references need to be formatted. I've reworked the page quite a bit over the past two weeks - formatting and adding of material by other editors will greatly enhance it. Hope you have a chance to contribute - and I will contact User:Mspraveen as you suggested. Hope all is well. -Classicfilms (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've formatted the references. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope :) Retrieval dates are missing. Anyway, that's not a tough job. Once retrieval dates are there, reference format should be adequate for GA purpose, I guess.
I have not seen the film in cinema hall or DVD. So do not remember the plot in detail. However, I see in the article the last paragraph tells about almost the whole second-half (if I am correct in remembering the plot). Although it's always good to follow summary form, do you think it is adequate to tell the whole story of their world cup in one or two sentences?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ack! :-) As you can probably guess, references are my least favorite part of Wikipedia articles :-) If you have some time, and would like to add the dates, I'd appreciate it. I actually have to sign off for a few days to meet a RL deadline. If you don't have time, I could attend to it later in the week.
I'm actually not convinced it's ready for GA even with the dates, which is why I'm trying to get more editors to work on it. The production section needs more development, and the reviews need more balance. A few more pairs of eyes to develop this would really help.
The film is out on DVD so you should be able to rent it. Not only is it an excellent film and IMHO one of SRK's best, it was a hit, won awards, and brought attention to a neglected subject. So I think the topic is GA worthy. I realize you can't really contribute until you see the film - so I hope you will have a chance.
I agree with you about the plot summary. Perhaps if you see the film, you could rework it (the current version is one which was reduced from a previous version which was longer than MOS rules allow).
Anyway, I'll check back in in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw that you added some of the dates! If you have time to add more, that would be great. Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I shall attend to the reference formatting, and do the date addition, probably tomorrow. Well, I saw the film, in some illegal site in the internet. The print was bad.
How are you, bye the way? I am in India now, and will be moving to Connecticut in July.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
See the film again, it is really worth it. Thanks for attending to this. Great to hear you are moving to Conn. It's a beautiful state, you'll like it. I'm fine, just so swamped in RL and spending too much time here in the Wikipedia :-) Hopefully in a few weeks there will be more balance. Looking forward to working on the article with you in a week or so. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chak De India

Hi there. Thanks for the message. Well, I had a long thought on attempting the article and eventually I realized that I'm already backlogged with several more film-related articles such as Nanhe Jaisalmer, Jab We Met and others from the Tollywood industry. My apologies, but, I cannot realistically estimate as to when I shall be able to contribute to it. As far as others are concerned, you may try and consult with User:Shshshsh maybe. I'm not really sure coz I'm kinda new here. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chak De India contd.

Just an fyi - I have a little more flex time at the moment though I may go on break again next week. Thanks for fixing all of the refs. I created a related article on Women's field hockey and updated related links. The article looks better and there have been some great additions over the past few days as well - so over the next few months hopefully it will grow. I'm going to take a look at Taare Zameen Par as well since the article needs some attention. Have you seen it? It may interest you since you are in the medical field. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, User:Shshshsh s helping greatlt in the article. Production definitely needs more stuffs I also think it would be ready within a month or so.
Regarding, Taare Zameen Par, yes I have seen the movie. Indeed, I usually do not miss any significant Hindi cinemas (and at least those which are both box office success and otherwise acclaimed) :) And I see Taare... is also in pretty good condition.Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! I've started working on Taare Zameen Par and will focus on it for a little while since there is still some clean up to do - both articles are probably worth watching since after a few months they may be ready for GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain

I hope you understand what you would do. First, "England" can use in various area in field hockey, but not in Olympics and Champions Trophy, also Champions Challenge. Second, do not add irrelevant template to one article. I hope you can understand, thank you. --Aleenf1 07:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, my intentions were good. Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I added the template to the article because I had seen it in other articles but will not revert your edit. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I am trying to build the page India women's national field hockey team which did not exist until yesterday, but am not as experienced with the hockey pages as you are. Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as you did something correct, informatics, that is enough. You can add current squad too for India hockey, if you have information for that. If you need my help, you can leave any message in my talk page. I'm willing to help you if i can. I'm always BOLD. --Aleenf1 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll keep all this in mind. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CDI

Hello friend!

I see you are very keen to improve the Chak De India article and raise its status as higher as possible. Just dropped to say that you can count me in. :)

I started already copyediting and organising it a few days ago; the article has a long way to go, but I believe that we can make the best of it with some dedication and improvement.

Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! I am going to attempt another wikibreak so I'll be coming and going but with more people getting involved it looks like the article will grow and develop. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Field hockey

Sorry, i have to make it clear, please use "field hockey" to identify a person if a name has been create before, like Surinder Kaur. Don't use "hockey", because people can simply confuse whether she is "ice hockey" or "field hockey" player, we need a clarification, not simply to confuse people. You did nothing wrong, but just a note for you. Thanks. --Aleenf1 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Sorry about that, I should have guessed to make this distinction. I'll go ahead and fix this. Thanks so much for the heads up, I really appreciate it. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chak De Credits

Great job cleaning up the Chak De India article. Thanks for your help with it - particularly linking all of the dates. I wasn't aware of that MOS rule. I made a few minor changes, but nothing major.

I would like to discuss your edit to the cast list. The list was previously organized alphabetically by first name which is why Vidya was at the bottom.

Take a look at this interview with Shimit Amin (cited in the plot summary) -rediff asks, "The promos seem to reveal -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this is a 'no-heroine' film. Isn't that a big risk?" and Amin answers, "Yes, there are no heroines. That was something we didn't require because of the way the story was carved out." http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/aug/07shimit.htm

Since we can only post according to references, this would seem to preclude putting Vidya first. My only other suggestion would be to find a reference justifying putting her first. If not, I think we should put her back down at the bottom to maintain alphabetical order.

Again, good work. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you say, and yes, it's definitely a no-heroine film. The case is, Vidya's role is much meatier, she is the senior among all the young debutantes, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I don't remember), she received top-billing in the film itself (although this is something that doesn't matter, as we on the Indian cinema group decided, film credits are inconsistent, unfair and mostly inaccessible, so we have decided not to go according to film credits in general).
You can see this link, from indiaFM -- Vidya is credited second, right after Shahrukh.
Nevertheless, feel free to restore the cast section if you still feel it should be listed alphabetically. I have absolutely no problem with that. :) Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 07:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Impressive argument and fair. She is also credited as the first Chak De girl on the IMDB page. On the official site however, "Preeti Sabarwal" is listed as first in the character description page and the actress who portrays her, Sagarika Ghatge, receives top billing. So I went ahead and moved the name to the bottom of the list for a few reasons. Lists sometimes get out of control and difficult to manage if there isn't a means to organize them. We don't have to stay with alph. by first name if you can suggest a better way - I just think there should be some organizing structure. Secondly, the article I cited reflects a larger theme of the film which is the idea of unity among the characters, something which was reflected for example when the entire group of 16 won the best supporting actress award. Since this is the case, the WP should reflect the intentions of the filmmakers.
I hope you continue to work on the page since you have a lot of experience with film articles. You are right, it still needs a great deal of development and I hope even more people eventually become involved since that is what makes for a successful article. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I agree. There should be a structure for that, but Bollywood is inconsistent in this case. Movie producers play games with name placement to keep stars happy. Everyone wants top billing. That is why cast is sometimes in order of appearance, sometimes in alphabetical order, and sometimes it is even divided and ordered differently at the opening credits and at the end credits. But the credit order mostly and usually goes according to seniority; it is a major Bollywood norm, when crediting the main saleable leads. This is not accepted on Wikipedia, for three main reasons. A) There must be some consistent rule when it comes to an encyclopedia. B) It's unfair. C) Film credites are mostly inaccessible, and there is no way to prove that the order is absolutely correct.
That is why, when it comes to casting the main actors (I mean, leading and supporting of first grade), we usually cast the leading pair first, and then the supporting roles.
In our case, there are 16 girls who have important roles, therefore alphabetical order is the most perfect option.
Yes, I'll keep working on it. I'm a bit busy with the Preity Zinta article (GA already achieved) and now I'm waiting the peer review to get over, and take it to FAC.
My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Squads

It is a bad idea if you develop squads just for India and USA, and leave many empty headings inside. Also if can please create in new article, also if you can listing all the squads, otherwise it prove waste. All can be found in official website. If can, please add players number.

If the player number in random style, you can use this:

#<li value=2>[[Surinder Kaur]]

Otherwise just list straight if number are line up start from 1 until the end.

Thank you. Any help, please leave message in my talk page. --Aleenf1 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another is, the page will be growth as the event progress, so, that's why creating in new page is necessary. --Aleenf1 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can make a new article but I'm having a little trouble understanding part of your post. Can you clarify the following for me:

"If can, please add players number.

If the player number in random style, you can use this:

  1. Surinder Kaur

Otherwise just list straight if number are line up start from 1 until the end."

Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the player number in each squad, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. If that is 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, that style can help you determine the number. Example <li value=2> will be output as 2, change the value 3 will output as 3. If the number listing as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then just add the # sign. Understand? --Aleenf1 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's better. Let me give it a shot. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, to get you easy, i will develop the code to make me and you easy, you can see "my tools" in my user page. Go there and take a look soon. :) --Aleenf1 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Women’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics squads, please create in this title, thank you for your cooperation. I will cleanup if necessary --Aleenf1 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem and thanks for all of your help. The title is fine. It may take awhile for me to put this together. For now, I will use the # method of sorting but perhaps at a later date, player numbers can be added. As it is, it is a bit of work to make this. I'll let you know when it is finished-Classicfilms (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New article created

Ok, here you go: Women’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics squads

  1. Go ahead and clean up where necessary. I used the second option from your tools page - however, the numbering system created two columns 1-9, rather than a second column, 10-18. So, you might need to tweak that.
  2. I created a link to this page here - however if you want to put it somewhere else, go ahead.
Have fun and thanks for the help, -Classicfilms (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic job! I was really perplexed as to how to resolve the numbering - I looked at how you did it and was quite impressed. Thanks for the clean up on both of the pages, it all looks great!-Classicfilms (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

CDI

I must say your work on Chak De India is brilliant! I'm sorry I can't be much present to extend a helping hand, I'm just very busy with another article. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the nice feedback. Don't worry about it - if you have a chance to clean up the article at another point go ahead but otherwise I know you are working on a few other articles. I just thought I'd see what I could do with the production section since I didn't like the tag there. Anyway, thanks again, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job

Hello Classicfilms, I was browsing through the articles of Taare Zameen Par and Chak De India, and must I say you've done a fabulous work on both of those articles. Keep up the good work!! =) Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 18:30, 1 May 2008

Hi Bollywood Dreamz Talk How nice of you. Thank you! They are both excellent films and evidence of just how good Bollywood can be so it has been a pleasure to work on both articles. I hope to see your input at some point in the future. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You're most welcome!! I definitely agree with you about Chak De India and Taare Zameen Par being excellent films. It just goes to show that Bollywood is capabale of so much more than what people tend to believe. Another excellent film was Lage Raho Munnabhai, an article that you also helped to become an FA. If I have time, I will most definitely help out with the articles. BTW, my name is Rahul and you can call me that if you want to. It has been a pleasure knowing you. As I said before, "Keep up the good work!!" It is good to see Bollywood articles improving so much. Regards --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 03:31, 2 May 2008
Great! Hope you have a chance to work on either or both of the film articles. I'd like to see them elevated to G.A. status. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, both the articles are developing greatly. Hope both will be ready for GAC soon. Great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for the feedback. If you have a chance to go through either of the articles, I would appreciate it. The plot sections both need work, particularly Chak De India which exceeds the word limit according to the guidelines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot
Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I shall have a look at them, but probably after a few days. Bye the way, Satyajit Ray is in the main page today.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey!! That's great news!! Congrats, I know you worked on that article. Ray is, of course, one of my favorite filmmakers. It's great to see another Indian film article reach F.A. As for the other articles, of course, RL commitments always take priority. Look at them when and if you can. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For you

The Editor's Barnstar
Classicfilms is hereby awarded the Editor's Barnstar for her terrific work expanding film articles (among others) and raising them to the highest standard possible, as well as being a nice editor who has an admirably positive approach on here. Your work is brilliant, and is greatly appreciated. Please keep it up. My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What a nice surprise to find a barnstar on my talk page. Thank you! I really appreciate it. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! You're truly deserving. Shahid • Talk2me 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Pather Panchali. The article has really grown since I last looked at it. I tweaked the opening a bit and the article needs a bit of copy editing, but I do think it has really improved over time. With some input and copy editing, I think it could be moved up to G.A. Good to hear from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the inputs. Please continue. However, I removed the brackets you (probably) introduced in the lead. My opinion is brackets should not be used unless extremely needed. Please have a look. Hope to jump the GA procedure and directly go for FA :) Let's see what happens.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. I'll try to take a look at the article when I can. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On Chak De India

Hi! I was going through the article. The "Production" is full of long quotes. It needs re-writing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Sure, if you make some edits to the section I'd be happy to take a look. Hope all is well, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh you are online :) Yeah, I shall try to have a go at it. Meanwhile, Pather Panchali is getting substantial reviews. Regarding CDI, the later portion of the article looks better than the initial parts. I have not gone through the plot though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am online :) Pather Panchali looks fantastic - isn't it ready to go up for G.A. yet? Let me know and I will vote when the time comes. As for CDI, yes - the plot summary is beyond the Wikiproject film guidelines limit and needs to be reduced. The production section does need a re-write. I'm hoping that other editors will chip in at some point to help upgrade the state of the article. We also need to add one or two reviews that are more critical of the film but I haven't been able to find any from reliable sources. I know you are busy with PP at the moment - perhaps when that has made GA you can take a look at this article. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Did a quick edit in some parts of "Production". Seems I did a severe edit. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! The important point is to make certain that the facts are presented in an accurate fashion which is what you did with your edit. When dealing with controversial material, I tend to like to quote directly from the source though I have always felt, as you pointed out, that there were too many block quotes. I'd really like to push this article to GA and eventually to FA - it's a unique film and one which I think could make a great FA article. But I can't do it alone and appreciate help from other editors. Thanks for your input, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)