Talk:Ram Setu (film)

Sources to add
Some sources to add:


 * Average opening: "splendid" opening: (The Indian Express) "mediocre" opening: (once again The Indian Express - since this is the latest of the two, this is to be preferred); mixed opening:
 * Expectations of [opening] collections / Diwali collections: ✅
 * maybe related:
 * This one refers to Scanik that WP:ICTF considers not reliable, thus it might be better to avoid this:
 * AK 3 films under performed: (Ram Setu - most successful for AK in 2022)
 * Poor reviews: mixed reviews:
 * 100 crore target expectations:
 * opening weekend expectations:
 * drop in collections: expected drop:
 * Director's statement on when the idea for the film came:
 * Metro vs mass audience: (and others)
 * 2-digit [non] expectation on 1st weekend days:
 * reduced shows to avoid cancellation and 0-occupancy, weekend minimal, to see from Monday:

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022
pls give access to the article since it carries wrong info about the reviwes 49.204.133.182 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022
The plot is not complete and it does not do justice to the actual script of the movie. I have personally seen the movie and having read the current script would like to add more lines, make the plot more descriptive and also keep vivid descriptions of my experience. 103.21.124.76 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, 103. You have a few options. You can WP:REGISTER and become WP:AUTOCONFIRMed, then you can edit the article directly yourself. Or you can write your plot-version here on the talkpage, and if other editors think it looks reasonable, they may put it in the article. See MOS:FILMPLOT for some guidance. Or you can wait until after February 14, when the current article protection ends, and edit the article directly yourself then. However, you must not WP:COPYPASTE from other sources, you must use your own words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Budget
Atm I'm writing this, the article has three different numbers for budget. Which is WP-best and should be used? Or should we have a span? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

New editwar
@ThatBritishAsianDude, "The same name as in the title" at Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) refers to the title of the WP-article about the geographic thing. That is what should by default be consistently used in other articles mentioning the geographic thing. The pre-you version doesn't follow that, and I think that's fine, but it also tells our global audience of anglophones what the en-WP article-name of the geographic thing is, communicating information so that readers can understand it if you will. It's a nice compromise with the guideline IMO. In the future, please consider WP:BRD, it's often the right way to go.

Other editors, please tell us your opinion, if you have one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Your right but according to WP:RF, the content should also match its audience who despite understanding english is stil mainly centered around India or more widely put Asia and they do not use that name, the global audience of anglophones can easily find out the english name by clicking on it. I think putting it like this: Ram Setu, is the best and much better than putting "Adam's brigde" or putting also know as/by since these are things that are not important to this article and can easily be found out by just clicking on it and reading the main article about that subject. I appreciate you assuming Good faith btw. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We disagree, the pre-you version is already a step in the "fan-base" direction, and my view is that "Ram Setu (Adam's Bridge)" serves our readership better. Think of the Canadians. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think most of the people who read this article know it as the Adam's Bridge or if it is that important to add that in this article, but i digress. I think adding it like this "Ram Setu" is more than enough and allows for those who are interested to read more about the subject and other names. But i guess the consensus will be what it is. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with GGG; I don't have a strong opinion on the titling of our article on the limestone formation, but as long as that remains at Adam's Bridge, we should avoid misleading piped links. Piping it amounts to a backdoor renaming, which isn't appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93 Every input is welcome, but this discussion is still ongoing so unwanted reverts are not desirable ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unwanted reverts never are. Of course, what is unwanted is a bit eye-of-the-beholder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit summary makes it seem like consensus has already been reached. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It hasn't. But since the change you wanted was opposed by someone (in the case me), the old version should remain until there is a consensus to change. If there is no consensus, the old version also remains, it's a bit like a afd that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is quite true that some of the readers may not have heard of "Adam's Bridge", and therefore referring to it only as "Adam's Bridge" would be inappropriate. The change you made, however, was to replace the parenthetical second name, which happens to be the name of our article, with an odd piped link. You've provided no justification for this change at all. Also: as you are making changes to a long-standing piece of text, you need affirmative consensus to change it (once your bold edit was reverted). Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical second name i removed wasn't sourced and has no relation to this article at all. The piped link isn't that "odd" and works better than putting in apostrophes and would show the English name anyways. Pretty sure i have provide more reasons than needed at this point. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You want a source for the title of an article? You're not making sense to me now, but sources exist:. The geographic thing absolutely has relation to this article, and since this is en-WP, using the en-WP name for it makes perfect sense. The people at hi-WP thinks it makes sense on hi-WP as well:, not that it matters for this discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand why putting a second name which has nothing to do with it nor has any mention in the movie itself is prefered over putting a piped link, but gonna leave it at that. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as the article is at Adam's Bridge, that is the link we should use, with alternative names in brackets if appropriate (i.e. in an article about a film titled after one of those alternative names). While WP:RF is an essay, MOS:EGG is policy. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Guideline! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)