We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a chat group or a blog to discuss personal favourites.
My local time and date:11:00, 23 May 2017 IST[refresh]. Click here to refresh.
I make a few errors unknowingly and some due to technical glitches; thanks to my mobile browser. In such cases feel free to revert even before contacting me. If you're here because of an ongoing nomination at the FLC in which I'm involved, please don't place talkbacks as I'm watching it.
Attention to bad-faith editors: I have zero-tolerance limits for personal attacks. Trolls will be duly REPORTED.
If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
I want to make it a GA. If interested, can you let me know whether you are willing to review this? In case not, i would be grateful if you can suggest minor tweaks and changes that can be done about its prose, italicising, images etc. if any. Regards, ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about GAN but will suggest some 'tweaks'. Btw, great work on the article! —Vensatry(talk) 17:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Vensatry. I look forward to your help. Simhachalam next, but not before working on the films Lava Kusa, Nartanasala and Pellichoopulu. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 06:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Nartanasala is done and Pellichoopulu is dropped. I have begun work on Simhachalam and as per my assessment, half of the work is done till now. Would you like to comment on the progress? This is the version before i began the work and this is the latest one. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 15:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition, please apply your commonsense before arriving at ridiculous conclusions. —Vensatry(talk) 03:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall disagreeing with you, or saying you were wrong. Bollyjeff revealed an archived discussion in which Cyphoidbomb said Indic scripts may be added to infoboxes and even gave a a justified explanation on why they are right to add there. I said you disagree, because you have been following a contradictory RfC which I believe triumphs over Cyphoidbomb's explanation. Complying with that RfC, I began a genocide of infobox indic scripts, which I think attracted Jeff's attention who then revealed Cyphoidbomb's explanation to me (perhaps he didn't know about the contradictory RfC then). Am I wrong anywhere here about you? I don't think so. --Kailash29792(talk) 04:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, neither Bollyjeff nor Cyphoidbomb made any reference to me in this regard. But have a look at your response to the former: Unfortunately, Vensatry doesn't agree; he removed an indic script, citing WP:INDICSCRIPT. As if I was the one who initiated the RfC. Heck, I did not even have a say at the discussion? —Vensatry(talk) 06:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Vensatry, re: this, where was the RfC on this? I don't see that WT:ICTF was invited to the discussion. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. I see it was here. Bummer. That's going to make it more difficult for non-Indians to find sources for Indian films. If I don't know what a film's script looks like, I can't search for and translate references written in the native tongue. EthicEthnic-warring promotes ignorance once again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ethic? Or Ethnic? Anyway, I'm just as pleased as Cyphoidbomb is with the outcome of the RfC. Yet why do the fields "film name" and "native name" still exist, if Indic scripts are discouraged? Strangely, every other script is accepted (including Chinese, which has it's own infobox template). --Kailash29792(talk) 15:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: For native scripts, WP:ILL could be helpful. Kailash29792, the RfC is only applicable to articles that totally come under the scope of WP:INDIA. Infoboxes can have numerous parameters. It's not necessary that all fields need to be filled. —Vensatry(talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Kailash caught my typo. (Fixed above) So Vensatry, with the diff above, does Kabali come totally under the scope of WP:INDIA? Given how rarely members of that WikiProject even participate at ICTF, I could see a solid argument a local consensus could be established if members of ICTF feel that it's warranted. I could see issues with Baahubali, where people might be pissy about including Tamil in the infobox or Hindi (apparently much of the money made has been from the Hindi dub as people have been noting at List of highest-grossing and elsewhere) but that seems more like the exception than the rule. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It does; it was in fact directed and funded by Tamil filmmakers. I, personally, don't see a reason why native scripts be added to English Wikipedia articles. It's not just a case of Baahubali alone, but with articles like Rajinikanth as well. In fact, when I started around here, a guy was adamant to add Malayalam script to Kamal Haasan based on an emotional interview by the actor to a Malayalam media. If knowledge about scripts is important, as I said earlier, let them follow the inter-wiki links. I was able to find a few sources when I was working in this article. As for WP:ICTF, I really doubt its "existence". —Vensatry(talk) 03:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
As you once said, "the unwritten rule is that a nomination must have a minimum of three supports with no outstanding concerns". Trisha's filmography has received 2 supports (definitely no conflict of interest, both are unbiased reviews), would you like to conduct a review of it? --Kailash29792(talk) 14:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the first part. —Vensatry(talk) 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you meant a FLC needs at least 3 supports to pass, to which Skr15081997 replied that one ongoing FLC has received only two supports, and Ssven revealed that one of his FLCs received 4 supports; he then offered you to comment there. Like Ssven, I offered you to comment on my FLC, which has received only two reviews (both ended as supports) since last month. --Kailash29792(talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It has more to do with a user opening a second nomination while already having one on the queue. —Vensatry(talk) 17:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)