Talk:Yevadu

Critical reception
We only use professional reviews from reliably published sources. see WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. with a half dozen professional reviews already in the article, we by no means need to bloat with repetitions from marginal sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. Nice, i too read that, but, those are not at all Marginal (means not important) Sources. They are also Professional film news sources because Some times TOI source is using Gulte, Greatandhra as a Reference and 123T, IB and some other Sources also are needed because each Individual site will give their Own Review and Rating regarding any Film. So, we can found a lot of Difference between Reviews and Ratings from Individual sites. So, we can't say that it is Bloating (or) Repetition. So, you're Wrong. If you think that you are not Wrong then please Welcome the Editors you may Know. I am ready to discuss with them. Raghusri (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * huh? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah ! Raghusri (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you are not able able/willing to clarify any articulate reason we should ignore our WP:NPOV plan and the film reviewer guidance, i have again removed the non professional critics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You and me are not the Only one's in Wiki. I've already Posted here the Content as far as i know, Lets wait for the Consensus. You've Objected the usage of Some Sources means you have to invite users, you may know. Thank you :D Raghusri (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not in any way how a discussion is supposed to work (quite the opposite, in fact), and as a reasonably long-term editor here you should already know that. You should also know that your opinion doesn't trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which TRPoD has already linked to above. In addition, one would expect you to be aware that slapping inappropriate templates on other users is tantamount to making personal attacks. Instead of doing so, please explain why you think your sources meet Wikipedia's requirements for critical reviews. Then perhaps a discussion can actually take place here. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Being an Admin, i didn't Expected that how can you Blame me ! 123telugu, Idlebrain, etc., that user Removed are indeed Reliable because they are Publishing Reliable content when Press notes are Once available. From so many years they are Providing Reliable film news Info., The Sources are Surely Reliable per Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines. No doubt. Of course he also gave me a Three Level Warning for overcoming WP:3RR. Please check his contributions. I gave a Warning to him because the Consensus doesn't reached here and it won't depend upon two user's Opinions. We have to wait for a lot of user Replies. Because this is not a Small Issue. Thank you :D Raghusri (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Being an admin means that has a pretty good grasp on what the community considers reliable sources. that fact that you are the only one supporting the content should tell you something. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Rotten Tomatoes. We do not indiscriminately include reviews. Pick a few representative ones that accurately and fairly portray how the film was received. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. A content removal spree is observed by many in many articles on the name of lack of reliability and professionalism in the sources cited and it can be supported to an extent. If that is the case, we can use the reviews of sites like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Sify and The Times of India when it comes to this article. But we may not be successful in searching reliable sources like IBN Live, DNA India, Rediff, NDTV, Hindustan Times. They are not reviewing Telugu films these days and we are left with very less options. And moreover, why idlebrain.com is not considered as a professional source these days in Wikipedia is my question. idlebrain.com has its existence since 1999 and is considered as one of the most earliest and reliable Telugu film website. Its reviews are considered to be reliable along with the likes of Sify and IndiaGlitz which some of The Wiki users consider reliable. Similar is the case of 123telugu.com also. Since i can't tell them reliable since many Wiki users use them in many articles considering they are reliable, i request the protesting people to prove that they are not reliable. Even then there is no guarantee that we may reach a conclusion about their reliability. This, i feel, is a never ending process.Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're kind of missing my point here. I'll give you an example. A film like Gravity has 300+ critics reviews, with 48 of them being "Top Critics". We're not stuffing excerpts from 48 reviews into that article, let alone the 300+ Rotten Tomatoes deems notable enough to count. As for what can be considered professional reviews, why not start a discussion on the appropriate Wikiproject and come up with a list? -- Neil N  talk to me  19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP:V /WP:RS guidelines are not "Content must be sourced to reliable sources.... unless reliable sources dont exist or are hard to find, then you can use non-reliable sources." If there are not reliable sources, we dont cover it.


 * But, there are reliable sources and we are already using them and so there is no reason at all to even think about using non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NeilN, i accept your explanation is true about the article of Gravity. We cant accept 48 reviews to be featured in Wikipedia. But you are not understanding my point. Forget them and see the regional film Industry of Telugu cinema. Here even the total reviewers never exceeded 48 at least and moreover the scope of finding reliable sources is less but not zero. We have nearly 7-8 sources in which nearly 4 or less than 4 are considered reliable by the protesters. So giving a list of them is not a big deal. But all of them will not be accepted reliable by many Wiki users. It needs a good deal of discussion and team work among us to find reliable sources and come to an opinion. TRPoD, i am not saying to use non reliable sources in the field of critical reception. I just want to explain that all sources which the protesting ones feel non reliable are not non reliable ones. Some of them are reliable and with reference to the opinion of NeilN, you should help in creating a list of reliable sources. You have 75000+ edits to your credit and with respect to your experience, the other wiki users need your help in framing a list. So, i request you to help in this matter.Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * *Support* : I Accept & Agree with Opinions / Replies that, the users Nei1N, Pavanjandhyala posted above. One must think about this Complicated issue that has been Facing by a lot of Users in Wiki. Thank you so much :D Raghusri (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Yevadu (2012 fim)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yevadu (2012 fim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The collection of the film is correct ₹60 crore
The film beliw main story age is wrong its not more then ₹47 crore and change it to ₹60 crore 103.178.208.9 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)