Hey mate! I got two questions. If the article passes the GA review, will it be just rated GA or will it automatically be checked for A class or FA class? And if the article fails the GA review, will the review process just cease or will it be checked for B or C class? Because the article is currently rated as a stub. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'll just be doing a GA review. FA and A class ratings are not areas I'm used to working in, and require somewhat different kinds of peer-review processes. As for the other ratings, I don't put too much weight into them (they're mostly helpful for WikiProjects on what to improve), but right now, the article looks to be at least a C, so I've changed it accordingly. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to do all those reviews. Just wanna know what is the common practice. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Since Sriram is a newbie (he joined in May 2013), I kindly request u to take the GA review of Gemini lightly and give him time to make improvements if any needed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys! I'm 4 and half months experienced. :) I don't know whether the article is good enough to deserve GA class, but GA or no GA, I know I have done a pretty good job with it. So, don't write me off that soon.
By the way, there is a small issue. While I was working on the article an editor (Vensatry) tagged the article with 'use mdy dates'. So, all the date are formatted for mdy. But recently, it was changed to 'use dmy dates'. I don't know what is the norm with dating format in wiki. That is the only issue I'm concerned about. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It is better to use the DMY format, as it looks more professional than the MDY format (followed mostly by Americans). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Kailash in that one format is necessarily better or preferred than the other, but it is important to be consistent within the article. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Then all through the article, the date format is maintained mdy. Only that it was tagged with 'use dmy' yesterday. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
One more thing. Since there are no other Tamil film of the same name, I'm considering moving the page to Gemini (Tamil film). Is that okay? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but I would wait until my assessment is over. Moving the article might mess with the GA nomination updates unexpectedly. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I expected that. Won't be moving it until the review is done with. Thanks. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have seen the article, you should have noticed that the film was remade in another language with the same name. That is why it requires to be noted as a Tamil film for disam. Gemini#Film_and_theatre -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Edited most of the suggestions for plot. Still thinking how to rephrase "Following the killing". And thinking of an alternative for rowdyism. Can't we use Indian English? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey I, JethroBT! I have added some commas to the sentence. See if it is decipherable now. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Indian English. What does rowdyism mean, and can you point to sources to show how it's used? I, JethroBTdrop me a line 07:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure. For an Indian, 'rowdyism' is like almost irreplaceable. Check these links.  -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It looks like it's used in a number of news sources (even ones in the U.S.) I guess I just don't see it very often. I think it's fine if you'd like to use "rowdyism" instead of my suggestions. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll keep working on the plot. Meanwhile, you can check the other sections. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Why I used, 'Again a gangster flick': Because the director is known for directing such movies. The other two movies mentioned before the phrase were also based on gangsters.
Sure, I understand that. I think my suggestion implies the director's reputation for making such movies. But "the film was again a gangster flick" is awkward English writing; again is an adverb and it is much more natural to say that this particular film is also a gangster flick. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
But in that context, wouldn't it mean that apart from being something, it was also a gangster flick? -- Sriramspeak up 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but I've made an edit that should address that concern. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
But almost all of his films are based on the lives of outlaws. He even made two other films of the similar genre before making Gemini. -- Sriramspeak up 07:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind it's not really important to detail the reputation of the director on an article that's about a single film. This is the kind of content that belongs on an article for the director. That said, I think saying "Like most of Saran's previous titles, Erumugham was also a gangster film" should be sufficient. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I just read your suggestion on my talk page ("As with most of his films..."). This works well, too. Also, please try to keep your comments on here-- it's a little hard to follow when the discussion is going on in different places. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
'Negative shades'. If you have followed the citation, you would have known. It was planned to make him a villain at the end. He looks like a good guy but becomes bad later. But that plan was changed bcoz of the cited reason.
I did follow the citation. Negative shades is not used in the source, and is an WP:IDIOM that needs to be more literal, which I'll note above. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't use it as it is in the citations. Those material can be have POV, but wiki can't; they can have puffery, but wiki can't.-- Sriramspeak up 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to use the exact same language as the source, but to summarize it in a more literal way. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
'Chaste' means unadulterated. Like in literature. A chaste woman is one who follows chastity. Similarly, it means the lyrics are usually in pure Tamil and not as used in daily conversations.
This seems somewhat WP:POV. Rather than present the idea that the language is "tainted" (which carries a definite negative connotation), consider saying that Tamil was "mixed with" other languages or something more neutral.
About 'next Rajnikanth'. Its like a big prestige here. to be called a superstar. The media keeps debating who is the next superstar which is currently Rajinikanth.
I never took issue with this-- I only stated there's an extra space after the open quotes regarding that statement. The statement is totally fine. The extra space should be removed. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The film did not stop running after 25 days. Its more like a landmark. When someone says, "Sachin who was in his 90s at the close of play yesterday completed his century", it doesn't mean he got out after scoring century.
Oh, well that wasn't clear before in the original phrasing. Something along the lines of "The film successfully ran for at least 125 days" might be better, then. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds weird. How about 'more than 125 days'? -- Sriramspeak up 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Will make the other necessary changes meanwhile. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I, JethroBT Please Y the issues that have been addressed so that we can sort out the remaining things. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, Manorama is female. Now the role. Check reference #29. "The enigma surrounding Manorama's entry eventually fizzles out as a case of much ado about nothing". It was actually supposed to be a pivotal role. Just that it din't live up to it.
Corrected-- sorry. The source suggests there was something unanswered about her role, but it doesn't really suggest that it was supposed to be pivotal, so I would drop this wording. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
For the 'O Podu' tag: the reason I din't cite any reference is that is no single reference material that supports the claim explicitly. I can find some sources, but nothing reliable. But if all you need is proof here they are . just search for the term 'o podu' and you will find it.
OK, then just use one of those sources. They're from The Hindu-- are they unreliable for some reason I'm not aware of? I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
They are reliable sources but they only mention in once or twice. It doesn't explicitly say that she got her name that way. I think it WP:OBVIOUS. -- Sriramspeak up 07:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree-- I don't think you need a source that comes out an explicitly states this given the context. Either one of those sources should be sufficient. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
'Rubbished reports'- Did you follow the link. I think you would have missed some content that appears below a row of promotional ads. Scroll down and read it completely. There are 4 paragraphs in all. Check out the 3rd one. The one below the ads. -- Sriramspeak up 05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I followed the link and read it all-- the problem is not whether I've read the sources but that I do not understand the connection between what you've written and what the source says. So pointing back to the source and saying "read it again" is very unhelpful (and kind of condescending). "Rubbished the reports" sounds strange as it is and if it's referring to the micro-blogging webpage post, this very unclear. I'd suggest just saying that, on a blog post, he denied the rumors. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Denied suggests it way polite. Rubbished means he treated those reports as trash.  says "nonsense, as in writing or art: sentimental rubbish." -- Sriramspeak up 07:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Kailash has fixed this. Hope that works. -- Sriramspeak up 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that "deny" carries a "polite" connotation. It describes the response literally without editorializing. "Rubbish" is also scarcely used as a verb, and although I can't speak to its usage in other parts of the world, it is not common in the United States and typically only used as a noun in the UK. You have to trust me, as a native speaker (which you have told me you are not), that it comes off as odd. Kailash's changes are acceptable. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, with all due respect, I'm not satisfied with these two changes.  and 
With respect to the 1st one: I don't know if you read my comments in the discussion section. Please do. This change looks lengthy. How about this, "As with most of his films..."?
And the 2nd: "contained language from the local dialect"? What I wanted to convey was that not only is his lyrics usually in Tamil (only Tamil) but also they are poetic (Which means grammatically perfect, as they appear in great literary works). You know, its like the difference between 'My Heart will go on' by Celine Dion and something like 'Ass like that' by Eminem. -- Sriramspeak up 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've moved these from my talk page-- please keep the discussion here as it's cumbersome to follow in multiple places. With regard to the 1st one, I think that phrasing is just fine and I've commented above. As for the 2nd, "poetic" does not mean "grammatically perfect," at least, not any in well-understood sense of the word. (Many poets blatantly abandon standard grammar structure, anyway). Using "poetic" in this context sounds like an opinion describing the beauty or artistic value of the one language while berating the other, which is original research unless there is a source to support this. We can't just make commentary on languages in this manner because it is non-neutral. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest this: "The film, which was to be produced by Lakshmi Productions, was titled Erumugham"? I don't think there is a necessity to use 'initially' or 'earlier' as the title was for the Ajith-Saran film. When he started again, everything changed from the title, the producer to the artists. —— Sriramspeak up 03:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
You might have noticed most of the sources are from The Hindu. The reason is that, although news reports and film reviews about the film was published in other leading English newspapers, I do not know exactly what was published when. The only thing I knew was that I saw the movie in theatres during the theatrical run and that the movie was commercially successful. When I stumbled upon the article a few months back, I was shocked to see the article had very little content and was a stub. So I started developing it.
Though articles about the film may be available in the official websites of other English dailies, the search within those sites aren't really working. So unless i know the exact date when a news appeared and the title of the article as it appeared, it is very difficult to retrieve them now. And it is a decade old film.
And sources of info in Tamil aren't easy to find. You might have noticed that an actor called Gemini Ganesan played a cameo in this film. Since he's a big star, the search for 'Gemini' most often points to the actor and not the film.
I have found a source though.  Its from an evening newspaper in Tamil Nadu. Its about the Golden Jubilee celebration of AVM Productions. There is an interesting trivia about the naming of the film that says:
"விக்ரமை வைத்து படம் எடுக்க சரவணன் தீர்மானித்தார். "சேது" படத்தில் மன நோயாளியாக _ மாறுபட்ட வேடத்தில் விக்ரம் பிரமாதமாக நடித்து, திரை உலகில் தனக்கென தனி பாணியை உருவாக்கிக் கொண்டிருந்தார். அவரை மாறுபட்ட வேடத்தில் நடிக்க வைக்க ஒரு கதையை உருவாக்கினார்கள்.
படத்துக்கு என்ன பெயர் வைக்கலாம் என்று யோசித்தார்கள். பலரும் பலவிதமான யோசனைகளைத் தெரிவிக்க, கடைசியில் "ஜெமினி" என்ற பெயர் சரவணனுக்குப் பிடித்துப் போயிற்று.
ஆயினும், ஜெமினி என்பது இன்னொரு புகழ் பெற்ற திரைப்பட நிறுவனத்தின் பெயராதலால், அந்தப் பெயரை படத்துக்கு வைக்கலாமா என்ற கேள்வி எழுந்தது. இது பற்றி "ஜெமினி" எஸ்.எஸ்.வாசனின் மகனும், ஆனந்த விகடன் ஆசிரியருமான எஸ்.பாலசுப்பிரமணியனுக்கு சரவணன் கடிதம் எழுதினார். பாலசுப்பிரமணியன், ஜெமினி என்று பெயர் சூட்ட முழு சம்மதம் தெரிவித்ததுடன், படத்தின் வெற்றிக்கு தன் ஆசியையும் வழங்கினார்.
"ஜெமினி"யின் கதை, வசனம், டைரக்ஷன் பொறுப்புகளை சரண் ஏற்றார். இசை: பரத்வாஜ். விக்ரம் ஜோடியாக கிரண் நடித்தார்.
12_4_2004 அன்று வெளிவந்த "ஜெமினி", மிகப்பெரிய வெற்றிப்படமாக அமைந்தது. அதில் இடம் பெற்ற "ஓ, போடு" என்ற பாடல், மூலை முடுக்கெல்லாம் எதிரொலித்தது.
"ஜெமினி" படத்துக்கு விநியோக உரிமை பெற்றவர்கள் பெரிய லாபம் அடைந்தனர். போட்ட பணத்தை விட 2 மடங்கு லாபம் கிடைத்தது."
Translates to.. "M Saravanan decided to make a film starring Vikram. Vikram had created a style for himself by playing a role of a mentally challenged guy to perfection in Sethu. Saravanan wanted to make him act in a different role. When he was thinking about titling the film, many people gave many titles. He was satisfied with the title Gemini. But Gemini is the name of a famous film studio, Gemini Studios. So he wrote to Gemini Studios owner S. S. Vasan's son S. Balasubramanian. Balasubramaniam gave the nod to use the title. And he gave his wishes for the film's success. The story. screenplay and direction was by Saran. Music by Bharathwaj. Kiran paired up with Vikram. Released on 12-4-2004, the film was a big commercial success. The song 'O Podu' echoed in the nook and corner. The distributor saw more than twice in profit." —— Sriramspeak up 03:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice find. I think some of these details would be good additions to the production section. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved, and effectively withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. According to WP:NCF, we disambiguate films first by year and then additional disambiguators if more than one film of that title was released. Since there was more than one film titled Gemini released in 2002, we use both 2002 and an additional disambiguator. BOVINEBOY2008 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
When one disambiguation does the job, why use two? The purpose of disambiguation is to distinguish between multiple entries of the same name. -- Sriramspeak up 06:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Now let us not try to defy WP:NCF, for the article name is already perfect. I oppose the move. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I din't know about NCF. If that is how it works here, I'm fine. Thanks. -- Sriramspeak up 07:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
During the copyedit, a few things came to light that may need attention:
"the market issue" - which one? the take-over, or the fighting there, or some other issue?
"To win back her affection" - I went with this one, though it could have been "To gain her attention back"
"He disturbs Gemini" - to me this means "He scares/frightens Gemini", perhaps "He approaches", meaning "He goes to talk to him"
"Gemini had thrashed Teja" - with what? If it was his fists = beaten, if a whip or similar thrashed is correct, but perhaps state with what he was thrashed. If this means easily beats him, then that should be put in that way.
Cast list is "XXX as XXX: description and notes" or "XXX played by XXX: description and notes" as per MoS Film - cast
"his best wishes to the team" - the ref (translated by Google, so it may not be spot-on) says "wishes for the film", but that they were sent to the team.
"contained slang terms in addition to words from other languages such as "Deewana"." - needs clarification. As I cannot find a language called Deewana I can only assume it is a slang term for the type of film in another language - however, it should be made clear which language is not "other languages". It can be assumed Tamil and "other languages", but please make sure this is made clear
"The film was released with 104 prints across Tamil Nadu, which is a first for a Vikram film." - what exactly is unusual about this? Is it less, is it more than usual, is it twice as many as the next on the list? etc.
Quotations should be as they are in the original. If adding ..., the ellipsis should be enclosed in square brackets, [...], with a space before and afterwards.
Try to ensure that a full-stop (or period), is placed as it is "in the original." rather than "in the original".
Checked for basic copyvio using Duplication Detector against 3 main refs
Citation bot failed to run (hung)
Ran dmy check script
Dashes script not run
Enabled feedback tool
Good luck with the FA! Chaosdruid (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You have put "he" back into the plot after the DGP kills Teja - apologies for changing that. I did not realise it was the DGP that all those he's were referring to. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is currently written in British English, despite being an Indian subject (well, Indian English borrows a lot from British). The template is therefore frequently being changed by an editor who claims that " All India topics should use Ind.Eng per policy". But I think he is aware that if a template is changed, the whole article will have to be rewritten. The FA review has so far not made any complaint on the language being used. So should the article be rewritten entirely in Indian English or remain British? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt many changes to the article are required. There are limited differences between written Indian and British English. Regarding the policy, WP:ENGVAR states, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
Its quite obvious that a Tamil language film has stronger ties to India than the UK. Thanks. BigJolly9 (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile Mother India and Sholay (both are FA's) are currently in British English, but are Indian films. Does this mean they should also have template changing and rewriting despite having passed their FA reviews in British English? Their fate should apply to this as well. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of India related articles are currently tagged British English, because the British English template is far older. They are being changed over time. Most of these require little re-writing because the written forms of the two varieties are similar. Spoken Indian and British English is an entirely different matter. WP India also requires Indian English in its MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles), "Use only Indian English spellings as per the guidelines for India related pages." BigJolly9 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is an Ind.Eng template, then it would be more appropriate. Although British Eng may seem more professional (just my opinion), since this article will be read predominantly by Indians, Ind. Eng should be used. I had used a word 'rowdyism' very frequently found in Ind.Eng but apparently the GA reviewer (who is from Chicago) haven't come across its usage. And I was left for fend for myself and prove it. I believe Brit Eng will rob the article of its soul. -- Sriramspeak up 14:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sriram, if u feel the English in the article looks Indian enough, then the template can stay. Otherwise it needs rewriting. Ask the FA reviewer what to do. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, I can't exactly distinguish between them. Even if I can, what I feel doesn't really matter. Unless someone raise an issue regarding the same, let it remain. If someone has an issue, let them fix it. -- Sriramspeak up 16:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To be precise, I support ur decision. I too cannot distinguish between Indian and British English, but for now let it be in Indian English. Meanwhile u can invite more editors to the FA review of Gemini, because a FAC is always reviewed by multiple experienced users. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The IMDB link for the Telegu film uses "Gemini"  (and a combined film page for both films), so as I said, seems to be an alternate title for it. And it's not just IMDB www.telugu-news.com/cinema/reviews/2423_gemini.html -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Rajinikanth is also known as Rajnikanth, Suriya aka Surya, but nouns should be named as in the original. Since the film was a remake of the Tamil film of the same name, it has been widely reported in the media with the spelling 'Gemini', but the film was actually titled 'Gemeni' as can be verified from here, and a source explicitly proving the same here. -- Sriramspeak up 15:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That's my point, the Telegu film is also known as "Gemini", so this film should remain with "Tamil" attached, because the media called the other film "Gemini" as well. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per 188.8.131.52. The ambiguity exists in the real world, so unambiguous disambiguation, which is what we have now, is helpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment Check highlighted talk page. -- Sriramspeak up 17:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per In ictu oculi. There is no reason to eliminate a disambiguator which truly serves to alleviate any possible reader confusion. Xoloz (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.