Talk:Kahaani/Archive 1

removed spoilers
I have edited (and removed) some sections of the article that are obvious spoilers and kills the suspense and thrill from the movie. they are unnecessary in the article. one does not need to tell the whole story in the article. Request the other editors to follow the same. regards --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   14:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is encyclopedia. It contains spoilers. Read Spoiler. All the twists and suspense and climax and Oh-my-god!-points should not be kept hidden.-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the wikilink Animesh but it also says  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   20:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But the stories should be written the way they are. Plot should not have lines like..."Why is the Intelligence Bureau involved in this? Who hired an assassin to kill her? As her search intensifies in a festive Kolkata in a breakneck speed, suspense grips the audience till the very end and leaves them at a dramatic high." Plot should directly say what happens in the story. Dont give details like "A person is seen entering a metro train", "A babay's bottle falls", etc. But the story should be mentioned not caring for it being a spoiler. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * yes i agree that such details bottle etc dont need to be included. (i did not add them but rather allowed them to stay, feel free to remove it). But i disagree that the article needs to have the whole story of the movie. There is a difference between plot and Full Story. isnt it ? --  Ð  ℬig  XЯaɣ   12:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * besides from the above discussion, i feel that both of us agree that the plot section needs a lot of trimming, lets keep the plot section as a plot section only rather than making it the full story section--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess Animeshkulkarni is right. At Wiki, we do include the spoilers and describe the film as it is. But DBigXray is not wrong either. The film has just released and is not even a week old. And considering the wide critical acclaim received by critics, I feel its really too early to reveal the climax of a highly suspense thriller. It really kills and spoils the fun and thrill of the movie. The film is slowly picking up in India by the good word of mouth and is expected to do well in the coming weekend. I suggest we wait for at least another week to add the climax. Till then we'll just keep removing the content from numerous IP's dying to add that version of plot. What say ? -Msrag (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Msrag, lets wait for what Animesh has to say--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Msrag's suggestion of not revealing the plot as of now. But we shouldnt also include indicative sentences similar to "Age jaananeke liye dekhe..." Cut it short for sure. And keep the last line something like... film continues with mysterious turns and events. (I havent seen the film. So cant write it exactly.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Added the original synopsis but not sure how long will it last. Can we request protection from the IP users who've been continuously adding up that content. And @ Animeshkulkarni, liked your "Age jaananeke liye dekhe..." LOL :) -Msrag (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasnt the one who added aage jaanane ke liye dekhe... :) but yes i spared and did not remove it. the current section looks fine. later on if anyone wants to restore the full Story of the movie in the plot section we can do it from this older version here One of the IPs had helped a lot in writing the full story.  no Msrag i do not think protection is needed at this level, as some of the constructive edits will also be lost that way. Editors will keep patrolling and revert whenever necessary. we can think about protection if things start going out of hand. By the way i have already seen this movie and Animesh i have sympathy for you as you now know the suspense ;) --  Ð  ℬig  XЯaɣ   14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Film Plot
Testing............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by223.165.28.230 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC) See Manual of Style/Film and the section WP:FILMPLOT for WP guidelines. On a personal level, I prefer short plots without spoilers. However, as Wikipedians, we have to follow the guidelines. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That being said, the plot section could stand a re-write in terms of style and form - it could be reduced and stay within the manual of style word limit.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a clean up tag. Sentences needed to be tightened up a bit and more attention paid to style. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Classicfilms, first let me tell you that I am stunned by your experience and your edit counts here at Wiki. Kudos to you for your contributions !!! . Next, you must have already read the above discussion to keep the plot as a "Synopsis" kinda thing and not reveal the climax atleast till another week for the reasons of not spoiling the business, fun & thrill of the movie. But many new editors (IP and non-IP users) are quite desperate to add up the thing over there. We just have to keep reverting them. Hope you agree with this.-Msrag (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Msrag - Thanks for the nice words, they are appreciated. I am sympathetic to this topic, particularly with films such as this one that are dependent upon an unknown ending. When I joined the Wikipedia a few years back, the approach to plot was a bit different. We used to have "spoilers" tags that were placed in the plot summary area. However, awhile ago, there was a large vote and the policy was changed to this one: Spoiler.  Please read it carefully along withWP:FILMPLOT. As I noted above, on a personal level I am not a fan of spoilers. I have often wondered if the plot section of film articles should be coded to be "collapsed" or hidden when an article is opened so that those who do not want to see the spoilers do not have to. But this would require a new vote. All that being said, my personal opinions about spoilers cannot change policy and I'm afraid that at this point, we are obliged to follow policy. However, since you feel strongly on the topic, you could contact the Wikiproject film coordinators here and ask for their advice on this issue:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject_film#Coordinators
 * Hope that helps. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for making your opinion clear CF, from your earlier edits i understood that i was on the wrong side of Accepted policy, so stopped myself. perhaps you are right, about following the policies over personal opinion.--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, if the policy says so then let the plot be there as of now. Though I am totally against it but what else can be done? But lets try and do something for this for the future films of this nature. Shall we start a discussion somewhere else (I guess not on this talk page) to change this policy . Since you are more experienced than me, you must be knowing better where to start this and I'll try bringing in more editors to voice their opinion. --Msrag (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Msrag and Classicfilms! Kudos to both of you :) Hey Msrag, spoilers has always been an issue in the thriller film related articles. I do feel its not good for a business, but we need to follow the certain guidelines and I'm sure you guys are stronger in it compared to me. WP:SPOIL states that, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness. When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."
 * I have mentioned the policy for anyone new who brings back the same issue. Thanks. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've read and agree to all those policies but are concern is talk to editors or the policy makers and get the policy tweaked a little bit. The policy says to include all spoilers as it is: fine, agree to it but all we are saying is we'll wait for some time (say 10 days) and then include the spoilers. Does that make sense and sound goods? So now the concern is who do we contact for this change? Where can we have a vote about this? --Msrag (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While the new policy has been in place for awhile, there are many out there who have mixed feelings about spoilers, myself included. As Wikipedians, we are bound to follow the guidelines. However, that doesn't mean that you can not raise the issue in a public forum. The idea of waiting 10 days for a recently released film is one possibility. I also suggested that we figure out a way to "collapse" the plot section so that when the article is opened, you do not automatically see the plot. My suggestion would be to contact
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject_film#Coordinators

and ask how to open a discussion regarding spoilers. I have some "real life" things going on but I am on and off the Wikipedia and would be happy to be involved in a discussion. Otherwise, spoilers aside, there are still many things that need to be done to improve not only the quality of the plot summary but the article itself. If you look on my talk page, you'll see a discussion with another experienced editor on how to start building this article. For all new people who would like to be involved, please review Manual of Style/Film - we must follow this very carefully. The first goal will be to get the article up to "Good Article" status. That will take time - for sources to come out, for the quality of the writing to improve -- but the more people adding quality content to the article there are, the better it will be. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot needs substantial rewrite
While the Wikipedia does allow spoilers in its plot summaries, there are still rules and conventions about how not only plots are written but how spoilers are used. The plot as it is written does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines very well. Thus, the plot needs to be rewritten with attention to the following areas: a. Length
 * Plot summaries should be brief with a limit of 400-700 words WP:FILMPLOT - currently the plot has about 788 words.

b. Style counts
 * A poorly written plot is one that simply repeats events of the film without attention to the elements of style as explained in WP:FILMPLOT. Please note a few areas:

c. Just because the WP allows spoilers does not mean that they can be tossed about without care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Spoilers "However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers.[6] Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Style_guidelines/Copy-editing_essentials#Don.27t_lose_the_plot "In many articles about individual films, the first section will be one that describes the plot. These are usually appropriate for complementing the wider coverage that follows about the film's production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. However, be wary of including too much fine detail, and analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the story; the plot section, usually being the first that your readers will encounter, will be a major turn-off if it is too large or difficult to read. Typically, 400–700 words will be enough to describe the plot of a feature-length film, even ones that have an unusually complex structure." In other words, it matters that we pay attention to the elements of writing in any article created for the Wikipedia. While this is just one of many examples, here is the plot from Taare Zameen Par, a featured film article. It offers some spoilers but is more concerned with general thematic summary than line by line explanation of the film. And its word count is under 700 words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par#Plot -Classicfilms (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Just one line I have to say about this: If this is how a suspense story is going to be 'spoiled' on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should stay away fromfilms. Let IMDB handle it. Theydo a much better job of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.181.154.96 (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are simply " an overview of the film's main events." This means that we summarize basic elements of the story rather than in a basic and mundane fashion explain "minutiae." As it stands, the plot is far from what I would call a well written summary due to this problem.
 * Please note: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" Spoiler. Also from How to write a plot summary -
 * Also from: WP:FILMCOPY -
 * Just remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I do agree it is a spoiler for some, however it is also helpful for few others. Wikipedia all about representing the information fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And note that most of this section is dedicated to the need to improve the quality of the writing rather than deal with the issue of spoilers. Please see my comment above. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Classicfilms, i edited the plot many times, and it's now 579 words long. Regards — Precedingunsigned comment added by Pleasant1623 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Free image to add
Would someone be interested in adding this free image? I'm not quite sure where to put it - but it would be a fair one to add:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triangular_Park_-_New_Alipore_-_Kolkata_2011-10-03_030317.JPG

Thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is the triangular park that was mentioned in teh film. There is at least three triangular parks in Kolkata that I can right now recall. And the one mentioned in the film should be the one on Rashbehari Avenue somewhat midway between Deshapriya Park and Gariahat crossing.--Dwaipayan(talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Ok. Maybe we can look around for other Kolkata images. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a mention of that place in the article? I couldn't find so. Without a mention of that place in the article, it would make the image irrelevant. I added the traffic image of Kolkata since the Visual & Motif section had words describing it. What say? --Msrag (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see its already answered. Forget it --Msrag (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned as part of the plot but Dwai's point makes this image not usable. Image for Kolkata section looks great! Ok all, signing off for today.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Images
How is the image File:Kahaani at Nagpur.jpg relating to the article? I dont think the film broke any records by screening at Nagpur. Nor do i expect anything of this sort to happen in future. The image should be removed. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Professional Review Table
Is a professional review table necessary? Almost all the critics have thoroughly praised the film. What do you guys think? Smarojit (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that everybody gave positive reviews but I feel it just gives the reader a quick visual representation of all the reviews instead of reading the entire Critical reception paragraph. Time comparison can be roughly 5 mins to read the entire thing and may be 30 sec to glance the table. Though I don't see it as extremely important to be there, I feel there's wrong in it either.--Msrag (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say those tables are pretty common in film articles. Remember though for a future GA review, we will need to have mixed or negative reviews as well - peer review will demand it for a balanced article. So it's fine to say most are positive but then offer some negative comments etc. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't too many negative comments to really think about; its got a great critical reception. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprising, it was an excellent film. Just speaking from experience from past reviews - reviewers want some negative reviews for balance.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some criticism about the ending (post-climax) -- somebody calling it a sobfest. (personally I felt such an emotional ending was totally contrary to the fast paced film. Miscarriage following death of husband was childish). I hope someone writes these things.--Dwaipayan(talk) 18:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * lol - well I think what we have to do is extract sentences from reviews that talks about some of the incomplete aspects of the film. You offer a good starting point. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy Editing
The article, most importantly, needs a huge copy edit. The language is grammatically incorrect, proper sources have not been cited. In certain places a lot of unnecessary information has been added. While in others, huge paragraphs have just been lifted from newspaper articles. Phew! A lot of work needs to be done.Smarojit (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not unexpected in the initial phase. We are still in the phase where random facts will be incorporated in to the article. Later (perhaps months) when the things somewhat settle down, copyediting will be needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Dwai. It is not unusual when a film first releases for the article to develop in this way. It will take awhile to settle down and when it does, we can focus on the above. Copy-editing should occur throughout the development of the article but the early stages can prove frustrating in this regard since the article is unstable and the changes you make could be deleted and replaced with new content. It's frustrating to wait but I often give myself a mental time frame of min 6 months to a year before an article can stabilize (usually well after award ceremonies occur). -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If they release a good DVD with production details (as in the case of Tare Zameen Par) that will be real help. We'll have to wait.--Dwaipayan(talk) 16:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not a bad idea. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For Future GA - references used
Hello All - the article is developing nicely! Kudos to everyone! One point to keep in mind as the article grows is the GA Criteria. I know from past experience with a few other GAs (Chak De India, Taare Zameen Par) that references can get tricky if the source is not a very well known news source. So now is the time to go through the article and examine the sources used. I guarantee that during peer review, sources will be questioned and if too many are added that are not from solid sources, the article can fail the review. If there are questions about sources, ask here. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, I should note that peer reviewers will also pay particular attention to the correct formatting of references. For this, my suggestion would be to look at the different templates used for GA and FA film articles and choose one style. It doesn't matter which we use so long as we are consistent. We also need to watch the way in which dates are formatted - consistency is an issue there as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another GA tip
Another part of the GA process is to be aware of internal wikilinks. Going back to Chak De! India again as an example, there were numerous linked articles which also had to be developed (i.e. India women's national field hockey team and articles that linked to it, articles for the directors, writers, and actors, awards articles and those that linked to it etc.). So one thing we can start doing is think about which wikilinks are important to the article (i.e. Kolkata and neighborhoods referenced, Durga Puja particularly as it is celebrated in Kolkata, etc.). Actor, director, and writer articles should also be created and/or developed as part of the process.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Language
In the infobox, languages mentioned are Hindi and Bengali. IMO, Bengali should be removed. Any comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for Vidya Balan's character's full name
I just wanted to know that how many of you want to add the full name of Vidya Bagchi in the aticle page of Kahaani. The full name is "Vidya Venketesan Bagchi". I edited it but it was reverted and I was told to create a consensus. So if you want to add Vidya Bagchi's full name (Vidya Venketesan Bagchi) please do so here. I know that other sources don't take her full name but Wikipedia is a site which is a complete e-encyclopedia, so if we don't have what will be the difference between us and others, so that is the reason that why I think that her full name must be added as it reflects a lot on the plot as in some parts of the film she speaks in south-Indian language and Venketesan is a south Indian surname and that reflects that yes she was south Indian and that is the reason why she spoke in south-Indian. Thanking you,-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The plot on Wiki does not mention her speaking in Tamil and nor will that be added. The plot is just a summary and cannot contain such minute details. Can you please state any other strong reason as to why you feel that info is extremely important and how can that help in improving the article. Also please provide reliable sources to your claims. Majority of the sources on net are found to be stating her as just Vidya Bagchi. I fail to understand the big fuss over a pebble. There are many other important things to work for on this article. --Msrag (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the which says that she is a Tamilian and her full name is Vidya Venketesan Bagchi.
 * More links:
 * For more see:
 * For more see:
 * For more see:
 * For more see:


 * Msrag is correct in "big fuss over a pebble"! However, there is no harm in including the full name. It was used in the film when introducing the character. So, let's include it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw the edits made by Jagaddhatri. The user included the full name multiple times in the plot. That is overkill. The full name should be mentioned in the cast, that is acceptable. But in the plot, Vidya Bagchi should be used. Middle names are not needed to mention every time (Venkateshan is effectively the middle name of the character).--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK! So it must be added in the way you wish..-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cast, Casting & Characters
I feel that the Cast & Characters sections in the article is not presented correctly. Currently the cast section contains information for casting as well for only 3 actors; Vidya, Parambrata and Saswata. The other actors have just a line description about the characters they performed and nothing as well. Next, in the characters section, we have just 3 characters again viz, Rana, Bob and Khan which makes it look incomplete. Therefore, please consider the below points and put forth your suggestions to resolve the matter.
 * We cannot combine everything into just one (lets say Cast) as it'll look too messy and then again we'll have information for only 4 viz., Vidya as Vidya, Parambrata as Rana, Nawazuddin as Khan and Saswata as Bob. The others would be still left out giving the section an incomplete look.
 * We definitely need atleast two sections:
 * Cast (this has to be there and nothing can be done about it)- it shall include "ACTOR as CHARACTER" and (optionally) a very short description of the character.
 * Either of Casting (with all the information) or Characters (with all the information)


 * I am also fine if we have all the three sections as below but not sure its that acceptable and had been done before.
 * Cast: strictly adhering to "ACTOR as CHARACTER" and (optionally) a very short description of the character.
 * Casting: strictly adhering to casting info for whatever available actors
 * Characters: strictly adhering to the description of characters

Please comment.--Msrag (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel the characters section is also important since the film majorly focus on various types of personalities from Bob (assassin in disguise) to Khan (expletive spewing arrogant cop) and from Rana (silent humble soft cop falling for a pregnant woman) to Vidya (intelligent determined friendly pregnant woman). This would also require a little search on sources for expansion.
 * IMO, your second option is better. One-line intro in "cast", roping in the actors in "casting", and character development in "characters". This approach may sound somewhat unorthodox, but looks acceptable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. sounds good. Thanks and let's just wait a few more days for others to comment here and then we'll start working on it.--Msrag (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While working on it this afternoon, even I felt the cast section is very bad and wanted a discussion regarding it. Thanks Msrag for pointing it out. It would be great to consider second option. That is:-
 * Cast: It will only include the name and their character names.
 * Casting.
 * All the details about their characters can be merged into Casting section. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok so we have a conflict here. Dwaipayan was in favour of 3 sections and you suggested 2. Hmm.. lets think about it and see what others have to say. But can you please state reasons if there can be any issues (wrt to GAs) if we have 3 separate sections. As said earlier, a separate "Characters" section would give it a really good look emphasizing more on the Characters than actors.--Msrag (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and even Rockstar (2011 film), both a GA. I just want to add that its not mandatory to describe them in the Cast section. Its good to do, but not mandatory. Have a look at Rockstar, I made it very simple as much I can. Its basically our decision what can be done. It's very complicated to get a A class like Rang De Basanti, which means the article is very complete. We can't complete a article, but present the available information very well and simple, that's a GA IMO. That's my opinion, I would always prefer others tough. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, basically it boils down to the point whether "Characters" section should be there. Whether it is there are not as a separate section—does not really matter at this point of time. The consensus so far is — "Cast" section with one-line intro of the characters; "casting" section with at least mentioning of how each actor was roped in to the project. The development and description of each character may be incorporated within "casting" or may be placed under "characters". I felt this movie had quite well-built or idiosyncratic characters (almost like a good novel), so opined in favor of a separate "characters" section. More information may be available in future about character development (we already have some info on major characters). Whatever the structure is, GA is not a problem. Although I have not been involved in a GA process of film articles in a while, having a glance at Rockstar (2011 film) tells me Kahaani is already GA level. We should thrive towards making the article an engrossing read! "Characters" may add to that "engrossing" aspect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwaipayan! I know the article looks like a GA. Hence I went on to clean the references which is mandatory for a GA. I again agree with you, the article is well built compared to Rockstar, and so kudos to all :) Aim for FA, not GA B-) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dwaipayan stated exactly what I meant. He just got the point right for "Characters". So lets stick to the all three sections as described above. We'll see later if that causes a problem about the article being lengthy (i believe it shouldn't be). And @Karthik, your edits on ref tweaks are very crucial for a GA. Thanks for it. Your knowledge is similar to Abhimanyu knowing the passage to Chakravyuha. But hey, i'm just curious to know can we go for a FA without a GA? I thought GA is a first step before reaching FA. --Msrag (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, GA is not a prerequisite for FA. That being said, we are in no hurry, and first aiming for GA is not a bad idea at all. After that a peer review will be needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think its possible for a FA without GA. I just wanted to shout that, guys, do quality working aiming FA, we would attain GA then :) We can only go for FA next year, after the awards section. Long wait ahead! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words Msrag. I'm no where a knowledged person, if we just have a look at many experienced editors. Instead, I must not delay in stating that you are such a wonderful and a quality editor. With just an edit count of 1,000, its very much appreciable that you are looking for quality (GA) work. Keep it up :) --♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Karthik, I missed to see your appreciation earlier due to the long Reference styling discussions below. In fact there are many more articles that deserves GA and which I want to work on but I guess I'll not be able to do it alone due to the non-accessibility of News and Media, Entertainment websites at my workplace. Since I have very limited access to websites, I couldn't expand all those. Fortunately for Kahaani, I could access Zee News and Rediff and the rest is what you see here. --Msrag (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We will work on other after Kahaani. I will never mind working with a group. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

On reference styling
I see many reference tweaks are being done, largely by Karthik. Date formats are DMY, authors are made to last and first consistenty, which is great. However, some major discrepancies are being introduced as well, so this post. In some instances, news agencies (IAN, Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network etc) are being used as author. This should not be done. "Movie Talkies" is NOT the author. If there is no human name for the author in the article, we do not need to force an author. We do not need to mention "FirstPost Staff" as author. And, if we do, we need to do it consistently for every reference. (the keyword is internal consistency of referencing). So, we need to assert a guideline here now, before the correction work goes into gigantic proportion. We are following dd-mm--yy format (such as, 6 April 2012) for publication and retrieval date. If any human author is named in the article, we are using last and first method within the citation template. I see for newspaper websites, both cite news and cite web has been used. We need to stick to one. There is a parameter of "agency" in the cite news. Agencies such as IAN, TNN etc ideally should go to that parameter. However, it is ok not to use the agencies. (but we have to stick to that policy, we cannot randomly state the agency in some references, and not state in some others). The usual practice is not to mention news agencies. And definitely the agency is NOT the author. Now, regarding publication location of newspapers. again, we have to be consistent. Either we have to mention publication location for all newspaper references, or none. What do you prefer? For non-newspaper websites (such as rediff), do we agree to use cite web in stead of cite news? For videos, we are using cite video. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DMY formats is widely used in Indian articles. No issues in that.
 * Authors like IAN, Box........ name must be added. I don't know if it is or not mandatory, but I prefer to add so because they are the original authors. Recently, I was asked to add authors names like BOI Trade network in a peer review.
 * The agency is definetly the author. While the publisher is the website which publishes it. If IANS is the author, no doubt we must credit them.
 * Cite news, cite web, doesn't matters for a GA, IMO. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The author and agency issue needs to be clarified. Tell me who would you put as author forthis report?--Dwaipayan(talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And also, please read Template:Cite_news for understanding. Peer review and GA review, while quite rigorous at times, is usually much easier compared to FAC (which we are aiming for). And so, we need to be "internally consistent" in referencing. Unless the author, news agency, publisher, newspaper issue clarified, we cannot go forward. After this issue is clarified, we'll discuss on publication location.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt, I will add what the source has mentioned as author; Priyanka Dasgupta, (TNN). Consistent is must. IMO, consistence in referencing means the consistent at the result which we get to look at the references section. I never read any policies so I apologize for my mistakes. Policies complicates, and so I hate it. Frankly, only policy I prefer; Ignore all rules, tough I know many, I ignore all. Let me know if anymore you wanna clarify. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In that example, TNN is not the author, it is the news agency or wire agency that supplies the news to the publisher. In some instances, the wire agencies (or the publishers) may include a name of human author. And so, if you use Priyanka Dasgupta, (TNN) as author in the example article, you are not maintaining internal consistency. Why TNN in brackets? TNN has not been in brackets when being mentioned as "author" in other references, so why this time? You may resort to use TNN as co-author!
 * This brings inconsistency. Agencies are not authors, they are news suppliers. They have their separate parameters in Template:Cite news. This is not to discredit the agencies, they have their own (very important) significance. They are mentioned in a particular standard way, not as "author". To maintain and help maintain internal consistency, we can mention them in "agency" parameter of cite news (since we are using cite news), if we choose to do so. However, in overwhelming majority of articles, news agency is not mentioned. (that does not mean we can not mention them, we can mention them, but have to be consistent. That needs to mentioned in case of all references that mentions an agency). If they mention an author (in addition to agency), the author goes to last, first. If they do not, there need not be any author, as per the example.
 * It is ok for editors to ignore rules. But not ok for articles to ignore rules (in this case, internal consistency) if it is aiming for FA eventually. So, we need to follow some working guideline. So, please follow the conventional guidelines. That way, although it may be against your own notion (which is valid), all editors involved will be on the same page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it simple! If you don't find anything right, just go ahead to edit. If it requires some strong attention, we will discuss, otherwise let it be the way you feel correct :) Every time available for the same. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Karthik now :) And that is why I started this thread (something requiring strong attention). The good thing is the article does not have a lot of references yet (78 individual references as of now). So, consistency can be brought, especially if we follow conventional guidelines. Again, there is no need to follow any guidelines per se, but it is for the sake of internal consistency as we are aiming high:) I am going to accumulate some conventional guidelines and suggestions (collected from wp:mos and from the advises given by some really experienced users such as User:SandyGeorgia and user:Imzadi1979), and post in the talk page, so that that can be followed by everyone involved.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

MoS guidelines suggested for referencing
Any additions?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of ready-made template (Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web etc).
 * Use of dd-mm-yyyy (such as 5 April 2012)
 * Use of last| and first| parameter for author name (if both are available).
 * Use of cite news for newspaper source.
 * Not to use any publisher name for newspaper.
 * To use sentence case for all headings.
 * Not to use location for newspapers.
 * To use news agencies (if given in the source) in |agency parameter of cite news.
 * No italics for TV channels, they come under publisher parameter.

Some problems in reference style
Following are the problems I faced: We can ask specialist on WP:MoS for guidance.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For Zee News articles that list "Zee News Bureau" as source, the bureau should be author versus agency, or should be deleted.
 * BoxOffice.com articles, BoxOffice News Network should be author, agency or should be deleted.
 * Oneindia.in should be work or publisher.
 * Musicperk team and hit list team have ben used as "author". I hope that is ok.

Question and Answers
Ok, I see a lot have been discussed over the weekend on reference styling and for all those edits done on "Zee News", I apologize to include those errors as I was not aware of all the points discussed here. However, after reading all this, I am a little confused now and request Dwaipayan or Karthik to please clear my confusion so that I may not repeat the same mistakes again. To make it simple just answer my questions below in the most simplest form.--Msrag (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. All those sites such as Zee News, Star News and any such media site (which do not publish physical newspapers) should be cited with Cite-Web or Cite-News ?
 * A: Both cite web and cite news can be used, as long as the end result looks consistent. For example, using |newspaper parameter in cite news and |work parameter in cite web would generate italicised output. For TV channels, we have to use |publisher parameter in both cite news and cite web.
 * The advantage with cite news is that it has |agency parameter. I found that in this article many news agencies were mentioned as authors. Some physical newspaper as well as primarily TV news sources had agencies mentioned as authors, although inconsistently—sometimes the agency was mentioned as author, sometimes not mentioned at all. I changed those to |agency parameter, and used cite news whenever agency was mentioned. In majority of wikipedia articles, news agencies are not at all mentioned. If we agree not to mention agencies at all, we will have more freedom in using cite web. Otherwise, every time a source mentions an agency, we have to use cite news instead of cite web.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 2. All those sites such as TimesofIndia, The Indian Express (which publishes physical newspapers) should be obviously cited with Cite-News right?
 * A: Yes. Secret of success 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3. What is the difference between work and publisher in case of Cite-Web? Template:Cite web defines "work: Title of website." and "publisher: Name of publisher." Now can these both be same anytime in case of Zee News or Times of India?
 * A: In case of Times of India, |work will be Times of India, publisher is Bennet and Coleman (or whatever the name of the company is). For newspapers, we usually do not include publisher name.
 * Foe Zee News (or other TV channels), |publisher parameter should have the name of TV channels, as TV channels themselves are thought as companies, unlike magazine or newspapers. The |work parameter in case of TV channels may have the name of the program (example, News at 10). However, none of our references in this article has any such specific program name. So, in case of TV channels, filling out |title and |publisher would suffice.
 * Again, if we agree to get rid of all agency names, there will not be any problem. If we agree to keep all agency names, we will need to use cite news and |agency parameter.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4. How many times do we Wiki-link the source website in references? Every time in every reference? or Just the first time in all references or First time in every section?
 * A: We wikilink the first time in all references, so just one time (the first time) in the whole reference section. That may not be done at this stage of development, as reference numbers may change in future. This may be ensured later, after relative stabilization of the reference numbers.
 * 5. Can this andthis be considered as reliable sources?
 * A: No. Secret of success 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

--Msrag (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohh guys! Sorry for late reply. Was busy with my exams. Thanks Secret of success and Dwaipayan for clearing doubts on my behalf. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Images included in the article
A discussion regarding the images included in the Cast and other various section of this article is going on at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE. Please give you views there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of 'Vidya Balan' can not be written as Balan
The name of the actress 'Vidy Balan' can not be shortened as 'Balan'as Balan is her father's name and it is a male name in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.39.163 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it so? Can you please elaborate a bit more on the same? I have met people of both the sexes having Balan as part of their name. Shovon (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Balan is her surname (family name) and hence she can be referred to by that name. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delayed/Elongated pregnancy of Vidya Bagchi?
I have not seen this film, but a little bit curious here: So, how can Vidya Bagchi get (still remian) pregnant after two years of her husband's death? Is it a(n) delayed/elongated pregnancy? More importantly is it a mistake of the film or the Wikipedia article? Very confusing! --'Tito Dutta ' ✉  21:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot section begins with: The film opens with a poison-gas attack on a Kolkata Metro Rail compartment, killing the passengers on board. Two years after the incident
 * Plot section ends with: Vidya, is revealed as the widow of Arup Basu (Abir Chatterjee), an IB officer and a colleague of Damji, who was killed in the poison-gas attack...
 * Same thing you will notice in the film Krrish, Shown in film, Rohit Mehra was working in Signapore for two years, and Nisha got pregnant in India and gave birth to Krishna Mehra.
 * For Kahaani, it's easy. Vidya Bagchi was faking pregnancy by wearing a fake belly. For Krrish, I do not remember the film. Going by your account, it sounds fishy :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I remember that in Krrish, it is indeed very "fishy". What a horrible loop hole in the screenplay. But for Kahaani, everything in the film has been justified well. Smarojit (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts for GA nomination
Hello guys! The article seems to have somewhat stabilized. Any thoughts of GA nominations? We can actually invite User:Pleasant1623 to do so :) (s/he tried so many times already).--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I have no problem! ^_^ P.S. - I am a He.--Plea$ant 1623 17:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * +1. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, then Mr Pleasant, you can go ahead. Hopefully issues will (and should) be raised during GA nom, and that will help improve the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nooo. Please wait. Though I agree the article is quite stable now and covers most of the aspects in detail, but I request you all to please wait till this month end as I've collected a few articles and some of them are really helpful in adding the missing content listed in the To-Do of this talk page. I couldn't update all those facts due to the ongoing hectic project at my organization that should be getting over in a week or so. And before we submit for a GA, why not have a peer review ourselves to filter out even the smallest issue. Even if we do not conduct a peer review, my humble request to you all is to please wait till May end max. I shall be definitely able to complete the stuffs I'm thinking before the last week of May and then we can go ahead. Please... Its a request !!! --Msrag (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I love the passion with which Msrag has been developing the article. I too feel that we should wait for some time. What's the hurry, anyway? Smarojit (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Well, I thought the article has somewhat stabilized as there were no significant edits for a while! (and GA, for that matter, is not a very big deal -- even if it fails, necessary improvements can be done through the nominations). Msrag seems to possess a whole lot of stuffs in his kitty :) Ok, let's wait :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smaro and Dwai.. but no.. that's not the point here.. I dont want it to fail for any sort of thing. I believe in "Do it Once, Do it Right" and follow the same principle at my workplace too. and yep I do have a collection of stuffs to be added for Kahaani as well as Satyamev Jayate but couldn't update those due to only 24 hrs available in a day :).. BTW all you experienced editors here.. Hope you've all watched the show SMJ.. have a look at the article of SMJ.. though I couldn't spend much time there.. I did some major format changes... your suggestions and opinions on the format and content will be a welcome... SMJ is the current hottest thing and talk in India... hundreds of articles available down there...Thanks again.. is Pleasant1623 listening :) --Msrag (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh! Right now while driving to my work I was thinking that Satyamev Jayate could be a Indian TV-related article that should be properly improved. It would definitely have a lot of "impact". It deserves to be worked upon to get it to GA and further level!--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you guys are working on Satyamev Jayate, count me in. The show is brilliant! Smarojit (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. We can invite User:Ankitbhatt to do a GA review or a peer review. I have no hurry in a GA nom. He can give us suggestions to how to improve the article.--Plea$ant 1623 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of wasting time, we can start doing some edits again instead of inviting someone (he's actually busy with Ra.One). And, this is article where we have no of contributors and not one or a couple. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GA ambitions
I am getting a really strong GA smell from this article. My nose has been sniffing this article for a while now, and I'm dying to nominate this for a GA or at least help out (though the latter will be a little harder). I only recently saw the film and found it pretty well-made (and not to mention my partiality towards my home city :P). Are there any ambitions to nominate the article any time soon? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll do the work for the GA nomination.--Plea$ant 1623 16:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I'd be very happy to review it :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the discussions above. Msrag is in the process of adding more information to the article. We agreed that we would wait at least for the end of May.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be available till June. Ok let's wait--Plea$ant 1623 17:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to get touchy. I was just placing a suggestion. I'm fine if it gets done later, just said that it should get done. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarims and Influences
I have watched this movie and found this core story has resemblance to the rouge agent theme and the buereucracy mixup theme of Borune series by Ludlum and the screen adaptations by Tony Gilroy. I would like to hear your guys thoughts. Thanks, Preetham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnadevaraya (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to back your statements? If you do, then please show them to us. If you don't, I am afraid that your statements may be construed as POV and are hence unlikely to be included. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Kahaani
Looking at the article's, I think that some of the users are trying to vandilize Kahaani by adding unnecessary information and deleting important information. Any thoughts for a second semi-protection request?--Plea$ant 1623 08:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a big team of dedicated editors too keeping it under control. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The mysterious creation of Kahaani
If one goes through the history of the article Kahaani one may find a very amusing fact. It says that this particular article was created 19 January, 2008, that is long before the announcement of the film was done. And the most amusing fact is that that revision says as follows: "Kahaani is a village in the commune of Ouangani on Mayotte." And then after some edits there, on 13 November 2010, the IP address user: 117.98.165.35 changed that village related article to the article on the "film Kahaani". So what was this all about, creation of an article on a village named Kahaani and then reverting it to a film related article. And then modifying and adding to it without going through it's history?? When replying please leave me a Tb template, like this  -- Arn esh (২০১২) 06:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kahaani referred to in the first version of this article is actually spelt as "Kahani", without the extra "a". The location can be found in Google maps here. Secret of success (talk)  06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Audio file
Planning to add audio file.Top contributors let this user know whether it is a good idea or not.enjoy 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, but which one you will add?--Plea$ant 1623 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Ekla chalo re".visit here for more info. and steps how to add checkthis. Best Of Luck 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To Do
Expansion Points
 * 'Kahaani' to be a franchise?‎, Coming soon: Kahaani 2 ✅
 * Screening of `Kahaani` for underprivileged women‎ ✅
 * Kahaani brings Kolkata back to limelight ‎ ✅
 * Aamir Khan's 'Talaash' postponed because of 'Kahaani'?‎
 * Balan promoting film at various shows with her fake-pregnancy getup. ✅
 * Balan selling tickets at a theatre. pics

Mandatory Information needed (Last Updated: 10 Apr 2012)
 *  Casting: Vidya Balan, other characters ✅ (expansion is always welcome)
 *  Casting: Images for atleast three-four important characters 
 *  Development: Storyline, Filming, Shooting in Kolkatta ✅ (expansion is always welcome) 
 *  Soundtrack: Album image of Kahaani ✅ (A different image is required) 
 *  Development:Sujoy Ghosh facing financial trouble to produce this after Aladin flopped ✅ (expansion is always welcome) 
 *  Add the Devanagari version of the film name: कहानी in the opening paragraph near the IPA notation. Also the language of the movie should be mentioned in the text (in addition to the sidebar). ✅
 *  Development: Shooting schedules, dates etc., ✅ (expansion is always welcome)
 *  Marketing: First look of the film, First theatrical trailer, First official online trailer etc. ✅
 * Critical Response: Overseas Reviews
 * Box Office: Overseas Collections

Box Office URLs
Should we add boxofficeindia.com? Kahanni is listed as:
 * 1 (rank)	Kahaani (8 Days)	Week 1	23,86,00,000
 * http://www.boxofficeindia.com/