Talk:Chak De! India/Archive 2

Plot
Seems like a copy or lift off Bend It Like Beckham in terms of the key story plot, yet seems to avoid similarities by using the sport of hockey and having the coach a muslim rather than angio as in Bend It like beckham —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.188.137 (talk • contribs).

Wow everything changed but then also inspired by bend it like. I gues Bend it was inspired by Lagan or etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I was thinking 'Mighty Ducks'. But I haven't seen the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.175.87 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Why is there a lame (and mis-spelt) comment at the end of the article? Seems like some intellectually challenged vandal managed to edit the page. Someone with the rights, kindly edit these unwarranted comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.175.124 (talk • contribs).

CAST
Cast: Shahrukh Khan as Kabir Khan

The Team: Sagarika Ghatge as Preeti Sabarwal Chitrashi Rawat as Komal Chautala Shilpa Shukla as Bindia Naik Vidya Malavade as Vidya Sharma Tanya Abrol as Balbir Kaur Anaitha Nair as Aliya Bose Shubhi Mehta as Gunjan Lakhani Seema Azmi as Rani Dispotta Nisha Nair as Soimoi Kerketa Sandia Furtado as Nethra Reddy Arya Menon as Gul Iqbal Masochon V. Zimik as Molly Zimik Kimi Laldawla as Mary Ralte Kimberly Miranda as Rachna Prasad Nichola Sequeira as Nichola Sequeira Raynia Mascarenhas as Raynia Fernandes

Also Starring:

Aanjjan Srivastav Javed Khan Vibha Chibber Mohit Chauhan Nakul Vaid Joyoshree Arora Vivaan Bhathena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.175.124 (talk • contribs).

Reviews
I don't agree with the reviews of Nokia BTS group. Arnab.here 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful - when adding &lt;REF&gt;
In the "Box Office" section, one unclosed &lt;REF&gt; tag took the rest of the article out. Both "References" and "External links" disappeared. Mori Riyo (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) !!!!

Fair use rationale for Image:ChakDeCover.GIF
Image:ChakDeCover.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis
Please someone clean up synopsis. After the paragraph "With the shootout," the story is written again.. combine these or remove one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashsworld (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The current synopsis (plot) does not conform to WP:FilmPlot. It needs to be rewritten and reduced. I will wait a few days and if no one does this, I will. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the plot according to WP:FilmPlot. The current word count is at around 700 words which is about as long as is recommended. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bend It Like Beckham
Please do not add irrlevant links. There must have been thousand films dealing with Indian female athletes. In film articles, we don't cite in the See Also section films that deal with the same topic. Or maybe you wanna add also all the films starring Shahrukh Khan? All the films won Filmfare Awards? All the films with no heroines? Maybe you also wanna add all the Indian cross-border romances to Veer-Zaara's see also section?

We can cite films with a similar achievement or whatever, but not the same topic. There were, there are, and there will always be films dealing with the same topic, or in this case, Indian female athletes. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Miracle
(discussion copied from user talk page to open up to other editors)

The respective film is alleged to be inspired by the aforesaid film. Stop reverting it, an article has to be free of POV. buzz 18 is a reliable source it is a part of media network like CNN-IBN. If you have any doubts go through the cited source and read the full article.

I have changed the usage of words in the sentence(added alleged) to make it more precise, Plz. stop ruining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Wizard (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Dark Wizard,
 * If you will notice, after you mentioned that buzz 18 is part of the media network CNN-IBN, I did not remove it again, I moved this reference up a paragraph, elaborated upon it, and added the response of the director to the film. So both viewpoints are now included in the article which fulfills Neutral point of view. I am not against stating that the film was compared to Miracle though until you pointed out the connection with CNN-IBN I wasn't certain of the source. However, if we do mention the comparison, we need the director's point of view as well. I've pasted the section again below and will move a copy of this discussion to the Chak De India talk page so that other editors can also be involved. Please respond there.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, some media outlets claimed that there were "uncanny similarities" between Chak De India and the 2004 Hollywood film  Miracle. In response, director Shimit Amin denied this claim stating that Chak De India was inspired by the win at the 2002 Commonwealth Games and that "Jaideep is the most original scriptwriter in India."

The pictures from the page have also be taken off, as they didn't have any direct relation with the subject. If we can find a picture of Shahrukh(or any other crew member) during an event related to the film or a movie still, that can be used in the article. Thank you.-The Dark Wizard (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Images are complicated in the WP because of copyright and those images were included because they are free images but it doesn't matter to me if they were taken off. Including images from this or any film are difficult because of Copyrights. It would be of great asset to the article if we could find images directly related to the film that don't violate WP copyright rules but that will take the time and energy of editors who want to explore the issue. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the Billie Award has been deleted, as it is just a picture of the award, not a picture related to to the film. Its just like having a picture of Oscar in the page of Lagaan. The Dark Wizard •  Talk 2 me  16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for WikiProject Films

 * ''This review is transcluded from WikiProject Films/Assessment/Chak De! India. The edit link for the section below can be used to add comments to the review.

English translation of title
I removed the current English translation for the title ("Come On India") for a few reasons. There are a few possible translations for the title, some literal, others figurative. "Come On India" is a literal translation but I would suggest that it is not the best in terms of the thematic points of the film (Go for it India, for example, captures the meaning in a better way). The problem with offering an English translation lies in WP:OR as well - unless a film was released with the translated title, anything we offer could be OR.

A better solution would be to create a section with references that offer some of the possible translations. Anyone want to take this on? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well The New York Times offers the translation of the title ad "Go! India". That sounds reasonable enough...--Meryam90 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think most foreign language films do have an English translation, including 2 Indian FAs Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Taare Zameen Par. It is very helpful to English speakers. I am not sure if there is a policy on how the translation is to be accomplished though. On a separate but related note, those 2 articles plus this one also have Hindi script, which has been determined by a recent RfC to be undesirable. An IPA pronounciation guide is preferred, although that would seem to involve OR as well. RfC is here. BollyJeff  ||  talk  16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Translations, adding scripts are always contentious issues however. I don't know who added the English translation for LRMB but it is quite awkward, and not one I would have pushed forward. As for TZP, the translation of that title was the topic of long debates. Truthfully, the only translation that we could really reference for it was "Like Stars on Earth" as that is the title that the film was released under via the Disney DVD and that is the one that I would suggest should be used. Thus, you see the problem with adding an English translation, consensus is very difficult to achieve. I agree that it is helpful for English speakers to have some kind of translation, but I think a paragraph with different references is more helpful. "Go! India" I think is an excellent translation - though the question would be, is that how all references offered it? I wonder if this is a topic to be taken up just as the use of Hindi script was. I can guarantee it will create long discussions during an FAC and I would rather avoid that and find a concrete way to offer a translation that is well referenced. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated both articles. The TZP article has a section that translates the title in various ways (I had forgotten) - which was created as a result of this type of discussion. In my experience if we put just one random translation, people will come by and frequently change it. Having a sourced version of some kind is the only solution. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just checked the TZP article and a title section sounds good I suppose...but even the suggested titles (other than Go! India) need to have RS to support them. --Meryam90 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You bet, that's the whole problem. If films were released themselves with official titles in other languages we could use that. Otherwise, we need to source everything. This article still needs a great deal of references or perhaps we need to better use the ones we have. The more people we can bring into working on this to find the info, the better our changes of developing well referenced sections such as this one! You've done a lot of great work on SRK articles so I'm glad to have your help on this one. Signing off for today but we'll get back to this soon. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the first thing I am gonna do is arrange the article to follow WP:MOSFILM since the sections are all over the place...but before I do that, I need to fill in the release section with screen count and other informations regarding its release (then add Home media and special screenings to it) There is a lot of work to be done but I think reference wont be a problem for the article :D --Meryam90 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fabulous!!!! -- So glad to have your keen eye and help! Now I'm REALLY signing off. Hard to do at the WP but work calls... :-) -Classicfilms (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Development
A few members of WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force have organized into a committee to develop this article. Our goal is a future FAC - This link offers an overview of the expectations for an FAC


 * Featured article criteria

We also need to follow this style guide when developing the article:
 * Manual of Style/Film

Here is the current team. Please feel free to add your name if you are interested in working on an area of the article with us. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We have established a brainstorming page here: User:Classicfilms/Drafts
 * Research, Development, Writing/Expansion


 * Meryam90
 * Classicfilms


 * Analysis/Peer Review of Article - contributing if/when possible
 * Ankit
 * Dwaipayan


 * Copy Editing - "reverting vandalism, fixing wikilinks, grammar, spelling"
 * Msrag
 * BollyJeff
 * Classicfilms

Infobox
Okay here goes. Now, this article's main aim right now is to be pushed for the FAC. An unwritten rule for the FAC is that the article should have a beautiful appearance. It should look neat, organized and strictly without redlinks. Importantly, no photo or template must go out of a particular section and occupy the next section's space. This is important, as any interfering template automatically gives the article an ugly appearance at that spot.

Which brings me to the infobox : the infobox is too big. I can understand that this is due to the listing of the 16 Chak De! Girls, but I'm afraid that the infobox is entering into the Plot section and really giving the area a messy look. Now, there are two solutions to this :-


 * An editor can expand the lead section substantially enough so as to allow the Plot section to move down, sufficiently for the Plot section to go out of the reach of the infobox. This includes the title header; nothing of the Plot section should overlap with the infobox.


 * I have made a modified infobox in my sandbox, where the names of the Chak De! girls have been put into a collapsible hidden portion; any outside user can just click on the "Show" button and the list appears, but normally the list remains hidden. This is how the article looks like with my idea (you may have to wait a bit to allow the hidden function to kick in).

I leave it to consensus to see which idea is adopted. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it, I approve! It looked great! :D --Meryam90 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Just a one minute sneak peek to see how it's going - fantastic idea Ankit. Since both Meryam and I support this, and we're the main writers, go ahead and restore your sandbox version. And thanks for thinking about how to improve the look of the article - that's exactly the kind of fresh thinking this article needs. Keep it up! Ok, off- wiki again. Bye for now. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks guys :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Necessities
The article requires certain stuff. First, I am going to redo the current Background and Development sections. The sections are wrongly named and the content is wrongly placed. Additionally, it will be better to remove the quote template and replace it with Rquote, as in Ra.One. A new Filming section will come up (though it will, problematically, be small).

A major missing part is there in the film - a "Casting" section. Generally i would recommend putting any casting info into the Cast list itself (again, refer Ra.One) but this film is an exception due to the 16 girls. Hence, a separate "Casting" sections would be required under the Production section to explain how the girls were cast, when and how SRK was cast etc. I hope Classicfilms and Meryam can do the needful regarding obtaining the information. Any further changes will be made later.

A note - this article will not reach FA status quickly. First we should clean up the article to the best of our ability, then go for a Peer Review (where many other issues can come up) and only then will the article be ready for the FAR. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - made major changes and re-arrangements between the Background and Development sections, not to mention changing the headers to the appropriate titles. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Casting section.


 * I have already started a casting section in my sandbox, it includes both informations regarding SRK and the girls, but I feel it's too short ( abt 12 lines) and therefor I suppose casting & filming will be included in one section for the time beings. btw, the VFX work is better inculuded in filming. Right? (since we have no post-production section) --Meryam90 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if its too short then merging the two would be great; besides the Filming section itself is hardly expansive (a major deterrent for the FA). I strongly recommend creating a new post-production section, but if there is no information then yes, our only alternative is to put it in the filming section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to both of you for your hard work - I like all of the suggested changes and am impressed Meryam with the time and energy you put into the combined casting/filming section. While an FAC is a future goal, let's focus right now on the small things, what we can do bit by bit to improve this article. I tweaked the plot and added character names. Tomorrow, Meryam, I'll go through your casting section - so if you have a chance to read through the paragraph again today and make any tweaks that would be great. I think the next step is to start the large task of combing through all of our sources and figuring out what kind of material they offer, perhaps creating a list of clusters to develop into possible sections. I'll also at some point go through sources in the article to see if there is material we can use for other topics. Good work gang, keep it up! More tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A small thing - in writing the plot, I found myself using both "girls" and "women." The team is referred to as the "women's team" but as a group they are the "Chak De girls." I don't like this inconsistency but I'll leave it for now since I have to sign off but we need to think about how we are going to use the two terms. A solution might be "young women." Tweak if you want to as well - see you tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hey all, I have to take a short wiki-break but I'll be back soon - I am calling some of the copy editing volunteers to ask for a wiki-edit. Also one of the issues with the article regards sources - there is on my talk page a link to a draft page with a number of URLs - we need some resourceful people to go through the links and organize topics. Improvements so far look great - let's keep it up. See you all soon -Classicfilms (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 result of the move request was: No move of the page jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Chak De! India → Chakde! India – Some sources say "Chak De", some say "Chakde". Can any Indian give any insight into which it's more likely to be? IMDB says Chakde, as does Amazon. So does this Times of India review. There are lots of other sources that also say Chakde. On the poster/cover CHAK and DE are in different colors, but are right next to each other like they are one word. Thoughts?  F i l m F a n  22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's correct as stands, separate words - see infobox for Hindi title. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any insight on the inconsistent transliteration?
 * And what about this?  F i l m F a n  14:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Official site uses Chak De as two words.  Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Chak de are two words and per Redtigerxyz's point! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: @Film Fan: Ideally in Hindi language it should be written as compound(samas) Chakde(चकदे). But CBFC has the spelling "चक दे इंडिया = Chak de India" Nagarjuna198 02:51, 29 May 2013 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Chak De! India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Collections/movie_collections/budget/2007?fm=1#.VqEtfFMrLFw
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7309&issueid=50&Itemid=1
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&issueid=48&id=7325&Itemid=1&sectionid=4
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sports.indiatimes.com/Five_wise_men_set_for_a_Chak_De_act/articleshow/2996256.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks. Will go through them at a later date. Unless someone else wants to... -Classicfilms (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅-Classicfilms (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

N
Need help Divyepareek007 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you meant like below. ↓--220  of  Borg 00:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If its about your edit here, you can't just dump anything you hear, like the trivia you added, without a WP:Reliable source. 220  of  Borg 00:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chak De! India. 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/20150217143305/http://www.hindustantimes.com/hockey/the-story-of-truth-lies-amp-a-man-called-mir/article1-232857.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/hockey/the-story-of-truth-lies-amp-a-man-called-mir/article1-232857.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606032915/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/dresscircle/Taare-Chak-De-top-directors-pick-in-07/Article1-266098.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/DressCircle/Taare-Chak-De-top-directors-pick-in-07/Article1-266098.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Review
More:  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)