Talk:1: Nenokkadine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.
 
WikiProject India / Andhra Pradesh / Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Andhra Pradesh (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014[edit]

plz let me edit their is wrong information provided 115.240.120.224 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Film Review Link Updated[edit]

49.205.61.82 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC) [1]

Question: I don't understand your request. That link is already in the article and works correctly. Please clarify. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

box office[edit]

1st day collections in AP were reported to be around 11.4cr (share).2nd day collections were around 10cr ap share.3rd day around 9 cr AP(share). Total first weekend ap share was around 30cr Vishwanath3939 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done the box-office sources are very unreliable and hence won't be added to the article. Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle sorties 11:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Video game - section blanking[edit]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: With reference to this revert, your edit summary tells "not a reliable source". The contents in the section cites http://www.123telugu.com. Either the issue could be brought to talk page or the creator/major contributor (@Raghusri) of the article or if this isn't a reliable source, it may be discussed at WP:RSN. Else {{Refimprove section}} could have been added to that section. Face-smile.svg Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

while "ref improve" could be used, removal of improperly sourced materials is also an equally valid option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it could be used. "Ref improve" could have been used and after a certain period of time, if no improvement is seen it could be blanked notifying the creator/major contributor. First you mentioned "not a reliable source" and now "improperly sourced", could you differentiate or educate me on that?
no practical difference - it fails to meet the criteria as outlined in WP:RS. it is not as if the person wishing to re-insert the content is unaware of the issues with the sourcing that they need to meet before restoring challenged content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

reviews- only professional review sites[edit]

We only include reviews from professional review sites, and we do not even need to include every "professional" review that we may find. The bloat with non professional reviews needs to be and stay trimmed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Nice, they are also Professional film news sources because Some times TOI source is using Gulte, Greatandhra as a Reference and 123T, IB and some other Sources also are needed because each Individual site will give their Own Review and Rating regarding any Film. So, we can found a lot of Difference between Reviews and Ratings from Individual sites. So, we can't say that it is Bloating (or) Repetition. So, you're Wrong. If you think that you are not Wrong then please Welcome the Editors you may Know. I am ready to discuss with them. Raghusri (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)