User talk:Krish!

Archives

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Kom (film) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RE:Hey! II

There was not anything I found wrong with List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film). Could you review 78th Academy Awards for me please? I would appreciate it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highway (2014 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Immensely value your patience on certain users grudge on your hard work. I'm sure everyone can see what's happening here. But keep your chin up mate. Your doing a great work. Daan0001 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Daan0001: Thank you. Well, i'm trying to be calm. But you can see, despite many supports, my article has still not passed the FLC and this is upsetting. All my FLC take more than a month to pass because of you know (everybody knows).Krish | Talk 07:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need to dial back the conspiracy theories. I've contributed to lots of FLs and my nominations can still take time to be promoted but I don't "blame" anyone for it and in fact some of the later comments can point out glaring issues that hadn't been picked up earlier. I just get on with working on the next one and engage politely with people's unresolved comments or review other people's lists if I have the time. Contributing to featured content is not about collecting "stars", it's about creating the best content you can. The "stars" are just motivation. Cowlibob (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: I meant to say that if you look at some people's comments on my flcs, then you would realise what that's all about. Some people pretend to be bust just for that flc. LOL. But they continue doing their work and will come up with one comment after one week and then their second after 15 days. Sometimes, they would come up with such silly problem that i laugh at it but i still try to solve it. If you can look at the Mary Kom flc then you can understand what i'm talking about.Krish | Talk 12:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. The reviewer started on August 11 then replied on 15 and has been replying on the FLC on an almost daily basis since [[1]]. Just because someone is active elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean they're ignoring the FLC. Editors often are working on multiple projects at once as well as real life activities so you can't expect them to prioritise work which is important to you over everything else. Cowlibob (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th Academy Awards/archive1

Could you please kindly proofread the 2015 Oscars for featured list promotion? I appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)

Hello! Your submission of List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Raveena Tandon filmography

Hello! Your submission of Raveena Tandon filmography at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Krish, when you've finished addressing the issues raised, please be sure to post on the nominations page so the review can continue. It's been over a week, so we need to hear from you soon, even if you haven't quite completed what needs to be done. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Kom (film)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I'd rather not clutter up another FrB.TG's page. I'm giving you advice on how to avoid getting into conflict with others and you respond with conspiracy theories yet again. Every conflict you have been on in Wikipedia has had an easier solution which would not lead to anger. You're not a special user, being on Wikipedia means you're going to run in conflict with others like every other user, what makes the difference is being able to handle it when it does. Next time you think of writing insulting, derogatory or hate-filled statements, just count to ten and think. Am I right in this situation? If so what statement or action could I do to allow the other person to agree with me. Insulting and harassing others, accusing them of being part of giant conspiracy or blindly reverting without giving a valid reason only leads to people not believing you even if you're correct. Cowlibob (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cowlibob Thank you for this advice. I will definitely count to ten and control my anger.Krish | Talk 12:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you reformed, [2] no isn't? —Vensatry _(ping) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you help me in passing that deserving flc? I can only see you are trying to take me down, down, and down.Krish | Talk 07:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you be polite? Given that, I don't even know you personally I don't have to bring you down, down, and down. I ain't a delegate. Please read PresN's note, there is no deadline. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Dookudu

This, is my first film awards list at the FLC. If interested, please leave your comments here. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I definitely will. Tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know.Krish | Talk 13:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This list has been promoted to FL status yesterday and is my first FL success. Thanks for reviewing/commenting/supporting the list's promotion at its FLC. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Raveena Tandon filmography

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For managing to bring List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film) to featured list status. Congratulations! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Pavan for this star. I don't get these often, like old times. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Artist accolades FLC

Hi there,

I understand your busy schedule, but Would you kindly please proofread List of accolades received by The Artist (film) for featured list conisderation. Frankie and I would appreciate the feedback.

BTW, I will look at your FLC very soon. In the meantime, I'll wait until further comments have been adressed by other reviewers before I give my own comments (or lend support). I don't want to repeat other comments. It looks promising though.

----Birdienest81 (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Priyanka Chopra

Portal:Priyanka Chopra, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Priyanka Chopra and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Priyanka Chopra during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Music

Hey she won this ? [3] [4] Also this is not the main page song meltdown is not on the list ? Daan0001 (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar

I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A gentle reminder! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum FAC

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Dharmadhyaksha Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, was very busy {also unactive) for the late reply.Krish | Talk 14:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Prashant, would you like to post comments on MM's FAC page? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I was actually reading your article.Krish | Talk 15:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

FLC

Hello there, please leave your comments at this FLC if interested. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Yashthepunisher Sorry for replying late. But, I was busy with my University exams. Now that it is over, I'll give a thorough read soon.Krish | Talk 16:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you please leave your comments ASAP, as its been open for two months now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical Reception of Bajirao Mastani

Hi there, I have noticed that you have removed "random" critic reviews from the critical reception section of the Bajirao Mastani article. I fail to see why this is necessary (I don't believe it is that long), neither to I understand how they are "random". I assume your edits are in good faith, I just don't see why. I have reverted the section back to my edit, so if you wish to make changes, I request that you explain your edits before doing so again. Thank you. 107.15.215.200 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And who are you? I don't need to explain you. Im working here for last three years and mostly on film related subjects. You don't even know about the guidelines of wikipedia.Krish | Talk 15:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna re-write it as your version says "praised this that blah blah blah" 10 times in every cited review.Krish | Talk 15:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I want to apologize if I have offended or insulted you in any way. I know you know what you are doing, and that's great. As I said, I assume your edits are in good faith. I do acknowledge the fact that my version does say "praise this..." a lot, and I will work on fixing that. I will also remove any repetitive/unnecessary reviews. I was only trying to find out where you were coming from when you said some of the critic reviews were "random", and was also just trying to create a balanced structure for the critical reception. In no way, again, was I trying to offend/insult you, and I can see why you questioned the way I talk. Although, I do understand that you may be more experienced than I am, especially on such film related topics, but I would like it if you considered what I am, and was, trying to say. I just want to apologize again, and thanks for your input. 107.15.215.200 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

From random, i meant the critics in those publications are not noted. That's all. Wikipedia works on notabilty and not fluff.Krish | Talk 17:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense. Sorry about all this confusion, and thanks for the clarification. 107.15.215.200 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can check when I'm done.Krish | Talk 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent films

Did you watch Dilwale and Bajirao Mastani? I'm just back from the screening of the later at Prasads IMAX, Hyderabad. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Saw only Bajirao Mastani and it was fab.Krish | Talk 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I too loved it. Esp. for the performances of Singh, Chopra, and Azmi. But i sincerely feel that Padukone should have worked on her Urdu accent. It hurts more as i live in Hyderabad where the Hindi spoken has a tinge of Urdu. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG! you have such incredible analysing power. I feel the same, though i don't know about the accent but Deepika was the weakest link of the film. I don't know why, she seemed like a robot. You cannot feel for the character despite her sufferings. While you start caring about Chopra's charcter, even if you don't want. Priyanka and Ranveer's best performance. And, Tanvi Azmi was just amazing. Infact, all the actors. Even the unkowns who played sisters of Bajirao, his brother, son, everyone held their own. Did you like the cinematography?Krish | Talk 16:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

First rate. Cinematography, music and the DI was amazing. Costumes and production design were another plus. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely right, every aspect of the film was outstanding. The film is going to win all the awards in acting category and the technical category. But i felt two songs could have been cut: "Mohe Rang Do Laal" (Mastani's kathak song) and Malhari. You liked these?Krish | Talk 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mohe Rang Do Laal" can stay, it was visually better than "Malhari". Singh looked a bit odd in the latter. I loved "Deewani Mastani" and "Pinga" compared to others. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Deewani Mastani and Pinga were brilliantly choreographed and are good compositions. I also loved Albela Sajan, a good song and beautifully shot. But, the best composition didn't make it to the final cut {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrCaNwoaVRw Fitoori]. This should have been ther instead of Malhari or Mohe rang. Listen to it, you will understand. Actually, the song was meant to be performed by Ankita Lokhande (Pavitra Rishta) as an item song or whatever. I mean her charater would have been of a dancer, for entertainment of Bajirao's "Mehfil" or whatever it is called. But it was cut. Plus a romantic song of Ranveer and Priyanka was shot but was cut for length issue, maybe after that bath scene but lyrics emphasize more on the situation after the arrival of Mastani. But, Fitoori would have added more power to the film instead of Mohe Rang Do and Malhari. Listen and tell me how is it?Krish | Talk 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good one, but the lyrics dominate the composition, which was better in the interludes. Me and my friends yesterday morning were discussing which pair would score—SRK-Kajol and Singh-Padukone. I said i don't know, as i cant straightaway speak when the "legendary" is in question. So we, a group of five, watched Dilwale in the afternoon and Bajirao Mastani in the night show. Dare i say, SRK-Kajol win, really win. But as a film, Bajirao Mastani scores over Dilwale. SRK-Kajol's simple scenes (esp. when he asks Kajol for another five minute date in the pre-climax), the casting, and two songs (Gerua, Janam Janam) are the only bright spots in Dilwale. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bajirao Mastani (film) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

I know we didn't quite get along in the past but let us forget everything during this holy period. Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. -- Frankie _talk 18:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I never had any problems with you, dude. In fact, i forget easily. I believe in good deeds that's all. Nevermind, let's start our friendship again. What's say? FrB.TG.Krish | Talk 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I stopped by here! Oh BTW I have heard audiences and critics speaking highly of Bajirao Mastani (especially Chopra in it). Have ya watched the film? -- Frankie _talk 17:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Chopra is extraordinary in the film. All the critics spoke highly about her performance. Chopra steals the film, Chopra makes most impact, Chopra is the surprise package, and some even said the film should have been called Bajirao Kashibai. I really loved her performance, not because I'm her fan, but the fact that she lived that character. I can only imagine what she would have done with the role of Mastani? She would have been much better Mastani than Deepika, who didn't do justice for the role. I mean Mastani is a complete package, a warrior, dancer and very beautiful. But Deepika only got the last thing right, which is off course the credit should be given to the make-up artist. For the film, I would say watch it, you will love it and you will end up watching it again. Such is the power of this film.Krish | Talk 18:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely I will. Oh have you watched Chopra in Jai Gangajal's trailer. Such a badass! -- Frankie _talk 23:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, actually, i was not not expecting anything from Jai Gangaajal. Since it is a Prakash Jha film (they are nice but always about politics and crime) and the fact that she shot the film in 25-30 days. But, after watching how much Natural she looks in the film, mouthing those incredibly powerful dialogues. I'm really looking forward to this one. When she says "I'll kill him", she reminds me of Tabu.Krish | Talk 04:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey! FrB.TG, Would you please check for mistakes in Chopra's lead segment. I have re-written it, tweaked it becasue previous text was over-crowded. Please check and thanks in advance.Krish | Talk 10:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually before your comments I was reading her article. It looked fine I made some minor changes. You can merge Bajirao Mastani to the previous sentence when she starts receiving accolades. Have a look and let me know if you disagree. -- Frankie _talk 10:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

True. But, I think we should wait until she receives some awards for her role. It's a shame she was overlooked at the Guild Awards, received nomination for Best Actess. She should have been nominated for Supporting actress and should have won also. Conversely, she received an award called "Global Star Honour". Really? At this point, she doesn't need such cheap titles. She is working in U.S., it doesn't need a stamp from Bollywood. Getting such a tacky title >>> Best Supporting actress? I don't think so. Its a shame that In India, organisers decide the winners and not a Jury. She should have refused that award. I also heard SLB was informed that he will receive Best Film, but this year's tacky-emotional joke Bajrangi Bhaijaan won instead. Plus, the never ending categories like Negative actor, comic actor, Entertainer of the Year, Jodi of the Year, Star of the Year. Ugh....No doubt Aamir stays away from this drama, but its the opposite of SRK and BIG B.Krish | Talk 11:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the Salman Khan starrer has an IMDb rating of 8.2. I have seen his other films' ratings on IMDb which are unsurprisingly low. -- Frankie _talk 17:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because Bajrangi Bhaijaan managed to pulled off a tacky trick to make its audience blind with fake emotions. Also, when you present Salman in a big hearted, loving, selfless character then its obvious people will talk high of the film. For me, it was and will remain a tacky film. I had predicted every scene before it played during watching that film. In fact, some ppl were crying in the climax and I was fuming over the fact, that a great film (Baahubali) was pulled out of theatres for showing this dirt. And, I don't believe IMDB ratings for Indian films. The users vote either for the Fav. stars and they vote down for stars they hate. Only few ratings on IMDb (of Indian films) are actual.Krish | Talk 14:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

While I agree it was predictable on parts, I think it is Khan's best film since Dabangg. -- Frankie _talk 22:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but don't you think its unfair to rate a film on the basis of previous films of actors. And, it has won 3 Best Film Award already. That's shame actually. For example The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and breaking Dawn Part 1 were worst films in the series (Infact all) but part 2 received positive as compared to these two. So does it make part 2 a gem? I don't think so. I hate this hypocrisy in Bollywood, Bajrangi Bhaaijan received positive reviews for the fact because it was a decent film since Dabanng. This means critics spoke high of Film in pity of Salman, which is kind of sad. Krish | Talk 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely not fair to rate a film based on how an actor's previous films were. I don't know what were critics thinking maybe because of its touching story though not quite well executed. -- Frankie _talk 08:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

In A year where you have films such as Bajirao Mastani, Piku, Badlapur, Masaan (the best of 2015), Margarita with Straw Dil Dhadakne Do. It's a shame that Bajrangi Bhaijaan is even nominated. In addition the latter three films are completely ignored.Krish | Talk 14:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, who cares? Just enjoy the films you watch and forget about the awards and all the drama. Happy new year. -- Frankie _talk 23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar

Mayabazar turns a FA! Thanks for your contribution as a reviewer. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Hi there! Would you mind looking at my first FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive2? -- Frankie _talk 09:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra edit summary

This kind of edit summary is not acceptable and reeks of original research and non-neutral point of view. Please refrain from using such language and comment based on sources and notability. Per WP:BRD you should raise a talk page discussion first and stop with the WP:OWN behavior. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, no hard feelings for you, don't take the above negatively, you are a brilliant editor. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No i haven't taken it seriously. What makes a film notable for Selected filmography? Tell me. A stellar performance or a corrupt award? Anushka Sharma was criticised for her performance in DDD, yet she got a nomination the Supporting category, which Chopra deserved more than anything. Now DDD became a noted film for Anushka just because of a nomination? But reviews says different story.

1. Telegraph - "It’s difficult to tell one Anushka Sharma character from another. Whether it’s a Rosie from then or a Farah from now, she is getting way too repetitive in her performances. And it’s not just about her appearance shot being in a waterbody one more time."

2. India-west - "Anushka Sharma does not get much scope but is her usual free and likable self, though she does not make any special effort."

And, there are several reviews. Less said about Kajol in Dilwale is better and Sonam in Dolly ki Doli. So, those panned performances can be added in selected category as noted just because they got a nomination. I don't think so. Everyone knows how Filmfare works. Ask Rishi Kapoor, who had admitted of buying Filmfare.Krish | Talk 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is where exact problem lies, you are letting the other reviews clout your judgement on Chopra's work. A film is notable for many reasons, commercial success, critical appreciation, momentum growth over time as well as post release popularity also. And yes, believe it or not, awards will definitely add to it. It is not for us to decide whether it is notable for selective filmography. Herein is the problem with your WP:OR I pointed out. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What if her performance is considered as one of the best performances of the year? Watch Rajeev Masand Roundtable, Anupama Chopra's hits and pits. Some list of Hindustan Times noting the character as one of the best along with, TWMR, PIKU and Shefali Shah in the same film. Plus the cast won Screen Award and she was nominated for Guild Awards, Stardust, Big Star?Krish | Talk 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a talk page discussion regarding this since we are agreeing to disagree. We need input from the other editors for such a thing, cannot go by our own assumptions. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is required. You need to look at Kangana's page as lot of films are added which didnt got her any nomination+flops (Woh Lamhe, Metro, widely panned+mixed performance review for kangna in Revolver Rani and Raaz, which got her no nominations). She also didnt recieve any filmfare noms for for Krrish 3 and TWM, does it make any less notable? Deepika's article has the same thing. She didn't recieve any Filmfare nominations for HNY and YJHD, but still they are listed. Both films got her at least a Guild or Screen nomination but no Filmfare.Krish | Talk 12:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Can I now add DDD there? I think Krrish and Krrish 3 also can be added because of their commercial success. Right?Krish | Talk 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I just can not believe how the Filmfare Awards completely ignored Irrfan Khan and Akshay Kumar (for Baby) and films like Baby, Titli and Fly Away Solo and nominated Shah Rukh Khan for Dilwale. -- Frankie _talk 16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I have no faith in any of the awards in Bollywood. Actually, these kinds of films are always awarded a consolation prize called Critics (Really?) Category. Masaan will win Best Debut Director, Best Film Critics and hopefully for Richa Chadha's Outstanding work will be rewarded with Best Actress Critics. Yes, It's a shame that these kind of films or you can say the BEST films and performances are not given their due. But, we can't do anything. I felt bad for Chopra (who is a mainstream actor), whose two Outstanding performances were overlooked in favour of pathetic/crap performances by Sonam and Kajol. Even a dumb villager can tell these two are among the worst performances of the year. Chopra, on other hand deserved Best Actress nod for DDD and BM. But that's not all she was thrown in Supporting category. Anushka's performance in DDD was given a nomination, but not Chopra's. Deepika was given for her not-so-deserving nomination for BM. Chopra was the STAR of Bajirao Mastani, and if anyone deserved Best Actress nomination, it was Chopra. But, when I see Chopra was overlooked for a performance by Sonam, it makes me angry. Last year, she was nominated by snubbing Parineeti.

The nominations should have been like this: Best Actor 1. Irrfan Khan -Talvar/Piku 2. Amitabh Bachchan -Piku 3. Ranveer Singh - Bajirao Mastani 4. Akshay Kumar -Baby 5. Ranveer Shorey -Titli 6. Varun Dhwan - Badlapur or Salman Khan -BB

Best Actress 1. Richa Chadha -Masaan 2. Kalki Koechlin - Margarita with A Straw 3. Deepika Padukone- Piku 4. Priyanka Chopra- Dil Dhadakne Do 5. Anushka Sharma- NH10 6. Kangana Ranaut -TWMR

This is a shame that best performances are overlooked for worst performances. SRK is hosting so he got the nomination.Krish | Talk 16:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with everything. The only credible film award in India is National Film Awards and some others but all of Bollywood awards are corrupt. Speaking of Sonam, I have nominated her article for FA here. Try to take a look. -- Frankie _talk 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Look what I was talking about "Kapoor next starred as a runaway bride in Dolly Ki Doli (2015), a comedy co-starring Pulkit Samrat, Rajkummar Rao and Varun Sharma.[79] Mint's Udita Jhunjhunwala criticised Kapoor's performance in the film, writing that her "range is too limited to bring alive a character that may have had heaps of potential on paper".[80] Shubhra Gupta wrote: "Kapoor is in almost every frame, and should have filled them all. But the treatment of the character shows up her limitations."[81] Despite this, Kapoor received her third nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards." This is SHAMEFUL. Just think of an international Director reading her article and even he will conclude that Filmfare are Bollywood's equivalent of Teen Choice Awards or MTV Movie Awards. LOL. I will look at your article tomorrow, as currently I'm watching Tom Hanks starrer Splash.Krish | Talk 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical response summaries

I think you've been long enough to know that reverting without providing a reasonable explanation and restoring unsourced content is not appropriate editing behavior. Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources." Where are the references that support the statement you restored? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am fed up of your drama. The whole Critical section is enough to say that the film was received positively and certain aspects of film were praised particularly. In fact it is well described in the critical recption section. Plus, from the awards table, its clear that film has been appreciated. It won Best Film and others. If you want i can add sources too but please dont create another drama.Krish | Talk 21:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, a summary of critical response should be directly attributed a specific voice. If you have a problem with doing that, take it up with WikiProject Film. Indian cinema is not a lawless land unto itself, it's still under the scope of that WikiProject, and still must adhere to the MOS. I don't have a problem with summarizing specific response like, "some criticism toward the film was focused on the the slow pacing" or some such thing, but attempting to summarize all critical response is problematic without a specific source. I will remind you that you never achieved consensus for this when it was discussed in August, so attempting to subvert that discussion by reinstating it at a later point, is just squirrely.

Moving along, this reversion, which you've again provided no rational explanation for, introduces content inconsistent with WP:TRAILER, which I'm sure I explained when I removed it. The film community does not care about mundane marketing activities like poster releases, interviews, television appearances, etc. That's not encyclopedic, it's run-of-the-mill crap that every film does. And really, what's encyclopedic about describing the media's interest in an actor's muscles? That's just absurd and creepy. So the burden falls to you for arguing for the inclusion of this information you have a compelling reason for why we should deviate from WP:TRAILER, much of that content should be cut. I will, however, conceded that some of the financial information tied to the release should probably remain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so the planned marketing through trailers, posters are pointless? And, in hollywood films, a viral campaign is encyclopedic? Would you like to clarify what are you talking about. I feel like, either you are against me or Indian cinema. Your every problem is either with me or Indian cinema. The Dark Knight article can have frivolous viral campaign and other things but aN Indian film can't have such things? The marketing section focuses on the film's strategy to connect with the audience as it opened better considering it was centred on an actress. So that is not pointless. You need to clear your thoughts.Krish | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As another editor has pointed out "Please do not take everything personally by throwing baseless accusations around, the world doesn't revolve around you. People can have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with you" Now, during the last lengthy conversation at Mary Kom (film), your entire counterargument seemed to involve pointing at other articles and saying that problems should be corrected elsewhere before they were corrected at Mary Kom. A ridiculous argument then, and your continuation of it here is equally as ridiculous. If you care about Indian cinema articles, then you should care that the content being added to articles isn't trivial nonsense, promotional fluff, unsourced summaries of all critical response, and so on. If you care about Indian cinema articles, then you should care that content being added is being added with integrity, that it's well sourced, that the references being used aren't garbage, and that it's consistent with MOS:FILM. That doesn't sound too hard to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bajirao Mastani (film)

I wish you best of luck, in case you have taken up the work to develop this article. It needs not just original research but improvement. I wish some user also creates and develop a soundtrack page for the film. Arjann (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, hate to jump in here, but without having looked at the article, I'm guessing Arjann means that the article needs a lot of REMOVAL of original research, since original research is not a good thing at Wikipedia, and adding it is not generally well-received. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Yes. You are right. I wrote that in a hurry. Changed the words. Arjann (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)