User talk:Bollyjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy New Year, Bollyjeff[edit]

Talk:Ranveer Singh[edit]

Hi Bolly, can you please share your opinion here? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sholay main page[edit]

Hi, do u have any plans of making Sholay appear on the main page? Bcos it appears like a vulnerable and unprotected article due to the film's popularity that may make it lose its FA status, I request u to do something quickly. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Due to the film's cult status and popularity, ip users (and newly registered users too) may destroy the article, and their edits may go unnoticed. That is why I fear the article may soon become unworthy of its FA status. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Apart from just providing readers with complete knowledge, it was made a FA, with the an intention of appearing on the main page (get it? Featured article). If it is denied what it was made for, then that is cruel. If Mother India could appear on the main page, I don't see why Sholay can't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally, Sholay to appear on the main page. A TFA bot has protected it till 9 march 2014, suggesting that may be the date it will appear as TFA. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
But it shows some hill as the picture. Can we request them to show the poster instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

HAHK....![edit]

Well, I have got few interesting sources, the one is about its success The release of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was a defining moment in the box office history of Hindi cinema. Hum Aapke Hain was a limited release on hand picked theatres by the makers of the film and prints were only given if theatres were upgraded to a certain level. Due to unparalleled demand for the film after its release, exhibitors upgraded their theatres to get prints of the film. This resulted in ticket prices going up heavily and the family audience which rarely ventured into cinema halls at the time due to sub standard theatres came back in full force and not only did Hum Aapke Hain Kaun smash all records but took business for films released afterwards to another level. To put into perspective how business changed after Hum Aapke Hain Kaun is that before Hum Aapke Hain Kaun an all India share of 10 crore for a big film was regarded as blockbuster business but after Hum Aapke Hain Kaun the blockbuster business figure went to 20 crore.


and the other has intersting infos.—Prashant 14:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh[edit]

Hi Bolly, have you seen TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) going on removing the film names from all tables? We have had a consensus against this at the talk page of Ranveer Singh as you might remember, however, going on edit warring on this, violating WP:3RR continuously, this is not the way to handle things! Haven't we requested the user to time and again raise this concern in the proper channels like the MOS:films or the Wikiproject films? He/She has failed to do this instead is choosing to edit war. What are your suggestions for this? I have raised this concern with Smarojit/Krimuk also. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ranveer Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is now converted to simple straight fonts[edit]

The template is now converted to simple straight fonts and is not italics.
As we know that on Wikipedia,Box Office India is used as the primary source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films.On 20 January 2014,Box Office India revamped its website completely.There is separate page of actors ,actress,each Bollywood film on Box Office India. Its on the lines of reliable sources Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. For Bollywood films,Box Office India template has to kept for Bollywood films -specific details--Nehapant19 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Box Office India[edit]

Of late, many BOI links seem to be dead (as in the case of Sholay and MeA). Therefore I think we must periodically patrol every single Bollywood GA/FA (like Batman and Daredevil spend their nights jumping from roof to roof) and repair all the BOI links with help from Checklinks. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Kailash, I raised the issue much earlier here. They are all dead, if any moment a GA or FA goes under review it stands the risk of getting failed. Soham 15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thankfully, the Wayback Machine seems to have them all archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes but who will add them? Soham 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That just gives us a sign of relief that all evidence is not destroyed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To soon to comment about whether they are all present or not. Lets hold a drive over at WP:ICTF. Whacha think? Soham 16:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You all having a nice conversation on my talk page? Yes, a drive sounds fun. BollyJeff | talk 17:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Think so. Lets start. Soham 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:Track listing[edit]

No, whoever that ip address was reopened it- I just commented later on and kept the box at the top open when it was re-closed. That being said, I don't think we need to have explicit oppose votes right now- it's pretty clear how every person involved would vote, and the discussion has just stalled out into a no-consensus sniping of opposing aesthetic views, so it looks like the template will just stay as it is. --PresN 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood movie article changes[edit]

Thank you for clarifying that. I understand that Wikipedia has some rules and guidelines, and I respect them. I apologise, but I also feel that if you had just told me that initially, some unpleasantness might have been avoided.

Anyway, while I respect Wikipedia's rules, I sincerely request you to, if possible, try to initiate a little change to the Original Research rule, because currently, it does not let Wikipedia become the point from which the acknowledgement of a certain issue begins. Speaking specifically of this issue, one of the reasons male stars have undeservedly received top billing in certain Bollywood films for so long and continue to do so is that no one seems to be even talking about it, let alone speaking against it. So if this issue can be brought up in a Wikipedia article only if there are separate articles on other websites acknowledging it for every single film in which it is relevant, then it is next to impossible to mention it. As you said yourself, you only found a solitary article acknowledging this issue, and it is virtually impossible to find articles that talk about it for each film, especially if the films are not very popular, such as What's Your Rashee.

Perhaps a relevant change would be that if someone posts facts that can easily be verified (such as who received top billing in a film and how many films that actor has done as opposed to the actress) by simply watching the film or at IMDB or Wikipedia itself, it should be allowed as long as it does not contain an opinion. This is something I was particularly careful about while adding the information to those articles.

This is only a suggestion, and if Wikipedia does not wish to do this and become the source of debate on issues like this, I would respect that and not make any such revisions in the future. However, I would like to point out that there are many articles about Bollywood films that contain uncited and incorrect information but are not changed, often because the films are not popular enough. I daresay these violate the Original Research rules much more than my revisions did, as many of them clearly seek to push an opinion or promote an actor. 122.179.154.60 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding this here here in case you IP changed again:
It definitely does not belong in the lead, which is a summary of the important parts of entire article, but if you can find a reliable third party source article (see WP:CITE and WP:RS) that clear mentions the billing inequity for a particular film, then it can be added maybe in the casting or release section of that film. Otherwise, if it is just an observation on your part, it cannot be added, because it amounts to original research (see WP:OR). Try familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies before making a bunch of edits that may be rightfully reverted by other editors. Here is a good place to start: Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. Also, if you create an account, you will always have the same name, not a random IP. BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I searched and could not find any articles bemoaning Priyanka not getting top billing for Raashee, but maybe you can find one. I did find one about SRK starting to give women top billing in his films from Times of India. It was used in Chennai Express, and says that it is traditional for male stars to be placed first. That doesn't mean that you should add this to every film article though. Hopefully you understand now that wikipedia is based on sources such as books, newspapers, and magazines, and not the observations of its editors. BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but although you may have valid points about the inequity, Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought or a vehicle to promote change; it is an encyclopedia. You are welcomed and encouraged to improve any and all articles that are lacking information, sources, or have improper promotional content. BollyJeff | talk 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaku India returns[edit]

The adamant user Shaku India's never-ending efforts to "clean" the colourisation section of Mughal-e-Azam are back again. Bcos he claims all the cited material is "wrong" and keeps removing them with no-one to support him, I request u to check the sources and see if he was correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bcos everyone supports yours and Blofeld's verified edits in the section while no-one supports Shaku's original research, it is just best to block her (Shaku is female) due to her adamant nature. I have already ARV'ed her. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Sholay[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Sholay know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ramdevarabetta hill

Sholay is a 1975 action-adventure Indian Hindi film directed by Ramesh Sippy and produced by G. P. Sippy. Shot in the rocky terrain of Ramanagara (pictured), the film follows two criminals, Veeru and Jai (played by Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan), hired by a retired police officer (Sanjeev Kumar) to capture the ruthless dacoit Gabbar Singh (Amjad Khan). When first released, Sholay received negative critical reviews and a tepid commercial response, but favourable word-of-mouth publicity helped it to become a box office success. It broke records for continuous showings in many theatres across India, and ran for more than five years at Mumbai's Minerva theatre. The film drew heavily from the conventions of Westerns, and is a defining example of the masala genre. The film's dialogues and certain characters became extremely popular, contributing to numerous cultural memes and becoming part of India's daily vernacular. In 2002, Sholay ranked first in the British Film Institute's list of "Top 10 Indian Films" of all time. It was re-released in 3D in January 2014. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The date does not signify anything for the film. But that's ok, it's appearing in the main page at least :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, again[edit]

Hi, can you comment here? Thanks. --krimuk 90 04:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Koffee with Rahul[edit]

Welcome to Koffee with Rahul! Smaro and I are competing for the hamper. Let's see how you do! ;)

  1. Rank in order of acting talent: Deepika, Kareena, Katrina, Priyanka, Vidya
  2. Rank in order of acting talent: Aamir, Hrithik, Ranbir, Salman, Shahrukh
  3. The number one actor and actress today
  4. An over-rated actor and actress
  5. Who has a brighter future: Alia, Anushka, Parineeti, Shraddha, Sonakshi, Sonam
  6. Who has a brighter future: Aditya, Arjun, Ranveer, Sidharth, Sushant, Varun
  7. A film you think was over-rated
  8. A recent film that you saw that you liked/hated
  9. Vidya's best performance/film
  10. Your top 5 favourite films within the past 10 years (2003-13) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 05:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Fine! :P Speaking of Chopra, what are your thoughts on the recent sub-section that was created in her "acting career" section? -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You've been missing out buddy! If not one of, but Irrfan Khan can easily be called Bollywood's most under-rated actor. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..![edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

HANK...![edit]

I can translate the video in Hindi for you. —Soham 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • 1:14:43 — Damn lot of time. —Soham 09:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DOB Sourcing[edit]

Just the one source is ok but if you look [[1]] when I removed it, it wasn't sourced. I'm not sure if you thought it was? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your extraordinary hard work, care and precision in your contributions, I award you this accolade. Your intense passion for your interests is surely influential. It's been a pleasure and a privilege to be learning from you. Your articles are phenomenally meticulous. So thank you very much for your service to Wikipedia. Seabuckthorn  23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Corona indossata dalla regina elisabetta alla cerimonia di proclamazione del regno di romania, 10-22 maggio 1881.JPG Like an Emperor
Sholay is today's FA. And it has come this far thanks to all your efforts. So you deserve this crown - like an emperor. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Make it two, Jeff. One from me as well for your hardwork. —Soham (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hell, yeah! Great seeing Sholay on the main page, Bollyjeff. Well done. :) -- KRIMUK90  09:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! BollyJeff | talk 01:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I saw Sholay as Today's Featured Article and wanted to congratulate you a job well done. I have enjoyed perusing your film articles over the past few weeks since seeing Sholay at TFA/R. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too! :-) Keep up the good work! AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Rani Mukerji[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Rani Mukerji know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Rani Mukerji

Rani Mukerji (born 1978) is an Indian film actress. Through her successful Bollywood (Hindi film) acting career, she has become one of the most high-profile celebrities in India. Mukerji has received seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations, and her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in mainstream Hindi cinema. Mukerji began a full-time career in film in 1997 and had her first major success with the 1998 romance Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. In 2002 she was acclaimed for her role in the relationship drama Saathiya, and by the year 2004 she had established herself as a leading actress of Bollywood with roles in the romantic comedy Hum Tum and the dramas Yuva and Veer-Zaara. She achieved further success for her leading roles in Black (2005) and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006). After starring in a series of unsuccessful films, she featured in the successful thrillers No One Killed Jessica (2011) and Talaash: The Answer Lies Within (2012). In addition to acting in films, Mukerji has been actively involved with several humanitarian causes and is vocal about issues faced by women and children. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Despite the limited information available on the making of Hum Aapke Hain Koun, you managed to take it to GA status, against all odds. So congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hum Aapke Hain Koun..![edit]

The article Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What next?[edit]

Now you have made an excellent achievement by making a GA/FA out of at least one article in different decades like Mughal-e-Azam (60's), Sholay (70's) and Hum Aapke Hai Kaun (90's). Mother India (50's) is also a FA if you knew. So what next? Should it be Alam Ara (30's) or any 80's film? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what is next? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Deewar (1975 film) might be a good one. It is one of the few Indian films in my 1001 movies book and it has it but not Sholay of the same year!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Dr. Blofeld, 1001 movies book? Do you have a link for the same. Vensatry (Ping) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Strongly recommend it. I have the 2011 edition with Tinker Tailor on the cover. You can buy it here. One of the best books I've ever bought. Will watch Ukigusa later, saw India Song earlier.. It has very few Indian film in it aside from the Apu trilogy, I think Deewar is the only Bollywood film in the book. They should do spin offs like 101 Indian Movies You Must See Before You Die! The book is compiled by tons of notable critics and scholars who've whittled down the list. They seem to rate Deewar as the greatest/most prominent Bollywood movie. Might be worth working on it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to know that Deewar is the only Bollywood film which finds a mention. Any films from regional cinema apart from The Apu Trilogy? Vensatry (Ping) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jalsaghar and Meghe Dhaka Tara are the only other Indian films I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it has some regional flavour albeit restricted to Bengali films :) Vensatry (Ping) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have used that as a source in Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and it is listed here along with Mother India too, both Bollywood. Since they do not break it down by country on the web, it's hard to know what else is in there. Of course, it you own the book, you can read it. Looks like they update it sometimes. BollyJeff | talk 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, so it actually has three Bollywood films in the 2012 edition, my mistake, I missed that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I may work on Bicycle Thieves next. It is a film that I like, and is listed as level 4 vital article.

Veronica Linklater[edit]

You did not provide a reason for reverting. Quis separabit? 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Looked like vandalism. I apologize if it was a mistake. BollyJeff | talk 01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problems. Thanks for looking out. Quis separabit? 02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pather Panchali comments[edit]

Hi. No I did not notice your comments in the talk page. Now I am going to attend to those. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)