Talk:Biwi No.1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction reverting

Can be please discuss the problem here. What is wrong with the current version Mr. IP? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy who has multiple IP addresses kept adding some info without sourcing it properly (He used IMDb, which is not a WP:RS in this case). In addition to that, he used rude edit summaries and attacked me personally (don't know why, but he uses this particular page to do that). I once warned him, and then tried to talk to him and explain delicately how it works on here (Diff). After that, I even added a reliable source myself (Diff), but nothing helps, he keeps reverting me, attacking me in the edit summary, and just vandalising the article -- his last two edits are in violation of MOS:FILM and can be easily considered sneaky vandalism per WP:VANDAL because he deviously tries to make the film look bad. Shshshsh2 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see his edits as a deliberate act of vandalism, I think he genuinely thinks the article reads better his way. Clearly though he is mistaken, the article is fine as it is and his edits are not done in a way that obides by MOS:FILM. It really isn't so important to get involved in an edit war. Why not try to expand the intro and article. If the intro was expanded it would make even more sense and might be written in a way both of you approve of. Imdb whatever the case is not a reliable source. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that IMDB is not a reliable source. My question is - in the absence of any other sources, can IMDB be used as a reference? If not, I think it makes sense to tag the whole article (and for that matter a billion other articles on movies/actors etc) with "Citation needed". 64.154.26.251 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the version I'm reverting to best defines the subject of the article. The movie's raison d'etre was that it was a remake of an existing film. This Shahid guy seems to make every effort possible to block information like this. At first he wouldn't even allow IMDB as a valid source. The reference that was posted in regards to the the movie being a remake is the FIRST reference cited on this page. For an entry that has no reference to begin with, he sure is making a big deal about allowing an IMDB reference. (Personally, I believe this guy is a gung ho North Indian type who is blind to anything that is done in other parts of the world, but that's neither here nor there.) 64.154.26.251 (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me??? I tried to help you (despite your continuous personal attacks on me)!!! You added an IMDb source (which is unreliable), and instead of reverting you all the time, I added a reliable source myself. And you then took your second step. In violation of MOS:FILM, you shifted the note of it being a remake to the top, to emphasise it and make the film look bad. It is considered sneaky/hidden vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Shshshsh2 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if the movie makers don't acknowledge that they're remaking a movie, either by paying original makers of the movie, or by an explicit press release, certain idiots will be left in the dark about how a movie gets made. Also, the reverts were not a form of sneaky vandalism by any definition - the edit was factual and AFAIC the article reads better this way.

You are not here to decide what reads better. You tried to emphasise your truth. The fact that both Blofeld and myself think my version is better stands against you. And even without that, we are here to go according to policies and guidelines. MOS:FILM says clearly how should a lead look and be organised in a film article. You violated it. You called me an "asshole", a "chump" - WP:NPA. You cited IMDb - WP:RS. I added a source, and you kept reverting me and insulting me in the edit summary. Shshshsh2 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also please read Wikipedia:No personal attacksDr. Blofeld (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Shshshsh2 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What dictates "special appearance"? Is that POV? 64.154.26.251 (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, guest appearance and special appearance are short appearances of actors in a film. The director decides what is guest and what is special. Generally, special appearances are generally shorter. Shshshsh2 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

These changes that you are struggling with are basically content issues. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to work it out here but you are all drawing close to WP:3RR violations. I would say to the IP editor that your changes, while you are passionate about them, are not in line with the consensus here. Since Wikipedia is consensus driven you should immediately stop trying to force the changes.

To the registered editors I would remind you that the IP edits are not vandalism therefore you cannot revert without the danger of the WP:3RR violation.

I do not wish to protect the article but certainly will if it stops an edit war. I think you can reach the conclusions necessary for a fine article. Please do not hesitate to contact me if needed.

Thanks to you all, JodyB _talk 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the biggest grosser of 1999

Boxofficeindia.com has changed the rank for 1999 toppers. Biwi No.1 is No.2 for that year pipped by Hum Saath Saath Hein. Is it true? CuteRobin (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is true. - MaestroExtraordinaire98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrukhkhan1968 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biwi No.1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627045245/http://www.gomolo.in:80/Movie/Movie.aspx?mid=7548 to http://www.gomolo.in/Movie/Movie.aspx?mid=7548

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)