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.
Hey mate! I just did something, and I'm not sure if what I did was right and if I have enough privileges to do such things. I'm not a patroller. Is it okay? And I have seen many users have a user subpage named 'username/CSDlog'. Am I supposed to keep a log of articles I nominate for CSD? Pls, enlighten me. -- Sriramspeak up03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You seemed to have tagged the article for speedy deletion. I don't think it meets the criteria, as she seems to be a notable individual. You can keep a log of articles which you tag for deletion (both PROD and CSD) by turning them on in WP:TWPREFS. —Vensatry(Ping)04:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I cannot find anybody contesting the deletion. Be careful while tagging articles for speedy in future, as it might result in a lot of heated-arguments. —Vensatry(Ping)06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed em because they did not have anything to say about her apart from the fact that she was the general secretary of AIDWA. —Vensatry(Ping)07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey bro! Hoping to take an article to GA, I'm currently working on it, albeit in my PC's Notepad!! But, the instruction for nominating given here states that, nominators who aren't significant contributors should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Well, this article's 'significant contributor', who also happens to be its creator, isn't active anymore. Is 'significant contributor' decided based on no. of edits? If so, what should I do? I was thinking of improving it to some level before making the changes in wiki. Should I make the changes in multiple stages to increase edit count? -- Sriramspeak up13:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
In most cases it refers to people who have made the most number of edits. You may drop a note on the principal contributors' talk pages to see if they're interested. Making changes just for the sake of increasing your edit count isn't a great idea. See how this single edit changed the quality of the article. —Vensatry(Ping)16:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's a great movie and it's going to be a challenging one! You may start working on the article preferably in your sandbox and nominate it when ready. ATB! —Vensatry(Ping)17:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I was saying earlier, top contributors need not be the ones who have made the maximum number of edits. In some cases, even people with 100+ edits may have zero actual input to the article as they would be constantly reverting vandalism. —Vensatry(Ping)18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Huh.. where can I start? I have two sets of reviews. One by film personalities and one by journalists. Under what title can I group them? Does 'contemporary reviews' sound good for film personalities treating them as contemporaries? And 'reflective reviews' for journalists'? -- Sriramspeak up18:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to keepit down to 3-4 sentences but could not. I could not abruptly start that he spend his evenings driving around with someone. -- Sriramspeak up06:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You can by simply saying that Gopu was Sridhar's childhood friend or something like schoolmate. It shouldn't deviate from the topic and read like Sridhar's biography. —Vensatry(Ping)06:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have opened the Bhakta Prahlada matter over here as u suggested. As for what Arjann said, he was true in some cases: there aren't many editors active in keeping Tamil film articles up to date and he was among the few. The only two things of his I did not like were: his lack of writing skills and his attacking of you. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not our problem Kailash! Editors keep coming and going, after all they edit out of their own interest. If you talk about the editor in question, I cannot be held responsible for his exit in any way. So you should stop feeding him; he is no diva least for me. When I was a newbie, there were editors like Eelamstylez77, Johannes003 and a few more who were doing a very good job updating Tamil cinema articles. They are not highly active anymore. We should encourage only constructive and good-faith editors! —Vensatry(Ping)11:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good cath on the sock. I could tell when I interacted with him there was disruption but I didn't even think he could've been a sock! Great job paying attention to detail. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) Are you talking about Padmalakshmi? He has a notoriety for his POV pushing and talk page attack edits. It was pretty easy for me to nail out! —Vensatry(Ping)17:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverted tables on Balu Mahendra's filmography
Whats your rationale in this revert? Tables seemed good. In the present bulletted/column format, couple of films are chronologically disordered. Also being in 3 columns, regardless of year mentioned, it may tend to confuse an ordinary reader to read either in horizontal way or vertical way. Hence the format was changed. SeeWP:FILMOGRAPHY --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support)16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Since he made films predominantly in Tamil and we have a separate section for Notes Awards, I see no obvious benefit in having a table. And how does it confuse the readers when we include the year? —Vensatry(Ping)16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I got a request to make. If possible, can you take a look at Kadhalikka Neramillai and make a rough copy-edit before the actual c/e takes place? I also feel that the article doesn't read good at certain places and may need rephrasing. There may also be some contents that might not fit in here (like you pointed out earlier about Sridhar's childhood which I have addressed to the best I can). Particularly the second para under 'Filming'. It just feels out of place. I don't know if it can be rewritten in some other way. If and when you are free, spare some time. Thanks. -- Sriramspeak up06:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made some minor changes. The prose looks okay for a GA, but you need to avoid the usage of slang as they are non-encyclopedic. Otherwise, everything looks fine! —Vensatry(Ping)14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think he means that if you are going to upload any new images to KNI (as you are more experienced in the art of adding images and getting permission to use them), then he found some. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sriram, the site says "Photos are copyrighted by their owners". Flickr has no images of the location. Panoramio has quite a few images of the dam, but I don't think it has the image that you are in need of. It's upto you to request the uploader to release the images under a free license. —Vensatry(Ping)11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
On 10 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karma (1933 film), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Karma (1933) featured the longest kissing scene in the history of Indian cinema (screenshot pictured), lasting for about four minutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karma (1933 film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Yeah! Its not easy to improve a biographical article in a short span. By the time we are done with it, the death will no longer be 'recent'. So, we will just let this pass. -- Sriramspeak up02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think actually with a bit of work it could pass FA. I can spot a few sourcing and prose issues, not to mention the sub title system, but I think with a bit of effort we could get it up to FA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I'm currently working on Devika Rani. She is a legendary actress who may not be popular with the present generation like the Rais, Kapoors, Chopras, et al. Though I was a little hesitant when I first edited the article, now I'm pretty sure that it can be taken to GAN. Any thoughts? —Vensatry(Ping)14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Vensa, whatever happened of your plan to take Rajinikanth to FA status? I know the number of GA articles in Indian cinema is coming up well, with at least one film in each decade (except the 80's) now at GA status, and several biographies too. Though there are also a few FA articles in Bollywood, Kollywood seems to have none (Gemini 2002 and Ilaiyaraaja failed their FAC's). So I think that Kollywood is in dire need of at least one FA for the moment. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Yeah I'm currently working on it! let's see how it goes. @Kailash29792: I cannot give any guarantee for Rajinikanth, unless I get a biography on him. To be very frank, it needs a lot of work. To take an actor's biography who has over 150 films to his acting credit is a hard task. We don't have any model FAs on other Indian actors of his era. Even the "Khans" who came out much later don't have GAs. All that we have is FAs of some new-born Bollywood "beauties" who are just about 30-50 films old. One thing we should be proud is that Kollywood runs behind Bollywood in WP too. We don't have many GAs in other regional films. Considering that, what we have now is a big achievement! —Vensatry(Ping)15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Either of you can join WMUK and request books through a grant here if you're interested. I'm told you don't have to be British to join and apply for a grant. They can send the books like [3] to your address, anything you want, although you have to put in a formal request and it costs £5 for join WMUK. Obviously you'd have to use them to improve articles though and you have to send them back once used. I currently have a few books, including one on Meryl Streep and Kubrick's films which I'll be using in coming weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for quick reply. I am working on it. If you know someone who can help than please ping him for me. Regards -Nizil (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the film director ( in title ) is not Balu mahendra, but someone like Hareendran or Raveendran. It was a Balu film, but was abandonded. Later it was completed.
Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the article in the last three days. Is the expansion fivefold and does it quality for DYKrules? Can you help me with a DYK nom? -- Sriramspeak up11:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Good job! The article is just 31 chars short of a five-fold expansion; not a problem at all. Do you want me to nominate the article on your behalf? —Vensatry(Ping)11:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
May be try something like "Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum was India's first studio-backed short film made exclusively for the Internet". —Vensatry(Ping)11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That is what I thought. The reason why I asked you for the hook was because my first DYK of CIFF was disastrous. The views were too few. And the icing on the cake: the day it appeared on Main Page, the great Amitabh Bachchan, who was mentioned in the hook, had the least no. of views in that month!! -- Sriramspeak up11:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, atleast BigB could have grabbed a few eyeballs. Never mind. I have made the nom. Can you take a look and tell if everything is fine? -- Sriramspeak up11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The Eye of The Serpant by Theodore Baskaran was first published in 1996, whereas in Balu Mahendra, you have written 2013. Are we Wikipedians allowed to use the years of re-editions of books as references? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, "Are we Wikipedians allowed to use the years of re-editions of books as references", I don't understand your question here. —Vensatry(Ping)13:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The question was, when the book was originally released in 1996, why use the year of the re-edition? Is The Eye of the Serpant's 2013 edition so different? I normally use the re-edition's year only when there is something new in that which the original lacks. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)