Talk:Mayabazar

Chandralekha
The page Chandralekha_(1948_film) won a Featured Article status (the highest quality on Wikipedia). Perhaps we can pick up some tips from there for developing this page? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Work has already begun to make this a GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wizardly Mart?
I think the word Mart doesn't seem to fit in rightly....surely that's doesn't denote the true meaning of the title...as far as my knowledge goes....any suggestions? Cheers,  ƬheStrike  Σagle   13:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have written "Market of Illusions"; my translation comes from here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, no. Market is even worse. Why not just bazaar? It is an English word. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Similarly, "illusion" is not the meaning of "maya" here. It is magic or, perhaps, "wizardry". Kautilya3 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.
 * Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A few concerns following GOCE copy-edit of November 2, 2015
In response to a request for a copy-edit of Mayabazar at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just finished going through the article. I think it's in good shape now, but I wanted to say something about the plot summary. It is well written, and not too long, but for anyone not familiar with either the movie or the Krishna stories, the plot summary doesn't help a reader get a mental picture of the film's story. It's composed mostly of names. The second and third paragraphs are all right, but perhaps the addition of just a few details would make the first paragraph clearer. Here is the first paragraph of Mayabazar as it is now:


 * Subhadra (the sister of Balarama and Krishna) marries a Pandava named Arjuna, and their son Abhimanyu falls in love with Balarama's daughter, Sasirekha. The families decide to marry them when they reach adulthood. By the time Abhimanyu and Sasirekha grow up, the Pandavas have lost a dice game to the Kauravas due to Sakuni's manipulation. Krishna, furious at an action of Dussasana that has insulted Draupadi, saves Draupadi. Balarama teaches the Kauravas a lesson and later reaches Hastinapuram. Sakuni and Duryodhana respect Balarama; after manipulating him, they seek his favour by requesting that Sasirekha be married to Duryodhana's son Lakshmana Kumara. They intend to force Balarama and Krishna to support them if the Pandavas wage war after their fourteen-year exile. Unaware of this, Balarama accepts.

(a) In this sentence: "Krishna, furious at an action of Dussasana that has insulted Draupadi, saves Draupadi", I already changed "her" at the end of the sentence to "Draupadi". Someone not familiar with these names would have no idea which one was female. However, "an action of Dussasana that has insulted Draupadi" is awfully vague. Perhaps the action could be briefly described. What kind of action?

(b) Also, that same sentence constitutes an awfully abrupt change from the previous sentence. There seems to be no connection at all between the two sentences. How about adding a transitional word or phrase. "Meanwhile,..."? In another location? At the same time?

(c) In the third sentence, you describe the dice game that the Pandavas have lost to the Kauravas. (Who, or what, is Sakuni?) Then, two sentences later ("Balarama teaches the Kauravas a lesson...") you come back to the Kauravas, but bring in Balarama, who was not mentioned in the third sentence. Who, or what, is Balarama, and why does he teach the Kauravas a lesson? Is there any connection to the dice game? Also, what is "Hastinapuram"? A house? A town? A village? A castle? An ashram? And why was he traveling?

(d) In the next sentence, you write, "Sakuni and Duryodhana respect Balarama; after manipulating him..." Who are Sakuni and Duryodhana? If they respect Balarama, why would they manipulate him? Isn't that a disrespectful thing to do? Also, they intend to "force Balarama" to do something – another disrespectful thing to do.

I am not recommending that this paragraph be a whole lot longer. I am just suggesting the addition of a few details that would create a clearer picture in the mind of readers not familiar with the stories. If you don't think identifying the characters belongs in a plot summary, perhaps you could have a small section on the characters (before the plot section) to explain who they are, what their relationship is to each other, and which ones are taken from Hindu mythology/religion, and what, if any, symbolic role they play in the mythology. Corinne (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I deliberately kept the plot summary smaller as the storyline is thin and more detailing may play the spoilsport. But i didn't realise that i made so many mistakes in the process. Also, my English is very bad (i'm working on it, though). But, after a week, i will surely expand the plot summary so that everything is clear and also to make sure that the article would not face any possible issues at the FAC. I sincerely thank you for the copy-editing and for also raising these issues, which help me a lot currently. I also would try to follow the suggestions you gave by explaining their relations in the plot summary itself. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Pavanjandhyala I just looked at your most recent edits to the article. I saw this group of edits:, and I don't understand either the changes you made or your edit summary, "It's the other way around". Your changes don't change the meaning of the sentence to the opposite of what I wrote (which is what "the other way around" means). You put the sentence more or less back to the way it was written before, and it is not only more unclear now but also poorly written. "The Pandavas' financial sitution" is more concise and more colloquial than "the financial condition of the Pandavas", and it certainly doesn't change the meaning. Also, I really don't understand your addition of "and supports the alliance with the Kauravas" as another reason why Revata refuses to go along with a marriage between Sasirekha and Duryodhana's son. Duryodhana is a Kaurava, right? So his son is, too, right? So, if she "supports" an "alliance with the Kauravas, she would not refuse a marriage between her daughter and a Kaurava. I've read (and worked on) your plot summary for hours, now. If I don't understand it after this, then what reader will understand it? Corinne (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, i thank your patience to work on this article's plot and i appreciate your efforts as a copy-editor on a subject which you are mostly unaware. I think i surely got everything wrong in the plot. Then let's do one thing. I will explain in brief what happened, and i request you to advise me how to proceed. Now, Revati is a materialistic person who values wealth over human relations. When Pandavas were wealthy, she gave a word to Subhadra that Abhimanyu and Sasirekha would be married to each other. Later they lost everything in the game of dice. Now, since Pandavas are financially weak, Revati feels that Duryodhana's son is the better choice (since they are wealthy). She says this on the face of Subhadra who feels humiliated and leaves. Krishna comes to know about the real intention of the Kauravas and tells the charioteer to take Subhadra and Abhimanyu to Ghatotkacha's hermitage through the forests without informing them. I may be grammatically wrong here. Now tell me how to proceed. Coming to the climax where Satyaki asks Shakuni to speak standing on a special box, I and Ssven2 made a few changes. In the plot, that special box has a power to make the human standing on it speak his real intentions involuntarily (he wishes not to speak, but he ends up speaking). And, if any queries are left, let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pavanjandhyala Well, you explained it quite well here. (The only thing that is grammatically wrong is "She says this on the face of Subhadra"; it should be either "She says this directly to Subhadra" or "She says this to Subhadra's face," or, if not directly to Subhadra, "She says this within Subhadra's hearing".) I think we've already got the part where Krishna orders his charioteer to take S. And Ab. to G's hermitage right. I think it would be helpful to explain the magical aspects of the box. That would explain how someone could be made to speak. Regarding the first part (about Revati), the only thing I think is wrong is what you added in the edit to which I provided a link, above, that she refused to agree to the marriage between Sasirekha and Durhyodhana's son. I think I really understand the story now. I don't know whether you want me to work on it a little more or you would prefer to do that. Corinne (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you proceed to make the change. I am not good at grammar and as i said earlier, i've begun working on it. Please complete the c/e. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
This article had a peer review, but it is missing from the talk page banner: Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed now. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Themes
Warum hat es kein Themes section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:30BF:B168:3DF2:CFBC:DD61:F240 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ask in English. Then we may be able to help you. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weil es braucht nicht! (Because it does not need). --  Frankie talk 18:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)